TPMDC

WH Hits Back: Obama 'Doesn't Need To Beat His Chest To Prove' Nation Is At War

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


President Obama

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In an unusually direct and aggressive blog post, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer today criticizes former Vice President Dick Cheney for his constant critique of the administration's national security policies.

Pfeiffer wrote, "it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers."

Pfeiffer said that in his statement to Politico today Cheney makes a "clearly untrue" claim that Obama doesn't realize we're at war.

"I don't think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama," Pfeiffer wrote, detailing the times Obama and his top advisers have used the term.

"The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it, and - unlike the last Administration - we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we [are] at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered," he wrote.

Another key graf:

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

"Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer," he wrote.

Pfeiffer also defended Obama's policies as a big shift from when the U.S. was focused on Iraq for seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Read the full blog here.

Comments (89) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

December 30, 2009 4:31 PM   

Chest thumping, knuckle-dragging buffoons!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:31 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

CHENEY CHENEY

Hit the GOP hard

Kick them in the nuts

They would NEVER let Democrats get away with the kind of ugly sniping and FUNDRAISING

what ghouls the GOP has in its highest ranks

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:30 PM    in reply to rynato

Cheney is bitter, bitter because this "unAmerica" guy got to be what Cheney will NEVER be Commander in Chief! Got that CIC. Yes after a lifetime dedication, the best Cheney could get was temp CIC when GW was undergoing some surgery!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:32 PM   

Excellent!!!!

So where are the other Dems at in taking up for the president? Are they wore out from diluting HCR?

Seriously, here's a good rundown about why Republicans like Cheney and the rest thrive when the public evades reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:36 PM    in reply to Chris

Other Dems? Defend the President?

Oh dear, you haven't been paying attention, have you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:31 PM    in reply to Chris

Composing a sternly worded statement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:40 PM   

Reporter: Do you want bin Laden dead? Bush: I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."


I am still in the Silence is Golden camp

Nobody's paying attention to this story save the blogos and the 24.7 media who have nothing else to talk about in this the slowest news week of the year


Feliz Anno Nuevo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:33 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

You're not praising our resident troll, are you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:01 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

"Wanted: Dead or Alive."

Well, Bush/Cheney got the "Alive" part right, didn't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:43 PM   

If the WH would like to strike back at Cheney in "an unusually direct and aggressive" manner, may I suggest a war crimes tribunal and a trip to The Hague?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:57 PM    in reply to tiowally

Or something attached to a Predator. Hey NSA, just kidding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:45 PM   

Excellent statement.

Those who criticize a president in a time of war I thought were traitors to the USA. Why isn't darth vader locked up?

I particularly like the reference to war against a tactic. You can't be at war against a tactic. That's absurd.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:46 PM   

The only complaint I have with this response is that it buys into the false "we are at war with al Qaeda" framing that Republicans would love to bring back.

Al Qaeda is a loosely organized criminal organization with a number of local franchises having only the name and the tactics in common. We do not wage war on criminal organizations. We prosecute, incarcerate and dismantle them.

The strength of this pushback is welcome and praiseworthy, especially against vile monsters like Cheney, but we need to stop subscribing to the premises behind Republican lies when we respond to them. Reject their premises entirely and use it as an opportunity to point out that every notable counterterrorism success has relied on good old-fashioned police work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:39 PM    in reply to Catsy

You mean we're not at war with al Qaeda? You think it's "false" to assert that we are? Well, I want some of what you're smoking.

What the White House statement "buys into" is a truth that Republicans would have Americans forget: that the enemy is not some ethereal Bogeyman of a childhood dream, but flesh and blood as mortal as ourselves. That fact is a more encouraging thought than the raw fear--the terror in "terrorism"--that Cheney and other GOP hawks aided and abetted al Qaeda in inflicting upon too many Americans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 8:19 PM    in reply to Ripper McCord

Um, Ripper, did you miss this part?

Al Qaeda is a loosely organized criminal organization with a number of local franchises having only the name and the tactics in common. We do not wage war on criminal organizations. We prosecute, incarcerate and dismantle them. ... Reject their premises entirely and use it as an opportunity to point out that every notable counterterrorism success has relied on good old-fashioned police work.

