Archive for category foreign policy
Sarah Palin Nuked Her Own Brain
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Congress, Conservatives, Government, National Security, Sarah Palin, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, White House, al Qaida, foreign policy on April 12th, 2010
It’s obvious Sarah Palin must have put her head in the microwave oven somewhere along the way.
In her most recent comments regarding President Obama’s nuclear weapons policy, Palin tried to belittle Obama by claiming that his only knowledge of the topic was gained through “his vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer and as a full-time candidate.”
Excuse me? Palin sees a full-time candidate every morning when she looks in the mirror.
But more to the point. What Palin obviously does not even know is that as a first-term junior U.S. Senator with a coveted seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama introduced his first major piece of legislation in 2005 with Republican co-sponsor Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the committee. Known as the Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative, it was designed to limit proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as well as expand the State Department’s ability to find and interdict weapons and materials designed for this purpose – particularly nuclear weapons.
Betcha didn’t know that one, Sarah?!?
Moreover, when she stated that the Obama Adminstration “treated the Afghan President poorly”- referring to President Obama’s direct and unambiguous criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s unwillingness to root out corruption and fraud within his own government – she explicitly ignores the fact that his government is financed by and exists only with the support of the United States taxpayer; that Afghanistan has virtually no Gross Domestic Product – as in an economy, Sarah; that Afghanistan’s largest export – opium - directly provides the world with an unending supply of heroin, while simultaneously financing the Taliban and Al Qaeda; and last, but not least, there is strong evidence that President Karzai’s brother is heavily involved in this game of drug trafficking and revenue-sharing with the terrorists organizations.
Yet she maintains that we should continue to finesse Afghanistan, but not Iran. She thinks we should finesse Pakistan, but not North Korea. She believes we should “quit coddling our enemies”, and that we should “respect” our allies – in spite of their unwillingness to respect our own national security interests. Sarah, here is what happens when you coddle an ally too much:
1) As you keep throwing more and more money at them – $21 Billion to be exact, in U.S. foreign aid given to Pakistan from 2001 through 2008 - you perpetuate their willful impotence and institutional corruption. The Bush Administration kept former Pakistani leader General Musharaff propped-up with U.S. taxpayer’s money for seven years with a promise from Pakistan that it would root out and pursue terrorists operating in its own territories. They did little or nothing. It was only after the Democrats had taken back control of Congress in 2006 and then threatened to pull the plug on Pakistan’s foreign aid, that Bush reluctantly decided it was time to “get tough” with Musharaff.
2) You cannot allow your ally’s sovereignty to be paramount to your own national security. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain – do you even recall who his V.P. running-mate was, Sarah (?) – stated that he (McCain) would not violate Pakistan’s sovereignty by going after terrorists in it’s territory if elected President. In deep contrast to that “coddle your friends” policy, President Obama made it clear on numerous occasions while on the campaign trail that if Pakistan would not do the job, he would! Shortly after President Obama took the oath of office, he made good on his word. And guess what, Sarah? Our terrorist enemies in Pakistan do not sleep well at night anymore – as this blog noted some 90 days ago.
3) When the U.S. taxpayer funds $21 Billion in foreign aid under the pretense that it is going to make our country safer, they want a President who is going to make sure that the recipients give us our money’s worth. President Obama immediately recognized that Pakistan’s government was full of graft and corruption, and that it was doing nothing about ousting the terrorists, so he pressed them very hard on the issue - unlike Bush and Cheney – and Pakistan has demonstrated a whole new attitude about going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Moreover, they have kept their damn mouths shut about the U.S. “violating their sovereignty” with our incessant and terrifying drone attacks – thus giving the terrorists a taste of their own medicine after seven years of U.S. impotence.
President Obama is now sending the same message to Afghan President Karzai – PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!
HMMMMMMMMMMM . . .
Amazing how that all works, eh Sarah???
