Panetta smears Cheney as hoping for attack

It was wrong for Republicans to say Democrats hoped the nation would lose the war in Iraq under President Bush, and it's wrong for CIA director Leon Panetta to mind-read Dick Cheney as wishing for a terrorist attack under President Obama:

The Central Intelligence Agency typically fights distant enemies, but on May 21st its leaders were preoccupied with a local opponent. A few miles from the agency’s headquarters, which are in Langley, Virginia, former Vice-President Dick Cheney delivered an extraordinary attack on the Obama Administration’s emerging national-security policies. Cheney, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, accused the new Administration of making “the American people less safe” by banning brutal C.I.A. interrogations of terrorism suspects that had been sanctioned by the Bush Administration. Ruling out such interrogations “is unwise in the extreme,” Cheney charged. “It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness.”

Leon Panetta, the C.I.A.’s new director—and the man who bears much of the responsibility for keeping the country safe—learned the details of Cheney’s speech when he arrived in his office, on the seventh floor of the agency’s headquarters. An hour earlier, he had been standing at the side of President Barack Obama, who was giving a speech at the National Archives, in which he argued that America could “fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law.” In January, the Obama Administration banned the “enhanced” techniques that the Bush Administration had Wapproved for the agency, including waterboarding and depriving prisoners of sleep for up to eleven days. Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

Despite the weasel word "almost," Panetta is clearly suggesting that Cheney wants the country to be attacked. It's a vicious smear that was immediately endorsed by Josh Marshall, who wrote a post titled "Not 'Almost'" that begins with the line "It's about time someone said it."

The problem, of course, is that Cheney has never stated that he "wish[ed] that this country would be attacked again" -- the reason that Panetta resorts to mind-reading. The best Think Progress could do in a post supporting Panetta's accusation is to quote Cheney stating that Obama is "making some choices" that "raise the risk... of another attack." Cheney may be right or he may be wrong about the consequences of Obama's policy choices, but he has every right to express concern about the risk of another attack without being smeared as "wishing" that one will take place.

Update 6/15 1:46 PM: Pot/kettle alert -- Marshall's site criticized John McCain's campaign for suggesting Democrats want the US to lose in Iraq.

Update 6/16 11:37 AM: Panetta's spokesman is trying to walk back what his boss said:

"The Director does not believe the former Vice President wants an attack," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a statement to CNN. "He did not say that. He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives."

Comments

[nyarf]

Except he does...

[Rob]

Maybe Leon Panetta is just ahead of his time.

[Howard Craft]

I don't think Panetta is commenting on Cheney's wishes or thoughts.

It seems more a comment on Cheney's logic and his political maneuvering.

Its Cheney's rhetoric that's being smeared, and rightfully so.

[rone]

I want to agree with you, Howard, but i can't fairly do so. We know what Panetta meant, and Brendan is right in calling it out. Cheney doesn't need to hope for an attack because it doesn't change his insane beliefs; he already thinks he's right, so he doesn't need to be proven right. That's the hallmark of the Bush years: facts are irrelevant.

However, i don't care if Brendan is right; it's probably hypocritical of me to say so, but of all people in American politics, Cheney richly deserves to be smeared (far beyond merely repugnant clowns like Limbaugh or Gingrich).

[Howard Craft]

rone - I disagree with you in part.

Cheney is engaging in political rhetoric on several levels. I believe that is exactly what Panetta was trying to say. Panetta was addressing the topic on those grounds - the national security issue, not the national security reality.

Cheney is selling fear. He is also defending his own past judgments and I can accept that he believes most of what he says.

But Cheney is also making a case to blame the sitting Administration for allowing an attack in advance of it occurring. That is what makes it dangerous politics - it not only lacks substance in terms of debating actual policies but it could hurt the US in terms of responding with unity to such an event, if indeed that ever occurs.

Indeed, Panetta did not smear Cheney. Still, by Cheney's logic if we are attacked again he is vindicated. It's not that Cheney would want that to occur, but Panetta is saying that's about all Cheney has to offer up to buttress the necessity of the collective policies he endorsed as VP.

***

So I think Panetta is addressing it as political maneuvering that is potentially dangerous to the nation. Secondly I think he is trying to demonstrate that Cheney has set up an equation that is really meaningless in the context of discussing the actual policies and practices we choose to follow in the face of terrorism.

At least that's what I think Panetta meant...

[David]

As Brendan and others have pointed out, Cheney didn't specifically say what he wanted. However, if one is to deduce what Cheney wants, IMHO he wants Obama to adopt CIA policies that he thinks will more effectively prevent terrorist attacks.

[rone]

Howard: there's no doubt Cheney is playing that game. But don't play the mind-reading game in Panetta's favor, either (even if i agree with your assessment, heh heh).

David: i agree that it's likely what Cheney wants, but it would be nice if he weren't such a Dick about it. (yes, i'm twelve, i know)

[daniel rotter]

"...he wants Obama to adopt CIA policies that he thinks will more effectively prevent terrorist attacks."

Yeah, but since everyone knows that Cheney is not going to get what he "wants" here, the only way he can be vindicated about the supposed wrongness of not adapting such CIA policies is if indeed, there is another terrorist attack against the U.S.