Full article is here.
Cheney basically asserts that Obama is weak and is opening up the U.S. to terrorist attacks, and that “[t]he United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected.”
Yeah well, Dickie boy, your policies made sure we are neither loved nor respected. What you meant to say was feared.
Why don’t you just go fuck yourself.
Positioning. If there is no attack, its because they did such a wonderful job. If there is an attack, then its Obama’s fault for weakening the wonderful job they did.
Well, he’s been right about everything else he’s said.
Didn’t he and Bush preside over the worst terrorist attack in US history? Maybe he’s not the one to be running his mouth.
I’ll give him one thing; the man does stick to his guns… as do, ocassionally, his friend’s faces.
Huh… and here I thought that had been bin Laden. “Preside during” perhaps? Would that not be more accurate?
Does Cheney matter any more? Fuck him.
Particularly problematic for him is the fact that Bush put Cheney in charge of the White House antiterrorism task force that never met once prior to 9/11.
This slimy cocksucker is, well, beyond words, really.
During, yes. I’m not a Truther. The point is that he wasn’t exactly the Great Protector.
And over 6+ years, Cheney’s approach to antiterrorism still leaves the probability “high”? Quite a confession of ineptitude there, Deadeye.
What he said.
Ignore him and his boss/lackey and simply publish widely whatever future opinion may be about their performance.
His hubris is understandable; even the Lord Almighty tried to bring him down four times, and four times failed.
As one of the biggest lightning rods in history, yes, I’m afraid so. It would appear the chances are good this won’t be the last time his comments will be brought forth for discussion since, from the linked article…
*His comments made unmistakable that Cheney — likely more than former President Bush, who has not yet given post-White House interviews — is willing and even eager to spar with the new administration and its supporters over the issues he cares most about. *
I thought protocol called for prior administrations to not call out current administrations policies in public. IIRC, wasn’t there a huge outcry when Clinton dared to disagree w/Bush on some fundemental foreign policy?
Carter has been openly critical of the Bush Administration’s “foreign policy”, particularly with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Several former Presidents criticized Nixon for the China visit, IIRC. I don’t think there’s any such protocol.
Halliburton contracts?
Note the “huge outcry” portion. Didn’t say it didn’t happen, but IIRC, several conservative posters here tried to make the case (especially about foreign policy) that prior administrations should shut the fuck up. I thought it was interesting that when the shoe’s on the other foot, there was a notable silence.
Well, at least it can be said that he does now care about the issue of terrorism. If only he had felt that way in January 2001.
Maybe he just hadn’t seen the margin in it yet.
Sure, but what people are saying on the SDMB, and what is being discussed by the general public and/or talk show pundits are not quite the same.
There was a pretty general, “Shut the fuck up, anti-Bush people! We’re at war!” message coming from conservatives in the first four years after 9/11, but I don’t recall there ever being a specific version aimed at past Presidents.
ETA: Of course, Cheney’s comments are idiotic. His general message seems to be, “So they’re actually following through on their campaign promises? Who does that?”
RNATB no outcry here. Sorry I didn’t specify here at the dope. but that’s what I was thinking.