Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Now, a Cheney surge: Blasts Obama for Afghan 'dithering,' delays and indecision

Cheneyhandsoutap

With public support for the Afghan conflict melting and approval of the president's job as commander in chief waning, two top Barack Obama aides -- senior advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- went on the TV talk shows Sunday and used very similar words to explain their latest lengthy policy review as the fault of the long-gone Bush administration ignoring the needs of Afghanistan for years.

Tonight, as first reported by Fox News "Special Report," former Vice President Dick Cheney fires back in a candid, even blunt, retort:

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission....

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy endangers them and hurts our cause.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

Cheney's criticism of the succeeding Democratic administration is not new. However, he reveals tonight that the outgoing Bush administration handed a complete Afghan policy review to the Obama transition team, which asked the Republicans not to release it. The Bush team agreed and its recommendations formed much of the basis of Obama's announcement in March. But now Axelrod and Emanuel are stating that those review questions had not been asked for eight years.

Cheney also repeated tonight some familiar charges: that the Obama policies of pursuing intelligence interrogators -- Cheney called it "hounding" -- risk allowing future attacks on ...

... the homeland. Cheney maintains new 9/11's possibly killing thousands more Americans were prevented by tough, aggressive policies that have kept terrorists on the defensive.

Cheney also asserts:

You would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

As usual on The Ticket, here is the complete text of the vice president's prepared remarks.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Also, as usual, click here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot  And we now have our face on Facebook too.

Prepared remarks by former Vice President Dick Cheney to the Center for Security Policy, courtesy of Fox News "Special Report"

Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors.

You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic.

Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century.

Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered.

These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better.The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic.

Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors.

The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Former President Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan.

These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team.

They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11.

When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts.

It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means.

We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail.

We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame. Thank you very much.    ###

Photo: Associated Press
 
Comments () | Archives (24)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Boy, isn't THAT calling the kettle black...

[CHENEY:Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding.]

This is a lie. KSH began talking as soon as he was captured and revealed many important facts according to CIA reports. More here:

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2009/08/cheney-ksm-and-torture.html

My God, what a tool. For eight years, Cheney and his puppet Bush did nothing *but* dither in Afghanistan, while tens of thousands of lives were ruined or destroyed, and while hundreds of billions of dollars were squandered, as he played out his obsessions in Iraq. Cheney may have some arguable points about other aspects of Obama's security policy -- I disagree with them, but his arguments on torture at least aren't trivial carping. But in Afghanistan, the Cheney-Bush record is one of absolute failure and total misunderstanding of history, strategy, tactics, or America's actual interests. Here, at least, Cheney should keep his pie hole shut.

Cheney is typical of all draft dodgers wanting to send other people's children, usually very poor, to war. Reminds me of another draft dodger: george w. bush.

Cheney says, "Make no mistake..."? Hmmmm

Why can't Chaney join his fellow right wing nutters, go buy lots of guns and ammunition, canned goods, water filtration devises and hide in a cave somewhere? It was his kind of shoot first (friends included) and ask questions later that got us into the mess we already have in Afganistan/Iraq. Let obama figure out the best plan before messing it all up again.

Where to begin? It is either a Grand Bait, Grander Chutzpah, or The Grandest of Delusions and Disingenuity.

Dithering? How about 7 years of dithering on Afghanistan while Cheney et al chased the wrong villains. I'm sorry, but Bush/Cheney were the ditherers on health care, the economy, and most certainly on foreign affairs and national security. Shame!

Yes, deliberate thought and reflection is a bad thing. Much better to rush in without a plan and let corporations feed at the trough while our sons and daughters are cut down in the streets.

