White House Responds to Cheeneey's Latest Flak About al Qaeda

[bigtree]

The Same Old Washington Blame Game
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on December 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM EST

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day. I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/30/same-old-washington-blame-game

[EmeraldCityGrl]

1. K&R+++++++++++++

[liberal N proud]

2. Call the bastards out for who and what they are

YESsssss.

[timeforpeace]

46. They jumped on that faster than to the actual attack. Old Hasbeen must be the greater threat?

[gateley]

3. Well done! K&R!! nt

[wryter2000]

4. Ah snap!

If Cheney had any sense of shame whatsoever, this might shut him up.

[VPStoltz]

5. Cheney has no interest in ending the so-called "war."

It profits not of his drinking - then hunting - chums to end the war.
Criticize the Prez and he might expand it thereby creating more in the way of war profits for his buddies.

[Goldstein1984]

6. Cheney has no credibility

It's a pity the White House is forced to waste time responding to a sadistic war criminal.

[spanone]

7. k&r

[gratuitous]

8. Not particularly happy where he ended up

But I do like the tactic of pointing out that Dick Cheney was only Vice President. It wasn't his keister in the Big Chair during the Bush administration. Obama is the President, and that's quite a bit different from being Vice President. Sort of the difference between the star quarterback and the kid handing out Gatorade bottles in the huddle during a time out.

[bigtree]

10. got that

I do appreciate the change in tone - hope it eventually amounts to a tangible separation from the militarism of the past. So far, I think it can be credibly argued that this administration is presently juggling more troops and militarism abroad than the last bunch.

[immoderate]

12. Maybe they should provoke him on that.

Like, Cheney is beginning to believe his own press -- that he was the power behind the presidency.

Let Cheney deal with that for a while.

--imm

[gratuitous]

15. I think Cheney could indeed be provoked with that

And it would play into the middle school mentality so enjoyed by the popular media. Obama's spokespeople don't have to do it in a "nyah-nyah" fashion, just state it matter-of-factly that the Vice President isn't the President. The subtext can be "So why are you media chuckleheads listening to Dick Cheney in the first place," but the surface can be all about the responsibility factor, and how Cheney was never in a position of responsibility the way Obama is. Let Cheney snarl all he wants about that; it will only lead to more embarrassing concessions about where the real power was during the Bush years, and it may even get Little Boots to run out and holler about how he was the Big Cheese or the Head Man or the Head Cheese all the time!

[immoderate]

18. Yup. The game of "Let's You and Him Fight"

For those fans of transactional analysis.

--imm

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric!

Love it!

[timeforpeace]

11. It's about time someone came to Obama's defense.

[lunatica]

13. I'm glad they're responding.

Every time Cheney opens his mouth in public his words should to be shoved down his throat.

[Gabi Hayes]

14. here:

[malaise]

16. Tweety is about to devour Cheney

starting now

[Gabi Hayes]

19. saw him going after cock-eyed junior. that was fun. he was really PISSED about that.

too bad he swallowed the Bush propaganda hook line and sphincter when it really mattered

had he (and his fellow 'journalists') shown the same outrage at the never ending skein of lies told during the 00 campaign, we wouldn't be where we are today

and did you notice that his year end biggest lies were all republican:

Joe Wilson (You LIE!)

birthers

Palin (death panels, I think....was typing this when they were talking about it)

no mention, of course, that they ALL came from the far right

[malaise]

22. Nice post

Yep Tweety blows with the wind except re Cheney.

Good spot with the Rethug lies, but if their lips move they're lying so I'm not surprised.
Happy New Year. :hi:

[Enthusiast]

34. Towel snappy? nt

[lpbk2713]

17. Or ... when reduced to four words ...

"GO FUCK YOURSELF DICKLESS"

[Barack_America]

20. They delivered the slap by Tweet as well.

whitehouse
Responding to Former VP Cheney: "The Same Old Washington Blame Game" http://bit.ly/7pWjIv
39 minutes ago from web

[bigtree]

21. I like the separation from the president

. . . put the turd in his place

[EmeraldCityGrl]

23. WOW just WOW!

Tell him he's soft on security now you rancid old POS.

'm opposed to the war, but if it's unavoidable this is what I want to hear.

[Number23]

24. That's pretty darn good! Kicked and rec'd

[earcandle]

25. I find it transparently rigged to say that a great powerful country like America needed to" go to

war" with 19 people over 3000 lost lives in a criminal
event. 

Come on people.  Are we really a bunch of idiots pretending to
have smarts,
but are just smart-asses in a world that rejects us?  And we
shut up instead
of argue for our rights with reason and the rule of law. 
Come'on.  We have
no right to be the most powerful nation in the world as
bullies. 


The ability to deal with ambiguity is a sign of mental health.
 If we can
live and resolve those issues with care and attention we don't
have to interfere
with anyone else's lives.  The rules of accounting work well
when honored and
international commerce works no matter what language.  We can
do this when no obstacles corrupt our system, made possible by
nepotism.  

Maybe we could learn a few lessons from other countries on how
to handle this?  

Maybe there is a cool country whose population is capable of
commanding a Democracy that works for its people? 
If you live in a country whose history depicts how they
accomplished this, will your people give us a hand? 
If we, as Americans, have power, we don't want to lose it.  
We need to empower those outside ourselves so we can work for
change, much like Obama has to do.
You can help, but will you? Please don't hold the core of us
responsible for what those in charge are dishing out. We have
no control over corruption until our laws are enforced.  

Thank you Spain for trying to hold us accountable.  We need
more courageous countries like yours.  No wonder my friend,
Ruben Castro Illizalituri  moved there after gaining
citizenship here in the US.   He is brave as well. He teaches
children street mime and multicultural theatre. You gotta be
brave to gain the trust and open the creativity of children in
this world today.  
IMNSHO

[AlbertCat]

49. with 19 people over 3000 lost lives in a criminal event.

I dunno... remember the Pentagon? If attacking the Pentagon isn't an act of war, what is?

Or do you believe at the Pentagon explosion there was NO PLANE! :eyes:

Perhaps all 3 attack sites should have been treated individually and differently.

Still the point is (and the WH just made it in this statement) that Iraq didn't attack us, Afghanistan didn't attack us, Pakistan didn't attack us. I wish they'd point out: Saudi Arabia.....sorta attacked us.... but Bush flew them safely back home without a question...

[earcandle]

51. Yea, how come we didn't go after the Saudi's? Even the money came from there?

[orbitalman]

26. Atta Boy ! n/t

[Guilded Lilly]

27. Coming out of the woodwork is

exactly what all cockroaches do.

And this Dick is the biggest cockroach in Washington.

[RevCheesehead]

28. Two words, dude: Sound Bites.

I don't think repukes even understand words like "bellicose."

[Sheepshank]

29. I did have to look up "bellicose"

I am comforted that I have the ability to look it up and can comprehend it's meaning in the context it was given in the WH response. I doubt RW warmongers can say the same.

[me b zola]

30. K&R!

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

31. Foreign policy is Obama's strong point.

And on this point, he is really, really strong.

So, of course, in true Rovian style, the Republicans attack him on his handling of foreign policy and in particular, the security aspect of foreign policy. We could not have a better team in this area than Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton. There are no three people anywhere who could lead our nation in this particular area as well as those three.

Sarah Palin, anyone?

Now, mind you, when it comes to domestic policy issues such as health care, the economy, Wall Street, education and a number of others, I reserve the right to criticize the Obama administration as resoundingly as it deserves. Obama's domestic policies are weak.

But when it comes to foreign policy, security and the policy aspects of the military, no one could be more effective or have better judgment than Obama.

