« Fox polls on Obama's smoking | Main | The wit and wisdom of Larry Summers »

June 15, 2009

Comments

Except he does...

Maybe Leon Panetta is just ahead of his time.

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.

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).

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...

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.

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)

"...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.

The comments to this entry are closed.