Catsy: Word. Ripper: Thanks for playing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 2:29 AM    in reply to gharlane

Yes, I read every bit of the bullshit you scooped up and swallowed, gharlane. But I rejected it in favor of the obvious truth that we are at war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 2:36 AM    in reply to Ripper McCord

Mm-hmmm.... in your obviously truthy world, you are obviously unable to dispute the description of AQ, the effectiveness of policing tactics and a law enforcement approach against it and similar organizations around the world by several governments, including our own under President Clinton, and the effectivenes of good old fashioned police work rather than the swaggering "we are at war" approach. But that's OK, it's Obviously Truthy.

The "obvious truth that we are at war" is a line straight out of Bush-Cheney's mouth (singular). Like I said, thanks for playing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 12:25 PM    in reply to gharlane

Ahh, so now you've gotten down to hurling the Bush/Cheney epithet rather than arguing your lost case. Typical of a gamester such as yourself.

Yes I dispute Catsy's simplistic description of al Qaeda, which could also be applied to the units of any standing army under any flag.

So let's start with your Obviously Failed approach to battling al Qaeda: "...the effectiveness of policing tactics and a law enforcement approach against it and similar organizations around the world by several governments, including our own under President Clinton, and the effectivenes of good old fashioned police work...."

In your fairytale world, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the expansion of al Qaeda and establishment of its safe haven in Afghanistan, the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the simultaneous bombings of three embassies in Nigeria and the 2001 loss of nearly 3,000 lives on American soil all count as "Effective Policing Tactics."

Right. You're not even in my league. But thank YOU for playing with words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 3:27 PM    in reply to Ripper McCord

OK, let's start with the RAND Corporation, shall we?

Abstract

How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

Full report here. Longer excerpt below.

After September 11, 2001, U.S. strategy against al Qa'ida concentrated on the use of military force. Although the United States has employed nonmilitary instruments — cutting off terrorist financing or providing foreign assistance, for example — U.S. policymakers continue to refer to the strategy as a “war on terrorism.”

But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. ...

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:

* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

I'll leave you that to mull over New Year's. I know that facts and evidence are pesky, liberal things, and you prefer to be in your own Obviously Truthy Reality of your own creation. Me, I prefer to remain in the actual reality-based community.

Thanks for playing, Ripper. You ain't in my league, to say nothing of theirs. Keep up the good work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 1, 2010 12:17 AM    in reply to gharlane

Wish I could help you. Perhaps you should read Gen. McChrystal's report (more current than Rand, more of a you-are-there sort of report).

Or maybe just consider this:

If our soldiers and Marines are NOT getting killed every day overseas in sustained combat operations pursuant to Congress's adoption of a war resolution, I might not call it war. But that truthiness thing with flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover every few days tells me it's war.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:47 PM   

Birthers, teabaggers, radical right wing "christians", secessionist, healthcare anti-reformist,etc., are all the same core group of poor, uninformed ultra-conservative pawns tricked by the corporate masters and cheerleadered by AM conservative talk radio to get these people to believe and vote against their own self interest.

It isn't any wonder that the main weapon to keep the rank and file conservatives in check is fear. Conservatives fear that their guns are going to be taken away, they fear that U.S. will become socialist, they fear that health care reform will kill off the elderly, they fear that the president is a muslim, they fear that when minorities are in power that reverse racisms will run rampant, they fear that every nation under the sun wants to destroy the U.S. and on and on. This is the main message of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et al. to be afraid. After 8 hours a day at least 5 days a week conservatives literally become
brainwashed through the radio and then some on Fox news to be afraid and angry.

Conservatives don't even know what exactly they are trying to conserve. They speak of fair play and freedom but when a group other than their circumscribed group speaks about and want such things (i.e. gay rights, immigrants, minorities, the poor)these ideas suddenly become liberal pandering.

Conservatives don't realize that what they fear most is change. The changing of American society and of the world. Thus their behavior is not much different from other conservative movements around the world, i.e. Taliban, Al Qaida, Likud, Abadgaran. These groups want to maintain the status quo and use fear and sometimes violence to achieve their means. These groups target the same type of people to believe in their ideology. These are usually the poor, rural denizens who feel that the rest of society is moving too fast and that they are being excluded because the city centers are thriving and they are not.

