CIA chief believes Cheney almost wants US attacked

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CIA chief believes Cheney almost wants US attacked

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:10:46 PM EDT

Yes Im sure this is exactly what Cheney wants. You know him being evil and all

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14131333

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."

Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding, has become as a leading Republican critic of Obama's ban on harsh interrogations and his plan to shut the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a blistering May 21 speech, Cheney said Obama's reversal of Bush-era policies were "unwise in the extreme" that would make the American people less safe.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:13:05 PM EDT

[#1]

Well, that's his opinion. Cheney put this country's safety ahead of everything after 9/11, and is unrepentant about what he did and doesn't give a damn how upset it made the liberals or what the consequences were to his reputation and popularity. That all took a back seat to the nation's interest, and that's why he's a statesman. It's absurd to think he longs for a terrorist attack to occur and see Americans killed so he can score a point against the liberals and media, considering his past indifference to their objections. He doesn't need their validation, he knows what he did is right and doesn't need external approval from people whose opinions he doesn't care about anyway. He cares about us and our security.

Cheney spoke up because he saw Obama moving to put the country in jeopardy and lower its defenses to a threat that has not disappeared. At first the liberals were delighted because Cheney is unpopular, and so the more he's visible the more people remember Bush and that supposedly hurts the GOP. But the more he spoke, the more he made sense and Obama's policies looked foolish, the media changed their tune and told Cheney to shut up and go away

Obama's still blundering away with terror suspects, he doesn't know what he's doing. Libs can criticize all day long about how imperfect the world is, but they don't have any solutions that actually work.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:14:31 PM EDT

[#2]

Obama cannot nominate anyone who isn't a foaming at the mouth anti-Bush/Cheney nutjob apparently. Funny I don't remember the Bush CIA director regularly making political statements about the previous administration, I guess he was just too busy with something else...what could it be?

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:15:00 PM EDT

[#3]

Panetta is a career politician hack patronage douchebag who should shut his cockholster unless he has something useful to say, and then he should damned well not be saying it to fucking newspaper reporters.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:15:51 PM EDT

[#4]

libtard

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:16:06 PM EDT

[#5]

Que?

Because something happening would justify Cheneys position on the issue of torture, it's automatic that he'd want that to happen–– dispite his stance being what it was to prevent any attacks they could.. ?

Who's playing politics with Americas saftey again?

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:16:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Panetta is a career politician hack patronage douchebag who should shut his cockholster unless he has something useful to say, and then he should damned well not be saying it to fucking newspaper reporters.

That about covers it.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:17:40 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Que?

Because something happening would justify Cheneys position on the issue of torture, it's automatic that he'd want that to happen–– dispite his stance being what it was to prevent any attacks they could.. ?

Who's playing politics with Americas saftey again?

Are you saying that you agree with Panetta? Your post makes my head go

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:18:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Jesus GHOD...We have Leon F'n Panetta as head of the CI FUCKIN' A.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:20:20 PM EDT

[#9]

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:26:40 PM EDT

[#10]

Just another liberal trying to put words in Cheney's mouth.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:27:51 PM EDT

[#11]

No, he's saying that Leon Panetta is making the assumption that cheney wants the US to be attacked, because it would prove him correct. But saying that it's crazy to think that. Also suggesting that the Obama Administration is playing polotics with our safety with their new non-interrogation measures. If I understand him correctly.

I hate how people can say stuff like this, and get away with it- because they are on the O team. Suggesting that Cheney wants americans to die to make himself look smarter- that is just ridiculous.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:28:53 PM EDT

[#12]

Funny, Democrats were critical of Bush's policies for eight years; were they hoping for a terrorist attack then?

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:29:20 PM EDT

[#13]

dont worry, its not going to fool the people WITH a brain.

the liberals might read into it though.

if there was an attack on U.S. soil, and i hope there isnt, youll see me on channel 4, 5, 9, 11 screaming its all Obamas fault

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:30:38 PM EDT

[#14]

So When it happens they can Blame him..

Cheneys fault

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:31:01 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
.

i totally get your point so dont take this the wrong way

i think democrats would LOVE if the U.S. were attacked so their media outlets would say "this is what republicans asked for" so they can play more politics.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:32:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Panetta never was all that bright. He's a professional political hack.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:34:54 PM EDT

[#17]

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:35:28 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
No, he's saying that Leon Panetta is making the assumption that cheney wants the US to be attacked, because it would prove him correct. But saying that it's crazy to think that. Also suggesting that the Obama Administration is playing polotics with our safety with their new non-interrogation measures. If I understand him correctly.