[cbdo2007]

32. Maybe they should straight out ask Cheney why they released the guy?

[Enthusiast]

33. More cow bell and

bellicose rhetoric!

Yeah, for seven years after 9/11 our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion. And U.S. M$M has completely ignored this except on the Keith and Rachel show. So....if the goal by Deferment Dick is to discredit Obama he is doing a good job, because the media ignores any argument but the NEO-CON one.

[austin78704]

35. I hope

they make bitch-slapping liars a regular thing.

[Jester Messiah]

36. FINALLY!

"we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”)" Thank the stars somebody in power finally realized how stupid that was.

[Lasher]

41. It needed to be said in this context.

And now it's been said at last.

[creeksneakers2]

37. Great response!

I'm glad they stand up to punk hypocrites like Cheney.

[libodem]

38. My conspiracy meter

is racing. The inside of my head is like a Tom Clancy novel these days. I keep picturing a bunker next to the Cheney household in Virginia that looks like the cartoon drawings of Bin Ladins supposed underground compound in Afghanistan. I swear I can't help but believe that he retained contact with members of the CIA and he is running secret ops and his mouthiness on TV is his own private psych-ops campaign.

This is how bad it gets. He probably has stock in those body scanners just like Rumsfeld has stock in Tamaflu. He could have well groomed that Nigerian, with Zombies created at Gitmo. And how did that bomber sneak in to that remote Afghan Base and blow up CIA agents? I'll bet they were rivals to something Dickless had going on with his Blackwater contacts.

Tomorrow I go back on the meds. Tee Hee.

You know I'm only joking.

[emulatorloo]

39. kick n/t

[PatrynXX]

40. well at least the White House has a blog :) N/T

[skyounkin]

42. I unrecc'd

on purpose this time.

I'm tired of "speech" answers and verbal the dancing this administrations does with the cheney. They use words like bellicose and expect that to have an impact.

They need to use two sylable words- like LIAR. FAILURE. Not issues statements with political correct retorict like "clearly untrue claim " and call them for what it is A GODDAMN LIE!

[Festivito]

45. Patience. This is round one.

"the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim"

Cheney cannot respond to this. The return salvo could return the word liar.

Cheney's next move should be to change the subject, just a little. I hope the responses keep on coming.

Don't expect two seasoned fighters to finish a fight in one blow.

[Festivito]

43. Unbelievable, a RESPONSE! Checked link, YES! C,K&R!!

That's Checked, Kicked and Recommended.

I checked the link, read the link address, double-checked the address in the address bar. I think I might check out my phishing filter next.

A response. Will our other Dems understand this? Wow.

[goclark]

44. Ding,ding,ding K and R

You're on the mat DC and don't even know what happened to you!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

47. A fantastic response the former VP has to be shown the exit sign.

[Plucketeer]

48. Dickhead wants to alert the president that we're at war,

while Dickhead's Head dick told us all to "go shopping" and act as tho nothing were askew. Most of us did - and so Dickhead and friends feasted on our national credit card!

[newspeak]

50. the Dick has a very selective memory

I still am totally clueless why the media and the repukes keep claiming that they are the only ones to keep America safe-when they have shown the opposite. Starting a war based on lies and killing innocent civilians can only be seen as a recruiting tool for those you say you fight. 9/11 was on *'s watch and Richard Clark had warned the administration that terrorism would be their number one focus. Well, they let him go and Ashcroft went on his merry way arresting druggies (or paraphernalia like Chong's) and prostitutes. Then, as * was on one of his numerous vacations, the august PDB report comes out and who's on top of it? It seems like no one-nada, zip. And, how about those anthrax attacks? Wasn't that on *'s watch? Then, there's the bungled shoe bomber-I believe that was on his watch, too. So, who came up with the meme the repukes make us safer? Do they think by torturing people, that we are safer or if they start enough wars with other countries, we'll be safer? I am just trying to understand this magnificent logic of the truly demented.