If Palin thinks – and I use the term “think” very loosely in her case - that she has any standing to criticize President Obama’s foreign policy experience, let’s look at the facts. In the previous Presidential election campaign, Palin couldn’t even identify the Bush Doctrine when asked by Charlie Gibson of ABC news - damn those “gotcha journalists”, Sarah. Moreover, that she is not even aware of President Obama’s own prior nuclear proliferation legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate back in 2005 speaks for itself.
Here is the reality for Sarah Palin’s political supporters: well-timed platitudes and folksy quotes are not going to make this country more secure. To the contrary. And our enemies would be more than happy to exploit such blatant foreign policy inexperience and unprecedented ignorance of publically available information. The information contained in this post is not rocket science, and easily accessible to even a 5th grader, Sarah.
Most glaring though, is The Anchorage Daily News’ – as in Alaska’s largest newspaper – recent acknowledgement that “she has little or no foreign policy experience.”. If she cannot even get an endorsement from her own home state newspaper on this very important issue . . . well, that speaks volumes.
Which all leaves no doubt that the terrorists are just drooling at the prospect of her being elected President in 2012.
Cindy Sheehan is “Dishonorably Discharged”
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Government, National Security, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, White House, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 22nd, 2010
Sheehan is the poster-girl for the U.S. anti-war movement that sprouted after the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Her son Casey was killed-in-action in Iraq in 2004, and within a year she became the leading figure in the Iraq War protests when she appeared on national television in the summer of 2005 near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas when he was there on summer vacation.
While leading a protest in Washington, D.C. last weekend, Sheehan pointed a bullhorn at the Whitehouse and yelled, “Arrest that war criminal“, obviously calling for President Obama’s prosecution for war crimes because he has not yet ordered the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At that moment, Sheehan lost any credibility she may have garnered these past six years.
I opposed the war in Iraq from the day the Bush Administration launched it’s public relations offensive in support of that strategic disaster. Afghanistan was and always will be the right war. That is where the principle threat from terrorism exists, and no amount of debate will ever change that one simple fact.
Nor will the argument that Saddam Hussein was ever any strategic or regional threat to our national security. There were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was never any significant military capability in Iraq. Even our intelligence agencies knew that. After Desert Storm I in 1990, Saddam was reduced to the status of just another tin-horn dictator. Kim Jung Il of North Korea has always been a far greater threat to our nation with his long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. So why didn’t we attack him first?
Because Saddam did possess the one ”threat” to our national security that was of any real value - a big damn oil spigot. Dick Cheney wanted his hand on that faucet, so he set out to convince everyone around him that Hussein was the most dangerous man in the world – when the real danger to global security was right there in Cheney’s mirror. I believe Cheney and his minions are war criminals. There is no hiding my disdain for this man, and I believe he is one of the most evil persons of the 21st Century – Osama bin Laden, notwithstanding.
However, no amount of projection of Sheehan’s anger towards President Obama, simply because she disagrees with his decision to alter the time-table for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, will somehow magically transform him into a war criminal anymore than painting a thin mustache on his likeness will make him Hitler – as his Teabagger foes are prone to doing.
President Obama – like myself – believes we need to leave Iraq. President Obama – like myself – never supported the War in Iraq. President Obama – like myself – understands that undoing the failed war strategies of the previous Administration cannot be accomplished overnight.
Cindy Sheehan – when you metaphorically painted that little black mustache on President Obama’s upper lip last Saturday, you shot yourself in the foot. You are a disgrace to America.
Surrender your bullhorn, and go home.
Going to War With Iraq Was “A Done Deal”
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Congress, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, National Security, Politics, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 17th, 2010
Former CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) agent John Kiriakou has just released his new book, “The Reluctant Spy“.
According to reviews, the book reveals the inner-workings of the U.S. intelligence agency, and regales it’s readers with stories from the front lines in the War on Terror. Kiriakou’s participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, one of Al Qaeda’s senior commanders, as well as his prior support of the use of water-boarding as a legitimate means for acquiring intelligence, are just two of the many highlights in the book.
