The Same Old Washington Blame Game (WH Responds To Cheney)

[kpete]

Source: 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 ...

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" <...>

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.


Read more: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/30/same-old-washington-blame-game

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

1. It's good to see the WH firing back,

but really, who gives a fuck what this dirty old oxygen thief has to say, anyway?

[Zoeisright]

2. That's fabulous.

I love to see the WH calling out the bullies and assholes like Cheney. I especially like the 'President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it'.

[blackbear79]

3. I don't give a shit what Cheney says

I do care about the gross incompetence of our Government to have let this terrorist asshole get on a US bound plane. My wife and I came back from Europe in November. We went through pre-customs and then were subject to a random security check. Our passports were scanned twice before we got on the plane. 500,000 names is not a very big database for a computer to kick out a name. Someone in the Obama administration has to go. This is just too big a screw up and there are some very lucky folks who landed safely in Detroit last week...thanks to the "Flying Dutchman"

[Hansel]

8. Do you expect the police to catch every potential murderer

before they murder someone? Every rapist, child molester? Burglar?

I'm sorry but it is not realistic that any agency is going to catch every criminal before they commit a crime. No one expects the police to do it even when they know the perpetrators. So why do you expect that the U.S. government is going to do it when attacks are coming from foreign countries?

Under your logic, the next murder that happens in my city, I'm asking for someone from our city council to resign. Sure, they have mechanisms in place to fight crime, but damn them for not catching every potential criminal before they commit a crime.

There were enough red flags at the airport that alert screeners should have stopped him from getting on the plane. But they didn't. Should the head of the airport security be fired too?

The database with the 500,000 names in it isn't available to the airport. This guy didn't rise to the level of being put on the "no fly list" according to the existing rules that the Bush administration put in place. The rules for putting someone on the list probably need to be reviewed, but it's not necessarily anyone person's fault that this guy wasn't on it. Like Obama said, it is a systemic failure. But it might be a failure that can't realistically be remedied without a crystal ball and a skilled soothsayer.

The blame lies with the guy who tried to blow up the airplane. He is the criminal. He is the one responsible. Want someone to get angry at, try him.

[jimlup]

4. Gloves come off democrates

This has to be the last straw. Time to throw it back in their faces. This is offensive and beyond the line. Time to attack Bush et al for 9/11. Sorry but we shouldn't have played nice back then. Not blaming Bush for the 9/11 security fuckup was a strategic error then and it is haunting us now.

[marybourg]

5. Good. and about time, too. nt.

[Iowa]

6. Cheney should have been prosecuted...

... and I view Obama's decision to let torturers get off scot-free as complicity in Cheney's war crimes. In other words, both of these clowns have undermined liberty and contributed to the sickening feeling among the populace that this country is circling the drain - Cheney for committing the crimes, and Obama for letting him get by with it.

Furthermore, Obama stooping to engage in back and forth trash-talk with a scum-bag like Cheney denigrates the office of the presidency. One bad decision leads to another...

Fuck them both.

[groundloop]

7. Once again - it's great to have adults back in charge

Although I fail to understand why the MSM keeps giving Dick, Newt, Sarah, etc. free air time.