CIA Chief Panetta Claims Cheney Wishes America Attacked "In Order to Make His Point"

CIA chief Leon Panetta made some dubious statements regarding Dick Cheney's recent criticism of Obama's stance on terrorism:

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, 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."

It's, also, "dangerous politics" to accuse anyone of wanting America to be hit by a terrorist attack. That is the kind of divisive politics is exactly what Americans are tired of hearing about all of the time. Many voted for Obama because they believed that he was post-partisan. Unfortunately, it has been business as usual since the beginning of his term. The president has been blaming Bush for everything that is wrong in America. Now, his CIA chief is claiming that the former vice-president wants Americans to be killed or hurt "in order to make his point." People will grow tired of this rhetoric quickly, if they haven't already.

Does CBS Still Have a Editor With Ethics? CBS Chief Legal Analyst Calls Cheney a "D**k"

CBS is keeping it classy as always:

It appears CBS News's Chief Legal Analyst doesn't agree with his colleague Bob Schieffer that former Vice President Dick Cheney is winning the national security debate with Barack Obama.

Quite the contrary, Andrew Cohen thinks Cheney is still living in "the world of September 11, 2001, a world where hijacked planes are screaming toward their targets, chaos reigns, and anything goes."

As a result, Cohen wondered in a Friday posting at his CBSNews.com blog "Court Watch" if Cheney is, "as many people say, just a d**k".

Did you wash your mouth out with soap before you kissed your mom last? This is just inexcusable for someone in the mainstream media being blatantly disrespectful to the former Vice President. Of course, after they defended Dan Rather for knowingly falsifying memos about Bush's military record, their occupational integrity left them years ago.

Al Gore: I Waited 2 Years to Criticize Bush, Weekly Standard: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire

The Goracle scolded former VP Dick Cheney for speaking against Obama's policy:

“I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical,” Gore said during an interview on CNN, pointing out that his critiques were focused on “policy.”

Adam White of the Weekly Standard did a little research and found out something shocking. The Goracle lied. He found some quotes from him starting within Bush's first year in office:

Contra Costa Times, 1/10/02: "While praising President Bush for his leadership in the war effort, he went on to say that the economy was another matter. 'I'm not here to make a political speech, but I am concerned,' Gore said."

Boston Globe, 4/14/2002: "'They are wrong to vilify honorable men and women who oppose their right-wing domestic agenda and oppose a blatantly dishonest budget,' Gore said. 'They are wrong to imply that those who stand up to them are somehow unpatriotic.'" (Headline -- "Combative Gore Lashes Out At Administration Policies In Fla. Speech, He Hits Bush For 'Radical Agenda'") [Note: So much for his assertion today that his early criticism of the Bush Administration focused on policy.]

USA Today, 4/15/2002: "Gore's speech was the emotional peak of the convention. With practiced skill, humor and a passion some delegates said they did not see during the campaign, Gore denounced virtually every element of Bush's domestic policy." (Headline -- "Gore's fiery speech raises questions of plans")

NY Times, 4/23/2002: "Sounding very much like the candidate he was and may become again, Al Gore said today that the environment was a moral issue and the Bush administration was giving 'policy payoffs to polluters.' 'Our environment is under siege,' Mr. Gore , the former vice president, said in an Earth Day speech here to 400 students at Vanderbilt University. 'The Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and subsidize the obsolete failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future. Instead of ensuring that our water is clean to drink, they thought that maybe there wasn't enough arsenic in the drinking water.'"

LA Times, 6/30/2002: "In a speech Saturday night to local Democrats, Gore attacked Bush's economic policies as "a total catastrophe." He also noted that in the war on terrorism, the U.S. has yet to catch Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and he denounced the White House for "trying to use the war for political purposes.'" [I guess that's just more pure criticism of policy ... .]

So, apparently Pelosi isn't the only one who is having trouble keeping his foot out of his mouth lately.

What could he have been thinking? He had to know that this could be easily researched and disproved.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein Defends Pelosi Using Cheney's Argument

The AP curiously buried this quote at the end of the story:

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, backed Pelosi.

"I think it's a tempest in a teapot really to say: Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that," she said.

"I don't want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks."

Sen. Feinstein meant to defend Maj. Leader Pelosi, but it could also be used to defend Bush and Cheney using the same argument.

This is the same argument that Cheney has been debating for years, but I guess the argument only works for Democrats.

Hillary Clinton: Cheney's Not Reliable Source of Information

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Cheney pretty much had no idea what was going on while he was in office.

The topics of discussion before the House Foreign Affairs committee ranged from the $900 million in aid pledged to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to Dick Cheney's claim that classified documents prove the Bush administration's interrogation methods on suspected terrorists yielded vital intelligence.

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said of the former vice president.

Um...He was the Vice-President of the United States. If Cheney isn't reliable, who is? Where is her proof that he isn't reliable?

That statement makes absolutely no sense to me.

David Axelrod: Bush More of a "Statesman" Than Cheney, To Axelrod: Define Statesman

My Thoughts

This again shows what it actually takes for a Democrat to compliment and like a Republican. They need to shut up and let them do what they want.

The main difference between what Bush and Cheney have done since leaving office is that Bush has refused to say anything about what he thinks of Obama's plans and policies. On the other hand, Cheney hasn't been shy to tell anyone that will listen that he doesn't like what Obama has been doing so far.

In response to what Axelrod actually said about Al-Quaeda still being around after 7 years, it is a fact that they haven't been able to hit us domestically since 9/11. Is that fact lost on him? While it is true that they are still around, their ability to actually pull something significant off has been severely crippled. They have been virtually impotent over the last 7 years. They've been mostly cornered in a small part of Pakistan. The only reason why we can't go into Pakistan and retrieve them is that it would mean invading a third country and adding another stage to the War on Terror. We are just not able to pull it off militarily or willing to ostracize an ally.