However, the most poignant experience of his career may well be the day he was called into a top-secret meeting while working at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in the summer of 2002. During that briefing, he was told that the Bush Administration had already made the decision to go to war with Iraq the following Spring (2003). His job was to support the decision.
In other words, it was “A Done Deal”.
Kiriakou was stunned that the question of going to war with Iraq was already pre-determined by the Bush Administration in spite of the fact that Congress and the public were still undecided over the basis for invading another country that posed no serious imminent threat to our national security:
“Here was someone at the CIA, obviously plugged into the plans of the executive branch, telling us that the public debate in Congress, reflected almost daily in the press, meant nothing.”
Approximately seven years later, George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” is anything but. Those elusive WMD’s are yet to be found. And brave young American men and women are still fighting and dying over there.
As Paul Harvey would say, “and now you know the rest of the story”.
How Ostensibly Patriotic Americans Help Al Qaeda Win the War on Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Politics, Sarah Palin, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
The very nature of terror is best explained by the various elements of it’s definition: a state of intense fear, often intentionally induced in a population by the actions of others for political purposes.
The present War on Terror, as it has come to be labeled, was initiated by Al Qaeda with the first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, and culminated in the final attacks and destruction of those buildings on 9/11. The ends of those attacks were achieved in that Americans have now lived in a state of persistent and intense fear going on for nine consecutive years.
The subsequent failures to complete additional terrorists attacks on the United States since 9/11 are not near as important as the mere affect that those attempts have on the psyche of the American public. After all, the achievement of the singular objective of creating terror does not require that anyone be killed or maimed. To the contrary. In fact, it is simply the capacity to maintain a steady level of an intense feeling that the potential for harm is always present in our minds that determines the success of Al Qaeda. In that sense, they have certainly surpassed their expectations.
Even more important to the goals of Al Qaeda is the general breakdown of the civil, political and economic fabric of America. To the extent that those elements of our social structure begin to crumble and dissolve into complete turmoil as a result of the fear that has been instilled in us, the greater the degree of success the terrorists will have achieved in reaching those goals. Once again, on that basis, the terrorists are achieving their objectives.
As we bear witness to the daily political and psychological assaults on our fellow Americans by others who pretend that they are somehow more patriotic and superior because of their personal philosophies, we should stop and ask ourselves these questions:
First - to what extent do these unwarranted criticisms of the patriotism of other Americans merely increase our fear of terrorism?
Second – to what degree do these personal attacks on other Americans tear at the fabric of our social and political structure, thereby inadvertently facilitating the goals of the terrorists?
Finally – does wrapping oneself in the American Flag make you anymore American than others?
I think most of us know the answer.
Can Liz Cheney Really Keep America Safe?
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Legal & Justice, Media & Communication, National Security, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
ATTICUS FINCH (Gregory Peck) in “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD”
Hardly!
Why? Because she advocates the use of fear that rises to the level of McCarthyism, as demonstrated in the recent video released by her political organization, Keep America Safe.
A significant number of well-respected Conservatives have deeply criticized the video’s characterization of current Justice Department lawyers as Un-American because of their previous legal representation of suspected terrorist detainees. One of the greatest callings in the American legal system is defending both the unpopular and the guilty. This role is epitomized by the lawyer Atticus Finch in the movie “To Kill a Mockingbird“, rated as the best courtroom movie of all time by the American Film Institute.
Liz Cheney is a lawyer. If she attended her classes in law school, she should have a basic understanding of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as the principles of American Jurisprudence, all of which ensure due process for everyone who is charged with a violation of the laws of the United States, regardless of citizenship. Her failure to grasp those most fundamental principles of the American justice system only further undermines any semblance of credibility regarding her legal or political opinion.
One of her former law professors, the esteemed Richard A. Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law. said it best: “There’s something truly bizarre about this.” Which only begs the question: Is she a moron, or just pathologically shameless and void of any conscience? Maybe it runs in the family?
