Yesterday, Cheney felt the need to share his opinion that Obama has “made some choices that in my mind raise the risk to the American people of another attack.”
A couple of questions. I know Gore went bigtime flogging global warming, but I can’t remember such a high-ranking member of a previous administration being quite so openly critical of its successor. Anyone care to refresh my memory?
Any thoughts as to exactly why he is acting thus?
It is out of his true concern for the safety of our country?
Or is it mainly a factor of Cheney having no political aspirations?
Does he see himself acting as a gadfly for his party?
Is the party encouragng/supporting him?
Does he feel the previous administration needs defending?
Does he feel he is helping write history?
Does the continuance of their focus on fear further his business interests?
Does he think that if another attack occurs, he will be able to credibly say it is proof that Bush kept us safe and Obama didn’t?
Is he doing this on his own, or at the urging of anyone else?
If jointly, with whom?
What a nasty, unpleasant creature. Whatever the current administration’s missteps, Cheney’s sporadic bleatings remind me how glad I am that Obama’s team does not prominently feature anyone I find nearly as big a dick as Cheney.
I don’t think so. I can’t recall any immediate past VP being so critical of the next administration except Walter Mondale in 1981-84, but then, he was running for President himself, and I don’t think Cheney’s doing that. There’s probably a bit of self-justification involved, as nobody likes seeing all their important work undone (as Cheney doubtless perceives Obama’s national-security policy). I also wouldn’t be surprised if all of the Dems’ criticism of him as being a secretive, lawless, torture-loving Darth Vader have actually stung him a bit, and he’s pushing back.
:: shrugs :: He’s entitled to say what he thinks. I believe he’s wrong, but he’s got a right to his opinion.
I’m just – I was going to say “amazed”, but what did I expect – at his hypocrisy.
Every single critic of Bush/Cheney’s administration, who spoke up to say that they thought that the current policies were making the US less safe, was branded a traitor of some sort. We usually got the, “don’t speak against the President in time of war,” bullshit.
Remember, “emboldening the terrorists”? We all knew it was bullshit then, and now, apparently, Cheney has proven that he knew it was bullshit too if he can just as cavalierly toss out his opinions of dire gloom and imminent disaster.
Like the Republican “boycott” of the stimulus, there appear to be significant potential gains, and few if any drawbacks, to Old Man Cheney’s P.R. tour for opponents of Obama and the Dems. If there is an attack, the "I Told You So"s will ring from the rooftops, and if not… well, he’s still managed to spray the airwaves with his atomized horseshit, a cloud which takes a very long time to dissipate. The only thing noteworthy about the words oozing from Dick’s pus-hole are how thoroughly unsurprising it is to hear them.
I was gonna come in and make a Nixon joke too, but I got to thinking - what was his attitude towards the Kennedy administration? He ended up in Mondale’s position of losing the presidential race after having the #2 job, and it was the height of the Cold War with Cuba as the bogeyman du jour, so there’s some obvious parallels here.
Dick Cheney is a fucking troll. I have no idea why anyone sees any value in feeding him with attention*, but I am going to take advantage of the fact that he is not a member of the SDMB, and say that I wish for harm to come to him (even though it would happen far too late for any benefit to accrue to mankind from the event).
*I do wish the Chicago Tribune decision-making types would adopt the very excellent [del]rule[/del] guideline that we at least nominally espouse here.
If we were in any danger, Darth Cheney would only be encouraging attacks by announcing that it would be a lot easier to do it now. Of course there are any number of prominent neo-cons who want to start various wars in the middle east who don’t have even a chihuahua for personal protection who roam the streets of this country freely and have never been attacked, so I figure that there really is no day-to-day danger.
I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it. he had some sort of problem with the “nattering nabobs of negativity” and a few other “witty” phrases. It turned out he was a dirtbag and a thief.
It occurs to me that my previous post did not address the question under consideration in the debate.
I have to say “No.” Cheney is such a big dick that he has come very close to ruining this entire nation. No other Vice President has even approached the amount of damage he managed to inflict.
Nixon returned to California following his loss to Kennedy, and ran for Governor in 1962. It’s recalled as a very bitter campaign, but I don’t know what he said about national politics at the time. He was bitter and petulant after losing that one, and “retired” from politics, but according to Wikipedia,
It’s amazing that he announced his candidacy only 5 months before the convention.
JFK also consulted with Nixon after the Bay of Pigs fiasco (he did with Ike, too), and Nixon was - in public, at least - supportive of the President. I don’t think JFK had anything to complain about re: Nixon from 1961-63.
Of course, once he was done being VP no one much cared what the Big Spiro had to say on any subject. That Mr Cheney has not been equally discredited says something about our politics and the nature of journalism in these decadent times.
At one time, the distinction could be made that Gore was still a working politician, wheras Cheney is pretty obviously retired; but at this point it’s clear that Gore, also, has no plans to reenter politics.