It is this simple mind trick that has allowed the military-industrial complex to roll along unabated for so long. The very thing president Dwight Eisenhower,a Republican, warned against. However, it was only recently that Republicans were up in arms against the slashing of the military budget and discontinuance of the F-22. This is just another example of how twisted and convoluted conservatism/republicanism is. It contradicts one of their venerated leaders and ideals.

Unfortunately, contradiction and hypocrisy have become the norm for conservatives, so much so that entire shows are based on it and have become very popular (The Colbert Report, Countdown, The Daily show etc.). When conservatives are confronted with this, the usual retort is that it’s the “main stream media” distortion, wholly ignoring that “main stream” = normal or average, non-fringe. Again this is just fear working on these people, fear that their ideology is being pushed to the fringe creating the us vs them mentality.

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” Edmund Burke.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:01 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

Unfortunately they are not all poor and uneducated. My family members are educated and not poor by anyone's standards and they fall for this crap and the reason is: they are conservative racist pigs.

I cannot stand my family anymore and others of their ilk. Far too many of them exist as far as I am concerned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:00 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Your house must be fun at Thanksgiving...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:47 PM   

To all the blind fools who believe in the "War on Terror": I will put it in simple terms
Osama bin Laden is the son of an aristocrat with ties to the royal family of Saudi Arabia. What other American family has the strongest ties with the Saudi royal family and can exert the most pressure? The Bush family. Why? Oil.

The CIA has been involved in Afghanistan since the 70's and even trained OBL. Who was head of the CIA at that time? Bush 41 was head of the CIA from '76-77 during the time we supported the Afghan insurgence against the Soviets and a year befor OBL joined one of the militias. Throughout the 80's Bush 41 was vice-president and the CIA was run by Bush 41 understudies. The CIA taught OBL everything they know about escape and evasion and guerrilla fighting. And now you mean to tell me that the entire intel force of the CIA cannot capture or kill this guy after over 15 years. This is either willful negligence or epic ineptness.

It is my conjecture that there are members in the CIA who are wilfully keeping this war on terror going on. It may or may not lead up to the Bush family but their are connections. I know this may come to a shock to many Americans but their are members in our military and defense agencies and government who are not the most scrupulous of persons. Why was the CIA not given the green light when they had OBL in their sights back in '01 or any other time they were close?
Isn't funny how we do know that much of Al Qaida and some other terrorist groups are supported by the drug trade in particular the poppy trade but yet we don't go in and destroy their crops like we did in Columbia and Bolivia against the FARC and drug lords there, perhaps since the South Americans weren't giving a cut to the CIA? Example: Bush 41 decides to invade Panama because Noreiga decided not to play with us anymore. Manuel Noreiega, known drug trafficker, and money launderer long before he was ever a dictator we once backed.

So sad, an entire nation goes into a knee-jerk reaction tizzy, because one loner with a stand alone complex decided that it was his time to "show the world". Americans need to stop acting like a bunch of scared sheep everytime a "terrorist" act is attempted. Random acts of violence happen everyday, and for people to think that they can be kept safe from all harm need to remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world and no matter how much security any given country puts in place, there will always be the one random person that just "goes crazy".
What is lost in all the chatter of "what should we do next?" and "how did our policies fail?" is that it was the act of fellow human beings helping other fellow human beings stopping the lunatic fringe from accomplishing its goal. That is where the focus needs to be on. It is within communities and families is how these people are identified. And it is within these zones of influence where hearts and minds are truly transformed. We could spend billions on more airport security or we could spend that money on humanitarian efforts in these areas such as Yemen and abroad and even here in the U.S. where helping people improve their lives and education will do more harm to terrorist recruiting than any bomb dropped on their houses.

I can't believe so many of you knuckle draggers really believe racial profiling is the answer. Then what is your answer for persons like Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, and Ted Kaczynski do you think we should start profiling random white males as well? What about the two white males in Columbine, also affluent kids who went off the deep end. What about all the terrorist acts the IRA did? Serial murderers can be of any color or religion it is up to us to put on the labels of "terrorist".