Most importantly, however, is the real reason why Liz Cheney cannot “Keep America Safe”.
If she relies on the argument that America was much safer from an attack by terrorists during her father’s tenure with the Bush Administration, one need look no further than the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, in order to completely discredit this notion. Her father publicly admitted in May of 2002 on Fox News that he read the brief, and then attempted in vain to dismiss it’s warnings as inconclusive, while simultanously advocating that the brief not be released for public disclosure. Interesting . . .
As this author has pointed out in the post titled “Failing to Connect the Dots: The Lights Were Blinking Red“, that evidence is the most damning indictment of Dick Cheney’s part in the collective negligence of the Bush Administration’s failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11. No wonder he did not want you to read it’s contents. To compound matters even further was their colossal failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in December of 2001. Simply put, Dick Cheney obviously has no valid standing to criticize the Obama Administration’s policies regarding terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists.
By extension, as well as by her own volition, neither does Liz Cheney.
Case closed.
Memo To Dick Cheney: Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 14th, 2010
Shoe Bomber Richard Reid – Poster Child for Dick Cheney’s Hypocrisy
This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden responded to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s attacks on the Obama Administration’s handling of accused Christmas Day terrorist bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. As Biden accurately stated, Cheney is “”not entitled to rewrite history. He’s not entitled to his own facts“, correctly pointing out that the Bush Administration also prosecuted shoe bomber Richard Reid in a civilian court. This author just commented this past week on the duplicity with which you and other Republicans are terrorizing the American people over this nonsense, after your Administration tried over 150 terrorists in civilians courts – including one of the 9/11 co-conspirators.
This blog contains a number of entries addressing Cheney’s constant attacks on the current Administration, and why he has absolutely no standing to criticize Obama; particularly because of the hypocrisy pertaining to the decisions and policies of the Bush Administration – specifically, their failure to prevent the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the subsequent blunder that led to Osama bin Laden’s escape from Tora Bora, Afghanistan ninety days later.
Playing armchair psychologist is fraught with dangers of misdiagnosis, as well as the tendency towards over-generalization of certain symptoms as definitive indicators of a specific pathology. Nevertheless, and admittedly at the risk of the cognitive dissonance in ignoring my own advice to the contrary, I will venture a psychological explanation on why Dick Cheney’s persistent revisionist history reveals the depth of his pathological dissonance. Which may be why Cheney is rated the most unpopular Vice President in modern history – even surpassing Dan Quayle (say it ain’t so Dick).
“If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs.” What most often occurs in the aftermath of undeniable factual evidence of an action that betrays our personal beliefs or opinions is a growing increase in dissonance in direct relationship to “the importance of the subject to us, how strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict, and our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.
In other words, when we cannot reconcile our beliefs and opinions with the undeniable existence of facts that contradicts them, we defend our position even more zealously. Denial of the Holocaust by people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who ironically may be Jewish - is a stark example of this behavior.
It is William Shakespeare’s often misquoted poetic commentary [as in the body of the subject line of this entry] that is the most famous historical observation on this human condition:
“The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”
Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. Over Terrorists’ Trials
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Sarah Palin, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 7th, 2010
Terrorism is about creating fear.
Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts. They are insinuating several things: one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.
These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.), and Chief Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh (former drug addict, and college drop-out).
Amazing how incensed these Conservatives are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same federal courts, including such high-profile cases as 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Just in case any of you other hypocrites out there have also conveniently forgotten, Reid was going to blow up a plane on an international flight bound for the U.S.
“D’oh“!
P.S. Since yesterday, when this was posted, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed cutting off federal funding for terrorists trials in civil court. Add his name to the rapidly growing list of Homer Simpson constitutional law geniuses and conservative hypocrites.
Fighting both the Islamic Terrorists, as well as the Financial Terrorists with Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Credit Card Industry, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, National Security, Politics, United States, Wall Street, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, al Qaida, financial industry, foreign policy on January 15th, 2010
Al Qaida and Wall Street understand how to use terror!
