Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Dick Cheney ?

Following Dick Cheney's warning on Wednesday (4 Feb 2009) that there is a
  • “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and [that] he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.
BuzzFlash & Elliot D. Cohen, PhD, a political analyst, offer:
  • Dick Cheney’s recent warning of a future “9-11 type” terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland was quickly dismissed by some mainstream media pundits [Keith Olbermann had a Special Comment.] as just another benign and misguided attempt by the former Vice President to frighten us. But perhaps he should be taken more seriously.
  • What facts, if any, about an impending attack did Bush and Cheney know prior to 9-11? Were these attacks merely a convenient excuse to invade Iraq or was there some even more ominous connection? What stake does Cheney now have for trying to frightening the Obama administration into carrying out the mandates of the Bush administration? Merely assuming that Cheney is now just trying to save face is not sufficient and even appears to be inconsistent with his persistent, blatant disregard for the public’s perception of him. [Emphasis mine.] The media, no less than the Obama administration itself, should be investigating these matters instead of making assumptions.
  • By simply dismissing Cheney as misguided rather than dangerous, the media fails to do its job. Cheney was more than just wrong when he waged a bloody war against Iraq based on phony intelligence. He was not just wrong when he sponsored rendition, torture, and deprivation of due process. He was most probably responsible for outing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in an effort to punish her husband for exposing his fraudulent claim about Saddam Hussein’s attempt to purchase uranium yellowcake. These and other aggressive acts suggest that Cheney may be willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
  • A wake up call from the annals of history is also in order. Cheney was the principle in the formulation of the military strategy that came to be called “The Bush Doctrine.” Stripping away all pretence, this doctrine advocates attacking sovereign nations for purposes of amassing geopolitical power. It is Machiavellian to the core and Cheney’s “Project for the New American Century” even countenanced a “new Pearl Harbor” as a catalyst for taking America into the “New American Century.”
Much as we would like to dismiss Cheney as part of a bad, eight year nightmare, perhaps we do need to think about why he said the things he said.

Did he hide something -- some intelligence briefing perhaps -- from the incoming Obama administration? Could he really be that convoluted? That evil? That dangerous? That willing to do whatever it takes to get what he wants?

Oh, yes, my gentle snowflakes, oh, yes.

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.