Barack Obama and CIA director Leon Panetta at the CIA headquarters in McLean, Virginia. Photograph: Ron Sachs/Rex FeaturesFrom Reuters:
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.
"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.
"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."
Read more ....
Update: CIA head says Cheney almost wishing US be attacked -- AP
My Comment: I have been vocal in my criticism of U.S. policy towards terrorism under the Bush administration, and even more so under the Obama administration. Former Vice President Cheney is also vocalizing his concern .... a concern that is shared by millions of Americans .... that the new U.S. counter terrorism strategy is the wrong way to go. To assume that he, others, and myself would wish the U.S. to be attacked is ridiculous and insulting to the extreme.
I understand why CIA Director Leon Panetta is saying this ..... if statements from the critics of his policy were wrong and irrelevant, he would not spend a mini-second in responding. He is responding because he is genuinely concerned that maybe Vice President Cheney's opinion is right .... and he is uncomfortable with the idea that in the event of another 9/11 occurring in the future ..... he and the administration will be held responsible for it .... a point that I am sure will be driven home by Vice President Cheney, other critics, and myself, and a legacy that I am sure that he does not want to carry.
In the event that Vice President Cheney and other critics of the Obama administration are wrong (including this one), I am sure that they (and myself) will have no problem to say that "thank god .... I/we were wrong".
1 comment:
This is in fact a political counter-attack. Follow the logic: One set of policies seemingly keeps us from being attacked. Those policies are ridiculed mercilessly by the opposition. White House changes hands and the new owner REVERSES or rescinds those policies (a new owner that has no experience by the way). The policy reversals are criticized. The answer is to reply that the person criticizing WANTS THE COUNTRY TO BE ATTACKED. The person who says this is a POLITICAL HACK, not a professional spook. Never mind that the Democrats in power used every death statistic from the wars to bash the past Administration and virtually raced to a microphone when a IED exploded to denounce the President and his policies. So who is it really that cares for the innocents that lose their life because of incompetent political decisions?!
I also believe that the delivery of this counter-attack was done in a specific method to minimize feedback for a period of time. You can't avoid feedback, but you can minimize it until the news gains momentum, and by then the damage is done with little pushback.
Post a Comment