First, you place American citizens in deep fear of some unimaginable catastrophe by destroying two very tall skyscrapers full of people, or by sending the global economy into an almost irreversible tailspin. Second, you continually remind them through repetitive conditioning (suicide bombers on planes or wide-spread bankruptcies and unemployment) that it could happen again tomorrow. Finally, you then reap the results of their irrational behavior from the resulting Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): 1) two debt-laden wars, with the associated horrific physical deaths and wounding of tens of thousands of innocent young soldiers; 2) financial system-breaking bailouts, with huge profits for a select group of well-connected banks, as well as obscene bonuses for the well-heeled financial terrorist executives who reside at the top of those businesses.
The answer to the problem?
Well on the first front, President Obama and his advisers seem to understand that General McChrystal’s “urge to surge” in Afghanistan was only an appeasement to military strategists, and simply moves more targets (soldiers) into closer proximity for the Islamic terrorists to attack. More importantly, Obama and company also understand that terrorizing the Islamic Terrorists is a far more effective and efficient use of resources.
This strategy was first articulated in Obama’s campaign for President, wherein he declared that he would not hesitate to send large numbers of drones into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area to bring the fight to our enemies in their own backyard. Guess what? It is working.
As one resident of the region was recently quoted, “[w]e have become used to the drone attacks, but now people are scared as they are coming every night.” Israr Khan Dawar, a 17-year-old student in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan which is controlled by Islamic militants, said “more noise means they are flying lower, and that means an attack is more likely.” Sadly, these civilians are collateral damage in an unfortunate war that they have been drawn into as a result of the reckless behavior of those around them.
As for the second front (the Financial Terrorists), we need a scorched-earth strategy like Colonel Kurtz employed in the movie Apocalypse Now, and not some lame federal “banking fee“. Obama should temporarily nationalize the ten largest U.S. banks, starting with Goldman Sachs, throw their management out, replacing them with people who will act without reckless abandon in search of profits and then make money the old-fashioned way – loaning it out at reasonable rates of interest.
Now THAT would sufficiently terrorize Wall Street.
Unfortunately, it is likely far too late. The time to have moved on this would have been one year ago, when they were at the mercy of the Feds. They won that war, and now we ARE screwed.
P.S. For all you “Capitalists” out there who would label such a drastic measure as “Socialism” – that’s what we have been doing for the past year - you better find a more cogent response. Besides, as Nouriel Roubini (“Dr. Doom”)suggested in the Wall Street Journal inteview, we would only ”nationalize” this sector of our financial system temporarily. It would seem prudent at that point to break up these banks into smaller entities, impose moderate regulations on them (especially with usury rates of 18% on credit cards), and spin off the trading and investment side of the firms - regulating them in move inventive ways. We would have then re-privatized them all within twelve months.
President Obama, that would have sufficiently vanquished the Financial Terrorists, and further given pause to Wall Street’s minions, forcing them to rethink how they are going to conduct business going forward.
Obama’s Answer to Battling Terrorism – Terrorist Profiling?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Dick Cheney, National Security, Race, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 7th, 2010
Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror.
That is utter nonsense. Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.
More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals: profiling terrorists. Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic? Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post. You just might be surprised by my conclusions.
The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources. That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people.
Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime. Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.”
This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government.
But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.
Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent. On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us. There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.
The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.
Dick Cheney: Have You Even Read the 9/11 Commission Report?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Uncategorized, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 1st, 2010
Dick Cheney, you were given fair warning to “quit ditherting, and just fade away.” And just like taking candy from a baby, every time you open your mouth to criticize President Obama, you make it so easyto keep pointing out your transparent hypocrisy, as well as the abject failures of your administration.
So now you say President Obama is “trying to pretend we are not at war“?
Dick Cheney, read this chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report - and specifically the Presidential Daily Brief given on August 6, 2001 , from the National Security Archives – then let’s talk about who was trying to pretend we were not at war. In case you cannot count, that would be just 35 days before 9/11.