Cheney's Pre-Speech Criticism of Obama on Afghanistan Went Too Far

[Hawkgirl]

Since leaving office a little more than 10 months ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney has become the most outspoken critic of President Obama's foreign policy decisions. Most of the time, this has been a good thing, as Cheney has often very eloquently made the conservative case for forcefully fighting terrorism. Recently, though, he went too far.

On the eve of President Obama's speech at West Point regarding the troop buildup in Afghanistan, Cheney gave a 90-minute interview to Politico where, according to the news outlet, he "slammed President Barack Obama for projecting 'weakness' to adversaries."

Cheney went on to question Obama's motives for the speech, saying, "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."

As a conservative, let me be clear: Having listened to Obama's speech on Tuesday night, I'm comfortable saying that most of Cheney's analysis was correct.

<snip>

the fact that a former vice president -- possibly the most influential in American history -- chose to criticize the policies of the sitting president of the United States on the eve of his committing 30,000 troops to war strikes me as inappropriate. Again, I say this despite the fact that I tend to agree with Cheney's views.

In my estimation, this is an issue that should transcend partisan politics. Someone of Cheney's stature should wait until after the president gives a speech to critique it. And even then, he should be measured in that criticism.


Source

Thou shall not speaketh badly about the Messiah.  But why no outcry when members of Congress continuously spoke badly about BOOOSH?? Can't have it both ways, libtards...

[Freeper]

Cheney is a racist. 

[Chris_]

Funny we heard no outrage when both Carter and Clinton did it to GWB........and Carter did it overseas, several times.......that has always been considered "poor judgement".....

Different president.....different standards.......

doc

[5412]

Since leaving office a little more than 10 months ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney has become the most outspoken critic of President Obama's foreign policy decisions. Most of the time, this has been a good thing, as Cheney has often very eloquently made the conservative case for forcefully fighting terrorism. Recently, though, he went too far.

On the eve of President Obama's speech at West Point regarding the troop buildup in Afghanistan, Cheney gave a 90-minute interview to Politico where, according to the news outlet, he "slammed President Barack Obama for projecting 'weakness' to adversaries."

Cheney went on to question Obama's motives for the speech, saying, "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."

As a conservative, let me be clear: Having listened to Obama's speech on Tuesday night, I'm comfortable saying that most of Cheney's analysis was correct.

<snip>

the fact that a former vice president -- possibly the most influential in American history -- chose to criticize the policies of the sitting president of the United States on the eve of his committing 30,000 troops to war strikes me as inappropriate. Again, I say this despite the fact that I tend to agree with Cheney's views.

In my estimation, this is an issue that should transcend partisan politics. Someone of Cheney's stature should wait until after the president gives a speech to critique it. And even then, he should be measured in that criticism.


Source

Thou shall not speaketh badly about the Messiah.  But why no outcry when members of Congress continuously spoke badly about BOOOSH?? Can't have it both ways, libtards...

Hi,

My guess is if Cheney told folks how he really feels, what he said was pretty tame.  Recall they used terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" when Kerry was running against Bush.   

It is sad because if one really wanted to criticize BO it is almost like, where do I begin?  His complete lack of qualifications?  His associates?  His arrogance or insensitivity?  His stupid appointments?  His communist agenda?  His total lack of understanding on defending this country?  How do I criticize thee?  Let me count the ways......

regards,
5412

[Hawkgirl]

Hi,

My guess is if Cheney told folks how he really feels, what he said was pretty tame.  Recall they used terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" when Kerry was running against Bush.   

It is sad because if one really wanted to criticize BO it is almost like, where do I begin?  His complete lack of qualifications?  His associates?  His arrogance or insensitivity?  His stupid appointments?  His communist agenda?  His total lack of understanding on defending this country?  How do I criticize thee?  Let me count the ways......

regards,
5412

I am sure Cheney would have released a few F-bombs if he was unleashed...but he obviously has to show some restraint.

[5412]

I am sure Cheney would have released a few F-bombs if he was unleashed...but he obviously has to show some restraint.

Hi,

Laughed out loud at your post.  Betcha Cheney would have had more "f's" that BO had "I's".....ya think???

regards,
5412

[Lacarnut]

It is a shame Cheney was held in check during his terms as VP. Everytime Cheney criticizes Obummer, it get under the liberals skin. Too funny and keep up the good work Dick.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Y'know, as long as the Dear Leader keeps trying to blame Bush for everything bad in the world, Cheney should be relentless and merciless, and the rest of the GOP INCLUDING BUSH should get off their RINO asses and stand beside him to put the bullshit to rest.  Six months after Obama & Company stop, they can stop, and THEN we'll call it even.