However, the ultimate irony in all this is that the right wing is now calling for more "government oversight", hahaha. The very same group asking for less government control but are more than ready to take their trousers down for a government official to do a "freedom search".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

Why don't you start a blog instead of writing entire books here?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:09 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

Very good response, wordy, but all true. Comment here anytime you wish, as far as I am concerned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:46 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

I agree that your comment should be its own blog post. It has merit and will get lost in this thread. I'd like to see it stand alone. Very interesting and thought-provoking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 12:04 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

Yeah, seriously get your own blog, you did a good job of summing up all of my feelings these past 8 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:47 PM   

Awesome. More like this please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:48 PM   

LOVE IT!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:49 PM   

*crickets*

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:51 PM   

oooo... "an unusually direct and aggressive blog post".

If Harry Ried were to follow with a sternly worded letter, maybe the Republicans will shut their holes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:53 PM   

Knock 'em again, Mr. President!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 4:56 PM   

Excellent Response by the WH! I have a feeling the response to the RIP/GOP will be more like this one in 2010.

The best thing Americans can do in 2010 and 2012 is vote out any and all Republicans, so that our government can continue to work for the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:13 PM    in reply to Bloggin

In fact I can't think of a single thing that would be an improvement resulting from voting for a Republican, and that holds true both locally and nationally. Sure, there are corrupt Democratic politicians, but there always seem to be 10 corrupt Repubs for every one Democrat. People who want out of this recession to top all recessions, should be told that voting for Democrats is the only way it will happen. People who fear terrorist should be told the same thing. People who don't want to lose their houses should be told to vote for Democrats to avoid that disaster. And, speaking of disasters, people who don't want to be left alone by the government to die when a national disaster hits, must vote for Democrats to avoid that too. If there is ever a comprehensive definition of "evil" it will consist of one word - "republican".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 12:03 PM    in reply to hoppycalif2

Even better if we vote a good 3rd party in instead of continuing this POS duocratic system we have. If you have two terribly corrupt parties only one party needs to be "slightly less" corrupt to win power back. As long as both Repulicans and Democrats know that no other party can win over them they can continue this ping pong game of corruption ad nauseum until there is nothing left in America for them to pillage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 2:50 PM    in reply to willdabeast

By now you should know that no third national party exists or will exist within your lifetime. Our whole political system works to prevent that from happening. And, if by a miracle, a third party were to take over Congress, they would immediately join the others in milking the system for all they can get, becoming at least as corrupt as the others. Third parties are not an answer. Revising our laws is - what we have today is wholesale bribery of Congress and the executive office, but the courts won't recognize it as such. If that were changed, the problem would be greatly diminished.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:14 PM   

Speaking of taking terrorism seriously, Dick Cheney was "W"'s chairman of the Administration's commission on terrorism and did not call one meeting during the run up to the 9/11 attacks. Even when Condi Rice and the President were notified Al Qaeda was committed to imminent attack in the US that commission was idle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:18 PM    in reply to bobbybob

Again, it's not a war on terrorism. It's a war on man-made disasters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 7:50 AM    in reply to Silence

What we need is a war on stupidity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:15 PM   

"it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers."

Yes, yes, and freakin yes. They should do more to control the narrative along that line, because the truth is Cheney & co want the current administration to fail so much they do not even hesitate to root for al Qaeda.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:26 PM    in reply to geofu54

I loved that line too!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:16 PM   

LMAO, did anyone just hear Ron Christie on Matthew's show going on about how this crotch bomber is so much more different than Richard Reid because it happened on Christmas, "The holiest day in Christianity" (someone should tell that to Easter), and it was a scary Muslim, and apparently we're all scared Christians. Or something. I can't even decipher these clowns anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:27 PM    in reply to Willow

As opposed to Dec 22nd, which I guess wasn't targeting Chirstmas at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:37 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

He was targeting Giftmas, the American cultural holiday that we celebrate with pagan imagery.

More people fly *before* Christmas than the day of Christmas. I'm more likely to believe he was looking for maximum destructive impact rather than a statement about Christmas.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:23 PM   

A good leader attempts to calm the citizens to maintain order.