I hate how people can say stuff like this, and get away with it- because they are on the O team. Suggesting that Cheney wants americans to die to make himself look smarter- that is just ridiculous.

Exactly what I meant... Sorry if my first post wasn't very clear, sarcasm and disjointed wording don't translate well over the internet..

I just think it's ridiculous that was Panetta's immediate assumption of Cheny's wishes, from the criticism given...

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:36:06 PM EDT

[#19]

What a dumb ass.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:40:33 PM EDT

[#20]

If there was a bright spot in the Bush Administation it was Cheney, time will prove him correct.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:52:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Yes Im sure this is exactly what Cheney wants. You know him being evil and all

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14131333

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."

Cheney, who was a key advocate in the Bush administration of controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding, has become as a leading Republican critic of Obama's ban on harsh interrogations and his plan to shut the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a blistering May 21 speech, Cheney said Obama's reversal of Bush-era policies were "unwise in the extreme" that would make the American people less safe.

Cheney is evil! He wants to country to be harmed for his political benefit, because if the terrorists attack on their watch he can blame the democrats!

Emanuel is evil! He wants the country to be harmed for his political benefit, because if the economy goes to hell on their watch he can blame the republicans!

Same exact shit.

Dick Cheney is by leaps and bounds my favorite politician.

Posted: 6/14/2009 7:58:21 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Funny, Democrats were critical of Bush's policies for eight years; were they hoping for a terrorist attack then?

No, but they did want us to lose in Iraq because it would politically damage the President. They weren't really concerned with any trauma or national security consequences it would have for the nation. They probably thought losing this war would prevent future conflicts, when the opposite would have been the case. The Liberals have a tendency to project their own repellent impulses and motives onto Republicans. They think the other party is as amoral, unprincipled and cynical as them.

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:06:21 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
If there was a bright spot in the Bush Administation it was Cheney, time will prove him correct.

Too bad Bush and his Administration muzzled him. I remember Cheney pointing at some map of Iraq during the first Gulf War and saying something like "we find them, then we kill them". He had that cool sneer and everything. Cheney unleashed IS NOT somebody you want to fuck with.

In some ways, I think the only thing that will wake up the Oprah, American Idol-watching, lazy-assed narcissists IS another attack. Bush fucked up because he failed to take advantage of the state of the American people right after 9-11. People wanted to nuke the bastards, but he fucked around and pissed away the chance to bomb those assholes back to the 12th Century. Given the attention span of the American people, a month later and they're back to watching Springer, and didn't want to see the planes hitting the towers any more because it was "too painful". FUCK THAT. That footage shound be shown every day during prime-time.

Cheney never lost the edge, but people just didn't want to hear it. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost because the bad-ass rooster is gone.

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:08:04 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
.

i totally get your point so dont take this the wrong way

i think democrats would LOVE if the U.S. were attacked so their media outlets would say "this is what republicans asked for" so they can play more politics.

I see you live in MN

I wondered why you chose all the news networks here

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:15:02 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If there was a bright spot in the Bush Administation it was Cheney, time will prove him correct.

Too bad Bush and his Administration muzzled him. I remember Cheney pointing at some map of Iraq during the first Gulf War and saying something like "we find them, then we kill them". He had that cool sneer and everything. Cheney unleashed IS NOT somebody you want to fuck with.

In some ways, I think the only thing that will wake up the Oprah, American Idol-watching, lazy-assed narcissists IS another attack. Bush fucked up because he failed to take advantage of the state of the American people right after 9-11. People wanted to nuke the bastards, but he fucked around and pissed away the chance to bomb those assholes back to the 12th Century. Given the attention span of the American people, a month later and they're back to watching Springer, and didn't want to see the planes hitting the towers any more because it was "too painful". FUCK THAT. That footage shound be shown every day during prime-time.

Cheney never lost the edge, but people just didn't want to hear it. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost because the bad-ass rooster is gone.

bro, you put up a good speech. i have nothing to argue against it.

that said, when the chickens come home to roost, the revenge factor will last about 4 days before its back to abercrombie and fitch shopping.

i knew a old lady back during 9/11 whos husband joined the service 12/8/41 and IIRC she never saw him again. rest his sole, but thats what we need in this country, not people being paid to protest against it.

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:27:51 PM EDT

[#26]

Dick Cheney is, hands down, the best guy to lead the U.S.

No one is even close.

HH

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:29:30 PM EDT

[#27]

Panetta? Give me a fucking break that guy has ZERO experience in that field and has no business being in that position.

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:32:40 PM EDT

[#28]

Panetta has been a left wing hack well before his days in the Clinton administration.

The Left is still fixated on, and obsessed with, Cheney.

On the other hand, it would allow us to take off the gloves . . .

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:34:58 PM EDT

[#29]

Fuck Panetta!

Posted: 6/14/2009 8:35:38 PM EDT

[#30]

Next thing you know it will be Cheney planning and leading the assault.

Posted: 6/14/2009 9:06:09 PM EDT

[#31]

Uh, not to be the bearer of bad news, but we already were attacked under Obama....

Last week a radical Muslim extremist attacked a US Military installation (yes, a recruiting station is a military installation) and shot 2 soldiers, killing 1. The FBI believes he had a list of other attacks planned. It's easy to forget, after all the media and the President were so busy expressing outrage at the murder of an abortion doctor that the death of an American soldier barely rated notice.

Ellis Henican, a liberal reporter and Fox News contributor, defended the liberal media's lack of interest in the murder of an American soldier by claiming that his death wasn't as "morally relevant" as the death of an abortion doctor.......OK, let's put this in perspective.............Dr. Tiller performed thousands of abortions, but not just any old abortions, he specialized in "late term abortions". A late term abortion is one which is performed on a child that has developed enough to survive outside the womb.... If it can survive outside the womb it's a baby, not a fetus. Henican claimed the murder of a man who's responsible for the death of thousands of helpless babies (and I'm not defending Tiller's murder, but don't feel much compassion for him either) is far more "morally relevant" than the murder of a young man serving his country.

I'm not surprised, Henican recently defended Obama's authorization to bomb Pakistani villages, killing women and children, as a "moral hazard" and then expressed outrage at the thought of pouring water on the face of a terrorist to save American lives. I guess it's only OK if it's done by a Democrat.....

Posted: 6/14/2009 9:09:25 PM EDT

[#32]

Wait, what? Panetta is the head of the CIA now?

Fuck me.

Posted: 6/14/2009 10:16:00 PM EDT

[#33]

That's a smart-"ass" way to blame the next possible terrorist attack on the Bush.

Posted: 6/14/2009 10:41:00 PM EDT

[#34]

"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.

Interesting slip by Panetta that seems to imply weakness in his own administration's policies...

Posted: 6/15/2009 1:17:51 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Well, that's his opinion. Cheney put this country's safety ahead of everything after 9/11, and is unrepentant about what he did and doesn't give a damn how upset it made the liberals or what the consequences were to his reputation and popularity. That all took a back seat to the nation's interest, and that's why he's a statesman. It's absurd to think he longs for a terrorist attack to occur and see Americans killed so he can score a point against the liberals and media, considering his past indifference to their objections. He doesn't need their validation, he knows what he did is right and doesn't need external approval from people whose opinions he doesn't care about anyway. He cares about us and our security.

Cheney spoke up because he saw Obama moving to put the country in jeopardy and lower its defenses to a threat that has not disappeared. At first the liberals were delighted because Cheney is unpopular, and so the more he's visible the more people remember Bush and that supposedly hurts the GOP. But the more he spoke, the more he made sense and Obama's policies looked foolish, the media changed their tune and told Cheney to shut up and go away

Obama's still blundering away with terror suspects, he doesn't know what he's doing. Libs can criticize all day long about how imperfect the world is, but they don't have any solutions that actually work.

Posted: 6/15/2009 2:47:45 AM EDT

[#36]

Leon Panetta is a an embarassing hack, Cheney is going to hammer him for saying this.

Posted: 6/15/2009 3:03:23 AM EDT

[#37]

"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."

This was said by the Director of the CIA?

Un-fucking believable!

ASSCLOWN

Posted: 6/15/2009 3:06:38 AM EDT

[#38]

Once again the Obama administration blames others for it's shortcomings.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CIA chief believes Cheney almost wants US attacked

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us