Is it Safe?
If what Leon Panetta is accusing Dick Cheney of could ever be proven as true, then they ought to toss ole Dick onto a boat, roll him a wheelchair and shove him off to parts unknown.
You know, like an undisclosed location--to even him.
Panetta, the CIA Director, is, like so many of us, becoming flummoxed by the former vice president's incessant and, in some cases, incendiary criticism of the Obama Administration's policy re: the war on terror.
Cheney has been, for months now, on a media blitz, telling anyone who'll clip a microphone onto his lapel just how "unsafe" we are with Barack Obama and his minions running the country.
I don't know about you, but the more Cheney does that, the more relieved I am that we put the word "former" before his title.
Panetta finally had heard enough, and he went on the offensive.
Firing some incendiary words of his own, Panetta told The New Yorker magazine that Cheney's actions, words, and tactics suggest that the former (ah!) VP has sinister motives.
"When you read behind it," Panetta said, "it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."
No kidding.
Of course, what Panetta is accusing Cheney of is veering into a dicey area, too. Those kinds of accusations aren't to be taken lightly.
Still, it's Cheney who's bringing this on himself. He's been like a sharp needle jabbing into people's sides, and it was only a matter of time before someone of high profile was unable to keep his or her thoughts to him or herself.
Panetta was the one who finally erupted.
Panetta couldn't hold his tongue any longer--not that you can blame him
Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the United States less safe for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.
Give Obama credit; he's somehow been able to bite his tongue.
The current vice president, Joe Biden, wouldn't take the bait, either--at least, not fully.
Speaking Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden would only say, "I think Dick Cheney's judgment about how to secure America is faulty. I think our judgment is correct."
But if Panetta is right -- if Cheney truly is hoping for another calamity to befall us just so his legacy can be repaired -- then Cheney automatically falls below Dick Nixon; below Joe McCarthy; below the Rosenbergs.
Dick would be looking up at all of them, and no one should have anything to do with him. Ever.
It's not something easily proven, of course. In fact, it's damn near impossible.
But good for Panetta, for finally verbalizing what so many of us -- in and out of Washington -- have been believing for weeks now: that Dick Cheney won't truly be satisfied, it seems, unless one of two things happens.
a) Obama subscribes to the Bush policies. (not gonna happen); or b) we get hit again.
The cruel irony is that even if the country does indeed become victimized on its own soil again, it still isn't proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it wouldn't have happened under Bush's watch, or that it was a direct result of Obama's policies.
I've written it before: I don't know how you quantify safety. I don't know what policies make us more or less "safe." And I surround the word in quotations because I'm not even sure what its meaning is anymore.
What does "safe" mean to you?
I'm not really sure, either, but I'm pretty sure what doesn't make me feel that way.
Dick Cheney and his political wrecking machine pushing buttons in Washington.
I suppose I started feeling safer on January 20th.
You know, like an undisclosed location--to even him.
Panetta, the CIA Director, is, like so many of us, becoming flummoxed by the former vice president's incessant and, in some cases, incendiary criticism of the Obama Administration's policy re: the war on terror.
Cheney has been, for months now, on a media blitz, telling anyone who'll clip a microphone onto his lapel just how "unsafe" we are with Barack Obama and his minions running the country.
I don't know about you, but the more Cheney does that, the more relieved I am that we put the word "former" before his title.
Panetta finally had heard enough, and he went on the offensive.
Firing some incendiary words of his own, Panetta told The New Yorker magazine that Cheney's actions, words, and tactics suggest that the former (ah!) VP has sinister motives.
"When you read behind it," Panetta said, "it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."
No kidding.
Of course, what Panetta is accusing Cheney of is veering into a dicey area, too. Those kinds of accusations aren't to be taken lightly.
Still, it's Cheney who's bringing this on himself. He's been like a sharp needle jabbing into people's sides, and it was only a matter of time before someone of high profile was unable to keep his or her thoughts to him or herself.
Panetta was the one who finally erupted.
Panetta couldn't hold his tongue any longer--not that you can blame him
Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the United States less safe for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.
Give Obama credit; he's somehow been able to bite his tongue.
The current vice president, Joe Biden, wouldn't take the bait, either--at least, not fully.
Speaking Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Biden would only say, "I think Dick Cheney's judgment about how to secure America is faulty. I think our judgment is correct."
But if Panetta is right -- if Cheney truly is hoping for another calamity to befall us just so his legacy can be repaired -- then Cheney automatically falls below Dick Nixon; below Joe McCarthy; below the Rosenbergs.
Dick would be looking up at all of them, and no one should have anything to do with him. Ever.
It's not something easily proven, of course. In fact, it's damn near impossible.
But good for Panetta, for finally verbalizing what so many of us -- in and out of Washington -- have been believing for weeks now: that Dick Cheney won't truly be satisfied, it seems, unless one of two things happens.
a) Obama subscribes to the Bush policies. (not gonna happen); or b) we get hit again.
The cruel irony is that even if the country does indeed become victimized on its own soil again, it still isn't proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it wouldn't have happened under Bush's watch, or that it was a direct result of Obama's policies.
I've written it before: I don't know how you quantify safety. I don't know what policies make us more or less "safe." And I surround the word in quotations because I'm not even sure what its meaning is anymore.
What does "safe" mean to you?
I'm not really sure, either, but I'm pretty sure what doesn't make me feel that way.
Dick Cheney and his political wrecking machine pushing buttons in Washington.
I suppose I started feeling safer on January 20th.
Comments
Post a Comment
As you will...