Dick Cheney is a bitter and sick old man who, along with his close friends Scooter Libby, Rumsfeld and Rove, was responsible for the worst 8 years America and the rest of the world has ever known - now that he wields no more power, he is reduced to sniping at those who do have power from the sidelines. All I can say is thank God he's out of the White House. I've recently returned from a European trip and, without exception, everyone I spoke to, young, old, conservative, liberal, congratulated me on having at last removed this pestilential crew from power, specifically mentioning Cheney by name. He is a blot on our reputation, and is clearly a vicious, angry, vengeful and bitter warmonger who deserves to sink quietly into oblivion. And, clearly, he is furious at having no automatic podium from which to spew his vitriol. RIP, Dick - your day is done.

Cheney is far from perfect but he certainly seems more coherent and competent than current administration spokespersons.

Stone to Cheney: Stop slithering!

One of the best speeches I have ever heard, from a brilliant mind of our day.
President Obama would do well to heed the warning. The American people will be the losers if he does not.

Its unfortunate that everytime Cheney utters some vile deprecation, there is no one in the press to respond to the pathological nature of this sociopath. Much like the terrorists that he pretends to hate, his psychopathology is well documented, and indeed well ingrained. It is further unfortunate that his evil motivations seem to pass for what is assumed to be 'merican macho politics'. This somewhat passive syndrome on the part of the body politic, suggests that the disturbed Cheney merely represents, for a certain segment of our otherwise great and good population, an underlying national theme of greed, ethnic superiority and unChristian spirituality.

Would that Bush/Cheney had "dithered" a moment or so before plunging us into disaster.

1."Dithering"? Just one more attempt by the Right via Cheney to throw anything that they can at Obama to see what sticks. If Obama had acted in whatever time period Mr. Cheney doesn't consider "dithering", not doubt he would have called Obama "impulsive.

2. "In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives." Proof, Mr. Vice-President?

Its unfortunate that Dick Cheney never is described by the press for the sociopathology that he represents. Indeed, it seems that he is pleasantly described as a 'right-wing' politician, as if all conservative politicians were sociopaths. Sociopathology is represented in vernacular terms by references to evil. He is at least as evil as those terrorists that he pretends to hate. What Cheney really hates is people in general; what he really loves is himself. A man devoted to personal greed and the financial agrandizment of his cronies, he has few Christian graces, and fewer still genuine human qualities.

Well, Cheney and Rummy and the Bush Gang are not qualified to tell anyone how to conduct foreign policy, much less how to successfully occupy and subdue a foreign nation. The disaster Obama faces in Afghanistan was created by the Bush, Cheney and Rummy's disastrous "policies", and the current President finds himself eight years 'behind the eight ball', because of the stupidity of Cheney et al. Hubris was certainly their down fall and - as indicated by Cheney's most recent remarks - continues to be their prevailing characteristic, but Thank God not this nation's. Go, Mr Cheney; slither under the rock from which you came. Thank God, you are no longer at the helm.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Jr. are all guilty of war crimes for their actions in Iraq. Cheney, in particular, for his role as the main architect in the unwarrented invasion of a sovereign nation should be tried by an international tribunal. His hubris in even commenting on foreign policy at this point is beyond comprehension. He should be hiding in South America instead of blathering on about policy. Please, sir, slither back under the rock of history and stop disgracing our nation.

Will someone let THE SHOOTER [Cheney ] know his advise isn't needed. He has done enough to harm this country and our fighting men and women already. If he wants attention, go on another hunting trip and take that big-mouth daughter [liz] with him this time.

Cheney needs a hobby to occupy him in his dotage. Maybe he could volunteer at his local animal shelter killing puppies and kittens.

tell Cheney to go back to Wyoming. He is all hot air and only trying to undercut what this administration is trying to clean up from the mistakes he and Bush
did for the LONGEST time they were in there.

it is amazing that anyone is still listening to buckshot dick ramble on about afghanistan or any thing else.wasn,t it his or g.w. bush,s administration that put afghanistan on hold for the iraq misadventure?!keep hawking war dick,in fact since your so passionate about neocon military agendas why don,t you [yourself] put on some desert cammies, grab a rifle and a pack,get on a plane and take your daughter liz with you and go fight the wars you seem hellbent on perpetuating.but of course you,ll never actually do that will you?!! no....hell no..you,ll just keep hawking wars other people,s kids can die and or get maimed in. one question mr cheney did darling daughter lizzy ever serve in the military?? perhaps mr.obama, whom i believe is a decent and intellegent and deep thinking president is actually weighing the costs and consequences of sending more troops into what could be or what is an endless quagmire.i would rather have mr.obama in the white house than dick cheney any day of the week or year.

