Video: Ron Paul supporters heckle Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld at CPAC

Talking Points Memo: Dick Cheney just popped up here at CPAC to introduce his old pal and Bush administration colleague Donald Rumsfeld. Fans of Ron Paul turned what should have been a friendly moment before an audience of fellow conservatives into a screaming match and protest action that resembled what a Cheney-Rumsfeld hug at the Netroots Nation convention might look like.

Rumsfeld is being given CPAC's "Defender Of The Constitution" award, a concept that apparently rankled Paul supporters in the crowd. Many of them got up and walked out en masse at the mention of Rumsfeld, though some stayed behind in the conference hall to heckle the architects of the invasion of Iraq.

One shout of "where's Bin Laden?" rang out as Cheney spoke of Rumsfeld.

That led to the pro-Cheney contingent (which it should be said greatly outnumbers the opposition) to shout the hecklers down with the familiar "USA, USA" chant.

Methinks the Ron Paul supporters were still chaffing over Donald Trump saying Ron Paul can't win.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Talking Points Memo

Via: The Hill

Cheney calls out Obama and Biden for taking credit on Iraq (Full Video)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was on This Week today and he had a little message for Vice President Biden: 

"If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

[SNIP]

"Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy," Cheney said. "If they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today." 

You just knew Cheney wasn’t going to let Obama and Biden take credit for Iraq that easily. The current administration has not missed a single opportunity to blame the Bush administration for everything under the sun, so why should they thank the Bush Administration when credit is obviously due.

If you missed Cheney’s appearance on This Week, full video of the interview is below (h/t The Right Scoop)

Via: Memeorandum

Via: ABC News/ This Week

H/T: The Right Scoop

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.

From the White House blog: 

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.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The White House Blog

Dick Cheney: Obama “trying to pretend we are not at war”

We all knew Dick Cheney would have something to say about Obama’s handling of the Underpants Bomber.  Today we hear an earful:

From Politico: 

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

I think Cheney has touched on the key thing why Obama is getting fried for his response to the Underpants Bomber.  It is Obama’s actions leading up to the Underpants Bomber that gives the perception that Obama is weak on terror.

Many are trying to draw the comparison of how people reacted to Bush and the Shoe Bomber vs. Obama and the Underpants Bomber. Perception is the key. The Shoe Bomber incident happened shortly after 9-11.  The Bush administration was still doing a gazillion things to get new security in place. Bush was still putting TSA together too. Even though it took Bush 6 days to speak to the American people about the Shoe Bomber, there was no crazy statements or missteps from Bush underlings prior to his speaking. America had a perception that things were under control and that everything humanly possible was being done to thwart terrorism.

Compare and contrast Obama today.  The Underpants Bomber comes on the heels of Ft. Hood, where there was great reluctance to even mention terrorism and Nidal Hassan in the same sentence. Furthermore, Obama has spent a year undoing many of the security measures that Bush put in place (attempting to close Gitmo, sending Uygers to paradise, investigating the CIA, etc). But most damaging for Obama was having to come out after Janet Napolitano made a complete fool of herself. To make matters worse, Obama allowed the image of himself being interrupted from his fancy Hawaiian vacation (Bush was vacationing quietly at Camp David) to take hold in the minds of Americans.

If Obama wants to regain control of the situation, then he is going to have to take some bold steps to appear like he takes terrorism seriously. I would start by kicking Napolitano to the curb.  The last thing you want is the impression that your administration is comprised of incompetent boobs. Next, halt the closing of Gitmo.  Everyone knows there are tons of terrorists there from the new terror hot spot Yemen. Finally start briefing the public regularly as to what you are doing to get to the bottom of the situation. Inform the public what actions you are taking to make sure this never happens again.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Via: Politico

Cheney slams Obama on Afghanistan yet again

Once again former Vice President Dick Cheney takes Obama and his administration to task for their handling of Afghanistan  and national security. Once again Cheney is refreshingly blunt about it too. From Politico:

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Cheney's sharpest critiques on Obama was on the image Obama presents to America's adversaries. I think it is more than safe to say Dick Cheney thinks Obama is a joke on the world stage.

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.”

Cheney doesn't stop there, he even questions Obama's understanding and belief in American exceptionalism.

During the campaign, Cheney recalled, he saw Obama as “sort of a mainline, traditional Democrat — liberal, from the liberal wing of the party.” But Cheney said he is increasingly persuaded by the notion that Obama “doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a special nation, that we are the greatest, freest nation mankind has ever known.”

“When I see the way he operates, I am increasingly convinced that he’s not as committed to or as wedded to that concept as most of the presidents I’ve known, Republican or Democrat,” he said. “I am worried. And I find as I get out around the country, a lot of other people are worried, too.”

Dick Cheney is probably the only person I have seen to date to give a very blunt opinion on Obama. However, with Obama's plan to increase the troop level in Afghanistan tonight, I suspect some Cheney-like bluntness to emerge from the left. 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Dick Cheney 2012?

From CNN Politics: 

Washington (CNN) – A new group wants former Vice President Dick Cheney back in the White House.

The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.

"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong – and that person is Dick Cheney."

I would much rather see Dick Cheney (or his daughter Liz) involved in national security come 2012. They both have their heads screwed on straight regarding the threats facing America.

In 2012 America will need the mother of all fiscal conservatives to clean up after Obama and the Democrats' spending orgy. Cheney just doesn’t strike me as a strong fiscal conservative. His support of Kay Bailey Hutchinson over Rick Perry in the Texas governor's race, gives me pause about his understanding of conservatism across the board.