[Golem]

Thou shall not speaketh badly about the Messiah.  But why no outcry when members of Congress continuously spoke badly about BOOOSH?? Can't have it both ways, libtards...

The author does address this:

Conservatives were incensed -- and had a right to be -- when Democratic leaders, including Harry Reid and Joe Biden, took verbal potshots at George W. Bush while the president was on foreign soil. (Jimmy Carter was even tackier: Carter went abroad and criticized Bush.) We tended to view that kind of behavior as unpatriotic.

[Doc]

Y'know, as long as the Dear Leader keeps trying to blame Bush for everything bad in the world, Cheney should be relentless and merciless, and the rest of the GOP INCLUDING BUSH should get off their RINO asses and stand beside him to put the bullshit to rest.  Six months after Obama & Company stop, they can stop, and THEN we'll call it even.

Dunno......I think that GWB taking the "high road" and returning to the old principle of not criticizing a sitting president is a great way to contrast the present administration with one that was actually effective.  Since Cheney was already considered as close as a liberal can come to believing in the existence of Satan, he is perfect for the job.......

My wife and often speculate that if the GOP ticket had been reversed in 2000, things might be somewhat different today, not that I'm throwing rocks at Bush.......just that I have great respect for Cheney's intelligence, and his abilities......and in a debate he is simply deadly......

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

Meh.  Except for Cheney, the GOP is the party of 'Laying there and taking it' whether they are in or out of office.

[Chris_]

Meh.  Except for Cheney, the GOP is the party of 'Laying there and taking it' whether they are in or out of office.

Considering the reality of our persent minority position in Washington what else can we do.....shoot the bastards?

doc

[5412]

Considering the reality of our persent minority position in Washington what else can we do.....shoot the bastards?

doc

Hi doc,

I think we have lots of choices other than laying down.  First of all get rid of Steele, he is ineffective, has agreed with the liberals way too many times for even the most moderate republicans, and is not bringing the party together.

Second, no one in the republican party seems to be educating the public on what is going on financially other than those on Fox. 

Third, I think the entire republican party should have walked out of the house when they voted on Cap and Trade.  They need to do something to draw the public attention to the idiocy of what is going on.

And lastly, why the hell did any republican vote to affirm any of the radical czars?  Lindsey Graham is all over Holder but he voted to approve him for BO's cabinet.

There is no organized resistence which is why the TEA parties and conservatives are looking to guys like Beck for leadership.

Pathetic on the part of the party if you ask me.  Palin is begging them to get going in the conservative direction.

regards,
5412

[TheSarge]

In all honesty...Cheney's criticism didn't go far enough.

[DefiantSix]

First of all get rid of Steele, he is ineffective, has agreed with the liberals way too many times for even the most moderate republicans, and is not bringing the party together.

Want a perfect reason to give Steele the boot?  His primary job as chairman of The Party is to raise money for his candidates.  4th quarter this year, the GOP has gathered in $8.7million for it's campaign warchest.  Comparing that to the fundraising reports for the last off-election year - 2007 - and the GOP is down $3.6 million from the 4th quarter '07 totals, while conversely the Dems are in new record territory at $11.5 million for the same 4th quarter '09 period. 

During his tenure, Steele has put out a 'product' that too many people don't care to spend their hard earned dollars on.  Backing moonbats like Skuzzbucket, squishy bastards like Crist, and a party platform that sounds like 'Socialism lite' rather than tried-and-true conservative principles is leaving a sour taste in the mouths of the rank and file, who seem to be voting with their feet.

If Steele didn't truly represent what the Republican Party has become - and what conservatives are walking away from in droves - they'd had fired his sorry ass already.

[rich_t]

I usually just contribute to individual candidates, but I have donated to the party in the past.

I will never do so again until they learn to start sponsoring and supporting real conservatives.  The dabcle in the 23rd NY district is a prime example of what I am talking about.

[Chris_]

I usually just contribute to individual candidates, but I have donated to the party in the past.

I will never do so again until they learn to start sponsoring and supporting real conservatives.  The dabcle in the 23rd NY district is a prime example of what I am talking about.

I'm the same way....I also stopped donating to the NRA-ILA or PAF for the same reason......they actually will contribute to the campaigns of pro-gun democrats, and I no longer wish my money to go to any democrat, pro-gun or not.......you have to also consider the other issues that they will vote on that don't agree with your beliefs.....

doc