Cheney is becoming some kind of GOP jack-in-the-box.. popping out every time president Howdy Doody issues a less than meaningful statement or response regarding terror. The Politico
covers the latest, so consider this a take on their take:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists..
That's the setup. Now the snippets:
A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”
True, but it took Obama 3 days to publicly condemn it. He played golf instead.
..GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident and baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.
Good grief, they're mainly commenting on the lapse, as have some Democrats, as have many in the press, as has the president himself.
President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.
Yes, but it's not as if Bush was out there after 9/11 downplaying the threat, calling for prisoners to be tried in court and badmouthing Clinton for leaving him a mess. The public was still reeling from 9/11--we knew we were at war then. Besides, the Dems constantly criticized Bush for not jumping on issues as they occurred like Clinton did.
The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”
Yeah, and how's that working out for us? How many people actually think there's much of a difference anyway? The teachable moment here is that words really don't matter with these guys.
“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”
Which seems to prove Cheney's point.
4 comments:
"The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”"
So now we are playing the "depends on what the definition is ..."???
Obama failed. Period. His administration failed. Janet Napolitano has no business in the position she is in, clueless of her job and responsibilities.
And when we state something against the terrorists, we get death threats, as I did yesterday. They try to blow us up, then they try to silence our freedom of speech, scare us with being "reported to CAIR". Pffft.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Debbie, glad you zeroed in on that because in re-reading the quote it jumps right out..
we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”
Why differentiate between al Qaeda and violent extremists, then say terrorists? Aren't they the same? It's as if they're making it clear that a "war on terrorism" was a war on Islam, while their war will not be any such thing--it may even include action against violent extremist teabaggers, etc.
It is what it is (unless of course it isn't). But the definition of is all depends on who the definer is Or isn't).
I suppose that this the way it is (or isn't depending who it is we are referring to and who it is in the mix), but I really wish it wasn't.
But unfortunately, I am afraid it is.
(Now where did I put my Antivert tablets?)
Thanks to Popeye for dropping by and straightening everything out. ;-)
Post a Comment