Plus will America be willing to revisit any aspects of the Bush administration? I am thinking not. Luckily Cheney himself is squashing the idea.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: CNN Politics

Notes On Cheney’s Speech At The Keeper of the Flame Awards

Once again former Vice President Dick Cheney has called out the folly of Obama’s national security measures. Cheney again does not pull any punches in his criticisms of the Obama administration.

On Russia and Missile Defense: 

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 

Correct.  Russia desperately wanted the United States to drop missile defense in Europe.  It was the one thing Russia was most boisterous about. But what did the US gain for granting Russia its biggest wish?  Apparently nada. It hard to understand what Obama thought he could gain by ditching missile defense, especially given Putin’s history of reneging.

On Iran: 

 Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about. 

Here too, Cheney points out the obvious, that as Obama tries different approaches to engage Iran, Iran is moving with deliberate speed to meet their nuclear ambitions. At what point does Obama realize that this strategy is mostly working in Iran’s favor?

On Afghanistan:

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger. 

This is the first of Cheney’s two most blistering comments. Obama is pretty much out on a limb with waiting on Afghanistan. Cheney uses Obama’s own words to bash Obama for stalling.  This is a charge Republicans should adopt whenever Obama goes off on a tangent like his war on Fox News.

On CIA investigations:  

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys. 

This is where Cheney really lets loose on the Obama administration. Cheney is clearly proud of the work he and Bush did to keep the nation safe after 9/11 and doesn’t take well to seeing all that go to waste for the sake of politics.

Overall:

The main reason why Cheney is so effective against Obama on national security is because Obama is so bad at it. If it weren’t for a complicit media, Obama’s national security policies would have long been brought into question.  Obama’s national security policies, like almost all of his other polices, severely lack common sense if you trust in Obama’s stated objectives.  Cheney on the other hand deals only in common sense. Thus Cheney’s suggested course of action fits Obama’s stated objectives far better. If Obama wants to have any hope in effectively dealing with Cheney’s criticisms then Obama is going to have to start meaning what he says.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Weekly Standard

Via: Center For Security Policy

Obama vs. Cheney

Upon watching today's two speeches, the difference between Obama and Cheney was clear, it was form versus substance. This was evident from just comparing the two venues.

Obama's setting was loaded with imagery designed to give him the gravitas of POTUS. The National Archives with its backdrop of our nation's most sacred documents and his booming voice echoing in the cavernous hall, were all there to give weight to his assertions, half truths and double speak. Now compare and contrast that with Cheney's venue.

Dick Cheney gave his speech at the American Enterprise Institute with a simple white and grey logo covered wall as a backdrop. His only aids were his raspy voice and prepared text. Yet, it was the words of that text that has set the liberal world reeling and has ignited the conservative base once again. This is because the words from that text carried with them the weight of common sense and honesty.

We continue to see more form versus substance in the fact that Cheney's speech was scheduled way in advance of Obama's. Obama only recently changed the date to match Cheney's. Despite the differences in time, Cheney's speech answered all of Obama's criticisms. This being the result of a man who knows what he is talking about and who has full command of the issue at hand.From Obama's first criticism of the Bush Administration, Cheney had an answer:

Obama: Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of
these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens - fell silent.

Cheney: ... And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be
based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

The other thing that stuck out to me about both speeches was that the question of the effectiveness of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques is unanswered. Obama makes the assertion that they are ineffective but offers no proof to back it up:

Obama: I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe. And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation...

Cheney on the other hand, makes asking for this information an important part of his speech:

Cheney: Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Without the answer to whether or not EITs worked or not, the subject is open to debate and conjecture. Clearly, the Obama administration doesn't want us to know that answer for sure, because there is probably good reason to believe it does not help his argument. We can safely draw that conclusion because if there was no harm in releasing the memo detailing the techniques we use, then what is the harm in releasing the results?

I was particularly galled by this statement in Obama's speech:

Obama: ... We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

What I find so galling about this statement is the fact that it was Obama and the Democrats who created the situation themselves. It was their politicizing of the entire Gitmo issue in order to score points against Bush that created this "mess". It was the left that insisted that massive torture was going on there, it was the left that has brought all the legal challenges, it was the left demands the place to be shut down, it is the left that are trying to give the Gitmo prisoners our Constitutional rights and it is the left who wants to try the Gitmo prisoners in the American court system. Mind you, Democrats were all in for creating Gitmo and using EITs in the beginning, it wasn't until they were desperate to discredit the Bush Administration that they all of a sudden found faults.

In the end Obama and the Democrats have created their own problem. It is a problem that has the ability to split their party and or completely discredit them in the eyes of Americans as far as national security is concerned. This is why Republicans need to push hard for the release of the memos Cheney requested. It will help to bring more fair minded people to the side of the GOP and help to further the rift in the Democratic party. If Michael Steels' words the other day have any weight behind them, then he should start rallying Republicans to Cheney's cause.

Finally some thought about Dick Cheney. You have to admire him for standing up against the on coming onslaught the left will no doubt launch against him. He has put the great Obama on the defense on the national security issue. He galls the Democrats for refusing to stay vanquished and discredited. CNN's own polls show he is making a comeback. He even exposed their childish and foolish ways:

Cheney: Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still
face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or
more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

Cheney's sober speech showed us what was missing these last 100+ days and that is a certain level of maturity. There has been a complete lack of "grown ups" since January 20th. Instead we are treated to childish things like the blame game, flimsy excuses for unsuitable cabinet members, unsubstantiated assertions, rosy images pasted over bad situations and arrogance by the truck load.