A bad leader attempts to scare the shit out of them to maintain order.

I've had enough fear, thanks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:25 PM   

bout time

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:26 PM   

Oooh a blog response after days of Republicans bleating away attacks on television. This is too much like Sen. Reid's sternly worded letters...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:30 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

dude...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:42 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

and you would have the white house do ... what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:46 PM    in reply to nova voter

Call a presser to say what was said in the blog. It's about what people can see on television...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 8:03 AM    in reply to Walter Mitty

that would probably be a better idea but then we'd just have Cheney and co complaining about using this attack to make a political point, rampant hypocrisy notwithstanding

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:29 PM   

I tend to wonder if the Republicans have contacted al Qaeda and asked them to attack America so the Republicans could use the attacks to go after Obama. A partnership between the Republicans and al Qaeda seems like what the Republicans want. They behave like the partnership agreement already exists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Don't know about that but I do believe W and the Dick liked having UBL alive and making audios/videos rather than captured or killed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:59 PM    in reply to Richardxx

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:44 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Good God. You're going Beck on us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 8:05 AM    in reply to Richardxx

more like opportunistic behavior i think, not that this excuses anything

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:36 PM   

You go girl!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:38 PM   

Cheney's not got the chest to beat any more, he might muck up the bot in his heart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:45 PM   

Pfeiffer wrote, "it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers."

What do you expect from Cheney? I mean, how rude. It's the current administration's fault anyway.

If we had put Cheney on trial for war crimes and sentenced him to death, like we should have, we wouldn't have to deal with his sorry ass right now.

No. Death would have been too good for him. Sentence him to the rest of his life in Gitmo. What sweet irony it would have been to see him as the last prisoner there.

"No. Can't close Gitmo yet. Cheney is still there."

But since we didn't, here it is. More. Over and over.

More explosive dysentery from a diseased, extreme, disturbed, paranoid, and violent mentality. Pumped all over us from every orifice of Cheney's body.

No wonder he is the hero of the extreme right.

They lap up his runny shit. And call it ice cream. Because they are all just as stupid and delusional as he is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:48 PM   

Good for the WH.
Cheney is the last person that anyone should listen to based on recent history. Bush is the second. Rumsfeld the third.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 5:53 PM   

...and could have finished off with - short version, in language even Republicans can understand: fuck that guy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:00 PM   

But Republicans need to beat their man boobs to show that they're at war with Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:11 PM   

A blog post?

Come out on Meet the Press and say it, fu** the blog post.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 6:31 PM   

Rep Eric Massa on The Ed Show:

"I would remind the American public that the apparent leaders of the al Qaeda cell in Yemen were 2 terrorists who were released by Vice President Cheney in secret. I think there's a level of accountability that has to be levied personally on the vice president," Massa said in an interview. "He is personally responsible for that."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 7:13 PM   

I need to know more detail on the release of key Al Queda operatives by Cheney. What role did he play? What were the reasons; why them and not others? Was there a Saudi political connection; Quid pro quo? Why the secrecy and why no trial or tribunal for these criminals? Was this a singular act by a unitary executive's prime minister? This aspect of the current terrorist act needs to be made public in detail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 11:14 PM    in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend

Did they concur with the Saudi royalty's decision to rehabilitate these gentlemen through a two-year art class and then release them on parole with no supervision? Reminds one of Mr. Huckabee's compassion for young Mr. Clemmons, who later slew four police.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 9:54 AM    in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend

And I'm sure you'll demand that same level of specificity the next time someone levels a "soft on terrorism" charge at Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 30, 2009 11:52 PM   

As a Democrat, I hope Cheney keeps on keeping on, because every time he opens his cake hole, we are all reminded that he has no credibility and no class. As an American, I say it's time for him to do the right thing and shut up. But I am under no illusion that he cares abut anything other than his bloated ego. Recall in 2000 he was tasked with coming up with a suitable Vice Presidential candidate and he looked far and wide and decided on himself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 12:12 AM   

Nice response but how about getting in front of a camera to bring down the hammer down instaed of blog post no one will read and the media wont give two shits about

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 31, 2009 12:14 AM   

Cheney was so effective at stopping al Qaeda that we are still fighting them

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on