Thursday, December 31, 2009

The Same Old Blame Bush Game: The White House responds to Dick Cheney

The White House has responded to Dick Cheney’s recent statement that Obama is “trying to pretend” there is no war on terror.  Too bad the White House cannot respond to terror attacks as quickly as they do to criticisms of Dick Cheney. Perhaps if they did, the administration would not be in full panic mode now.

Of course the White House uses the ever-tiresome “blame Bush” tactic. Sweet Jesus, you would think by now they would be embarrassed to go back to that excuse once again.

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.  I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. 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.
First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.  It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia.  And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.
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.
Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”
There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. 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 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.
Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director 
Another thing to note here, is that Dan Pfeiffer makes mention of the various things Obama said as proof of Obama’s understanding we are at war. However, it was Obama’s actions that Cheney had questioned i.e. Miranda rights, KSM, Gitmo, etc.


tom said...

Why should they be embarrassed to point at the Bush/Cheney record? If Cheney wants a boxing match, I don't see why Obama and friends should stay in the corner.

Janelle said...

Razor sharp opening and summation, Clifton!

Spinsterpov said...

Obama has yet to learn that universally acknowledged truth that actions speak louder than words.

Tuffy said...

Zero BUILT his campaign (presidential career) on blaming Bush so he'll ride that train till the cows come home. The sad (and fortunate thing for those who oppose him) is that no one in his camp is humble enough to advise him that the train has gone off the rails and into the abyss. Nobody wants to hear that Bush-bashing sh*t anymore - old and tired. I heard a good suggestion on talk radio the other day from a caller that suggested Zero get a paper weight for his desk that says "The buck stops here". Psshya, I can't even IMAGINE him being humble and gracious enough to say something like that! Little things like hubris and pride get in the way of such things. When does "he" become responsible for what is happening TODAY?? Doesn't he understand that jihadism is like a cancer that spreads to different nooks and crannies of opportunity, and when they are kicked out from one area, they move to another?? Iraq-check, Afganistan-check. They're running for cover like rats. That's why we must be ever vigilant in TRYING to predict where they will move etc. and preventing them from mobilizing. What matters is what happens TODAY and TOMORROW and the next. How me missed Yemen, I have no idea (on HIS watch). Zero better stop looking in the rear view mirror - checkin' his make-up, and keep his eyes on the dangerous ever-twisting roads ahead or we're ALL in trouble. He needs to set the tone for his Administration (including Clown Napolitano) that we ARE at war and stop tying the CIA's hands. Hey Barry, they're not "alleged" terrorists, they ARE terrorists ALWAYS and they don't want to be our friends, E-V-E-R!

/ok, off my rant.

The Conservative Lady said...

Spinsterpov took the words right out of my mouth. Every decision he makes regarding the "man-made disaster makers" proves that he is not serious about being at war.

Clifton: Wishes for a Happy, Healthy & Prosperous 2010.

Writer X said...

The Obama administration delivers another meaningless response. It's laughable that Pfeiffer gets paid to write this stuff. He must be paid by the word. Weak, at best.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

How is former president Bush to blame for this little fiasco? Was he the numbskull who waved the would-be terrorist through the security checkpoint? Did he wait to respond?
Really- this is just childish nonsense. This ball is in Obama's court and if he doesn't want to even pretend he cares, then that's all on him.

Jay said...

Clifton - so glad I found your blog. You are so right on! These guys don't get it - it is about WHAT YOU DO, NOT WHAT YOU SAY.

Obama seems to think the fact that he spoke the words makes them true. I think he might actually believe that.

To this administration I say:


JohnFLob said...

If we are only subjected to violent 'man made disasters' Why does President Obama have an Assistant to the President for Terrorism? Why isn't it Assistant to the President for Man Made Disaster Facilitators?

Shouldn't John Brennan and Dan Pfeiffer be thrown under the bus for using the term terrorism, and its derivatives so freely?

JohnFLob said...

Are the agendas of the Obama Administration in foreign policy and national security just Main Made Disaters

Related Posts with Thumbnails