Ron Reagan thinks Dick Cheney would do very well to keep his mouth shut
By Ron Reagan
• Cheney: Stop 'Dithering' In Afghanistan
• Dick Cheney Is Same Old Dick Cheney: Wrong For America

Former vice president and unindicted war criminal Dick Cheney is at it again. Last night, in a speech before a friendly audience at the right wing Center for Security Policy, Cheney once again lashed out at the current White House while strenuously pretending that the last eight years never really happened. He accused the Obama administration of “dithering” on the subject of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Mr. Cheney’s concern for the safety and well-being of American troops in Afghanistan would be far more touching had he not been so instrumental in sending them into harm’s way in the first place (before losing interest as he pursued his unnecessary war of choice in Iraq).

Dithering? Is he suggesting that we’ve been bogged down in “the graveyard of empires” for eight years in what our own generals have described as a rapidly deteriorating situation because he and his boy-boss George W. Bush acted decisively?

This is the man who, in the immediate wake of the 9-11 attacks, began pushing for an invasion of Iraq, despite certain knowledge that Saddam Hussien was not even remotely involved. This is the man who, when a small American force had cornered Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, concurred that sending reinforcements in to finish the job would be unwise, thus allowing Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan where al-Qaeda still enjoys sanctuary. This is the man who, in a despicable act of moral turpitude and abject cowardice, then overturned more than two centuries of proud anti-torture policy in America, emboldening our enemies and humiliating our nation before the civilized world. But while George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are probably spinning in their graves, Dick Cheney seems more intent on covering his sorry behind in an effort to avoid providing testimony under oath.

Dick Cheney knows full well who we ought to be pursuing with zeal, and I suspect it terrifies him.

Politics over security? Would that be anything like ideology over truth? Private profit over patriotism? Hidden agendas over the precious lives of young American men and women who are willing to put service to country above personal safety–something that Dick Cheney never had the guts to do in the days when he had “other priorities”?
Dick Cheney is a nose-blowing incompetent. When faced with the most important decisions any elected leader will confront–whether to send American citizens to war–he got it wrong. Each and every time… Saddam was connected to the 9-11 plot? No, he wasn’t. Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction? No, he wasn’t. He had an ongoing nuclear weapons program? No, he didn’t. Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States? Not a chance. The invasion of Iraq would be a cakewalk? Then why don’t you lead the parade, Dick? We’ll be greeted as liberators with showers of rose petals? Please! The litany of errors would be comical if they didn’t reflect such a tragic cost in blood and treasure.

But the tragedy is compounded by the near-certainty–buttressed by solid investigative reporting and the accounts of former administration officials in a position to know–that Cheney’s blunders–and those of the Bush administration in general as it marched hell-bent to war–were not just errors of judgement, they were actions motivated by lies. The intelligence books were cooked. The public was misled. Members of Congress with constitutional responsibilities were kept in the dark—all in the service of an agenda that remains murky to this day.

The legacy of the Bush White House--the legacy of Dick Cheney--is one of incompetance, dishonesty, cowardice and failure. Mere dithering would have been a considerable improvement, and he now presumes to lecture President Obama, a guy who was elected in large part to clean up Cheney’s mess?

Dick Cheney, of course, has the right to say what he pleases. We can all hope that one fine day he gets an opportunity to do so in court, under oath. Until then, he would be doing himself and our country a favor if he’d learn to keep his mouth shut.

Cheney for President!


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: