About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Politico hypes Cheney attack on Obama's response to plane plot; doesn't mention plotters released by Cheney administration

December 30, 2009 9:19 am ET by Jamison Foser

If you were typing up Dick Cheney's attack on Barack Obama's response to the Christmas Day attack in which someone tried to blow up a plane bound for Detroit, and hyping the GOP "strategy for next year's midterm congressional elections" of "portray[ing] Democrats as weak on security," would you maybe include mention of the fact that two of the four people who allegedly plotted that attack were released from U.W. custody in 2007, while Dick Cheney was Vice President?

Oh, you would, would you?  Well, that's the difference between you and Mike Allen.  Because Politico really is just a GOP bulletin board.

UPDATE: And just to be clear, Allen didn't get an interview with Cheney.  No, he describes the source of Cheney's attacks as "Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO" -- which is a fancy way of saying "Cheney said in a press release."  So to sum up: Dick Cheney sends Mike Allen a press release, which Mike Allen then copies-and-pastes it into a "news article" without mentioning key facts that would undermine Cheney's press release.  Aren't you glad Politico got a spot on the Pulitzer committee?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:23 am ET)
      5  
      Yea, but Cheney was against releasing them. He wanted to torture them indefinitely. In fact, he thought we should have rounded up MORE suspects and tortured them, too.

      Hell, Cheney even wanted to torture Colin Powell because he doubted his patriotism.

      It's all Obama's fault...! ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:29 am ET)
        5  
        P.S. Cheney once tortured his daughter when he caught her reading Time magazine.

        And, of course, his wife LOVES to be tortured. I think she's writing a novel with that theme.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (December 30, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
          3  
          And, of course, his wife LOVES to be tortured.

          which is the reason she married him in the first place?

          /snark
          Report Abuse
        • Author by dwieboldt@gmail.com (December 30, 2009 11:27 pm ET)
             
          It's not a novel. It's a pot-boiler (sorry for the old school reference)!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (December 30, 2009 9:37 am ET)
      5  
      No worries. I'm sure Sean Hannity will soon be complaining about how the administration was given the terrorist masterminds on a silver platter and turned them down...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:40 am ET)
        3  
        Yea...in fact, I heard the terrorist masterminds even attended a state dinner at the White House.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 30, 2009 9:43 am ET)
      5  
      I am curious. Weren't the security breaches in the Netherlands? The flight was from Amsterdam to Detroit, so wouldn't the burden of supplying security lay on the Dutch, not the Obama administration?
      --------------------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:45 am ET)
        3  
        Let's torture the Dutch and find out...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (December 30, 2009 9:59 am ET)
        8  
        Wooden Shoe Bombers?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 10:01 am ET)
        4  
        You go through Federal Government security protocols when boarding international flights entering the United States. U.S. Customs, Homeland Security, DEA regulations, etcetra are in place in most foreign airports servicing flights into our country.

        In a world of international flights, the rule is you police your own.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 10:08 am ET)
          4  
          So, in other words, what you are saying is that we need to start off by torturing our own people first... ;>)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 30, 2009 11:07 am ET)
          3  
          International cities have been told - either you police the flights that come into our nation in a way that WE, the USA, find acceptable, or you let US handle the security roadblocks, OR you can't fly into the USA.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (December 30, 2009 9:45 am ET)
      1  
      That's a fair point raised by Foser.

      While I favor military tribunals to determine the status of Gitmo detainees...the lack of action by military tribunals has always been puzzling to me.

      What the heck is the hold up?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        5  
        Torture takes a long time...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (December 30, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
        3  
        I read recently that if terrorists are tried in military tribunals, it classifies them as members of a military organization, which they are not, therefore, they are usually tried in civilian courts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 30, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
          3  
          Cugag, that's what I find so funny about one of the recent popular right wing themes. The trying of suspected terrorists as civilians is constantly portrayed as "weak on security", or not taking the threat seriously. I would think that if they're classified as members of a military engaged in war, they would have a lot more leeway in attacks on U.S. and other forces, as opposed to if they were considered civilians.

          But I guess the target audience for Cheney's opinions aren't supposed to think about things like that.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 31, 2009 2:02 am ET)
        1  
        You would think that these terrorists must be way out of the loop by now. Any information we will get must be outdated and probably not as applicable as when they first arrived...
        ---------------------------------------------
        The Midnight Review
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 9:49 am ET)
      5  
      "WAR" Scorecard:

      Dick Cheney... (emphasis added)

      As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war.


      He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, 'war on terror,' we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.

      - Ten total sentences.
      - Ten uses of the word "war."
      - Eight sentences ending in "war."

      I am starting to think that Cheney is convinced we are, "at war."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 9:59 am ET)
        6  
        War is the neocon default position...always.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (December 30, 2009 10:05 am ET)
        4  
        I feel the proper way for him to support this WAR, involves a football helmet, a Mk1 Springfield, and a high altitude parachute drop into Iran.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 10:11 am ET)
          5  
          I think the problem Dick Cheney has with our President is revealed in the beggining of most of his senctences when he says...
          He seems to think...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 10:13 am ET)
            3  
            beginning... of course.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by SMTDL (December 30, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
            2  
            Cheney like most conservatives (esp Fox pundits) act as if they can actually read minds..they always are saying he/she seems to think/be saying,what this really means is,what is actually happening is,etc.etc..They should say my opinion is thus based on this( which should be facts to support the opinion).What pases for fact based opinion these days is telling some people what they want to hear or to attack who they want to see attacked....in other words You are credible because you agree with me...No questions for Cheney about response from Bush to Shoe Bomber or Rumsfeld saying it was a police matter.This President certainly knows we are at war because he is trying to really pay for it,is letting the American people see the caskets of fallen soldiers and took time to actually develop an exit strategy before escalating a war!!Dick Cheny may still be tried one day as he a war criminal..maybe he'll see that as vindication that he always knew we were at WAR!!!!
            Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (December 30, 2009 10:12 am ET)
          3  
          I guess Cheney could just buy a waterboard when he got there...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (December 30, 2009 11:07 am ET)
        5  
        I'm pretty sure the Prez knows we're at war since he just recently authorized sending more troops to Afghanistan. But the war Cheney is talking about doesn't exist. It never existed. it was just a marketing slogan for Halliburton and Blackwater. Treating terrorism as a war has failed miserably and it's about time the neo-cons admitted that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 11:49 am ET)
          5  
          Scary when you think about it... trying to escelate a war we should be ending, while justifying the ending of another war that should never have happened, while fighting an altogether different and invisible war, all based on the presumptions of a war by a group of people who were never elected to represent those who were ordered to war.

          /shudder
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 30, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
          4  
          Treating terrorism as a war we can WIN and declare VICTORY in will always fail miserably.

          Terrorism has always been with us.

          What started WW I? Terrorism. What happened in the Munich Olympic Games? Terrorism. What was it when Sarin Gas was let loose in Japan? Terrorism. What was it when the Federal Building was blown up in OKC? Terrorism!

          We can't stop all terrorism via military methods. We can stymie many efforts. We can calm some breeding grounds. We can get the cooperation of other nations to monitor and capture dangerous men. But we can't carpet bomb areas!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
            3  
            Playing the devil's advocate, if I wanted to bring a country to its knees, financially break them, and destroy the reputations with other Nations around the world... what would I do?

            For the price of a few box cutters, some plane tickets, accomidations, and a pilot simulator training, a small group of men managed to accomplish their very real goals.

            An event that will instill a sense of fear in the American people that is so deep that they will agree to anything if it satiates their bloodlust. They will spend themselves into oblivion chasing after ghosts and apparitions that threaten to come after them in the night. They will spare no expese in their own defense even if it means borrowing money from the former enemies. They will act without regard for themselves while believing that the massive debt they will accumulate has somehow saved themselves from certain peril.

            They will risk inernational condemnation on everything from invasions to detentions of those they would consider their enemies. Their fear will know no bounds.

            And when the money is gone, and their own social servie programs have no funding, and their infrastructure is decaying, and the people are spent on the toll of American lives being lost, they will ask themselves, "how did we get here?" They will blame the politicians, and their leaders, and the enemies within their own system. They will blame everyone else without blaming themselves and in the end... they will turn on one another.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RKAllen (December 30, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
              2  
              P.S. Imagine if we had all just gone to ground zero like the Who's did down in WhoVille.

              [http://somehavehats.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c064d53ef01157015c5df970b-320wi]
              Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (December 30, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
              2  
              I don't think the terrorists plans would have worked to their advantage if someone like Bush hadn't been in office.

              Bush didn't like the UN. Bush didn't staff the position that helped with diplomatic efforts around the world for much of his presidency, and then he finally gave the role to an ineffective Karen Hughes!

              It was certainly a perfect storm. Bush couldn't hardly have done a worse job and he did tremendous damage to our reputation and our foreign policy infrastructure.

              Thanks for the discussion!
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Midnight Kevin (December 31, 2009 2:03 am ET)
        1  
        Maybe he is fighting back at the deletion of the "war of terrorism" from the Republican penned political lexicon. I liked the White House's response stating that we are not at war with a tactic, but with al-Qaida...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (December 30, 2009 11:10 am ET)
      3  
      When this reaches the MSM they will still fail to mention that Bush/Cheney released these guys just like they always failed to mention who released the former detainees the right claimed had returned to battle when Obama started talking about closing Gitmo.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (December 30, 2009 11:16 am ET)
      3  
      Another example of a journalist acting like a transcriptionist instead of a journalist.

      There's no problem with a journalist reacting to a press release by writing a story about it. The problem appears when they don't do the research necessary or inform their readers of OTHER aspects of the story that the press release might have either glossed over, deceptively portrayed, or lied about.

      This are the same flaws that FoxNews displays all the time - they omit, they distort, or they outright lie.

      The flawed approach to fighting terrorism was the Bush/Cheney way.

      They're the ones who blew the goodwill we had around the world after 9/11, a time and an attitude shift that we should have exploited to our advantage to gain footholds in countries to help tamp down terrorist breeding grounds.

      They're the ones who changed it into a global war, fought with our military, when virtually all of our successes have either been through covert methods or through police actions. The war in Afghanistan? Necessary because the leadership of that country was complicit with Al Qaeda. The Global War on Terror? A bad idea that clearly failed.

      But do journalists mention these failures in leadership and insight? Nope. Do they mention that Bush and company failed to take terrorism seriously until 9/11 happened? Nope. They should, but they don't.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JoshSN (December 30, 2009 11:32 am ET)
      3 1
      Cheney is one of those molly-coddling liberals.

      The real way to end, forever, the threat of foreigners attacking America is two-fold:

      Kill everyone who isn't American

      and, or

      Conquer every land that isn't America, and make it a part of America.

      End of Problem.

      You can thank me later.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by allisoncheney8353 (December 31, 2009 10:59 pm ET)
         
      I don't know who is more infuriating, the people at The Politico, or Dick Cheney! I guess for me, it is Dick Cheney because, even though I am in no way related to this man, I do have the same last name. And believe me, it is frustrating to have everyone think I am related to him. What I find interesting is that when he was the vp, no one could get him to give an interview--now he can't shut up--at least people can now realize why our now very capable Vice-President, Joe Biden called Cheney thee most dangerous vice-president our country has ever had. At least former President Bush knows when to keep his mouth shut, and I thought that when America is attacked, we are suppose to put politics aside and stand by the President--we gave Bush a long time after 9/11 before we criticized him-don't we owe President Obama that same coutesy? What happened to patriotism, support, and above all, civility in this country?!
      Report Abuse