Vice President Biden Says About Cheney’s Criticism — ‘Who Cares What–-’ — Then Stops Himself

I love loquacious Joe!! He reminds me so much of my uncle– very smart and lovable, but talks too much and once in a while, he just can’t help it, he sticks his foot in his mouth. LOL. But, “Who cares” is exactly right even if he had to temper it. I also agree with the other things he said.
Meanwhile, Joe’s old friend Chuck Hagel has some interesting things to say about his former colleagues. From The Hill’s blog briefing room:
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) chided some of his former colleagues who have suggested that halting healthcare reform would be politically beneficial to the GOP.
“As some Republican senators have said publicly — that if we kill Obama on this, and we destroy this, and we defeat his, that will drive a stake through his political heart on this administration,” the former senator, who retired at the end of his term in January, added. “I just find that about as irresponsible of a thing as I can think of.”

but we do care as cheeny has more on the ball thn these guys do.dither dither dither.obama seems to be a nice man but attacking everyone who disagrees with him is unreal. free speac is what this country is about.

I love left-wingers. They can be so openly irrational and self-contradictory, and still maintain their impenetrable aura of smugness.
Obama didn’t meet with his general in Afghanistan for 8 months, excepting one quick brush-meeting. In the face of criticism he met with him for a few minutes on the way back from his rock-star Olympics bid.
This is the guy who joined the Democrat chorus of “Afghanistan is the good war, and we’re ignoring it!”, even though the Afghan war was running very well under Bush (very low casualties, Taliban defeated and pushed out, Democratic republic being built). Afghanistan changed when we won in Iraq, and the terrorists had to move to another theater.
Now that he’s in charge, this idiot can’t even get the ball rolling. He has his on-the-ground commander begging for more troops, and Obama is too busy going on Letterman and taking his wife on date nights to care about our troops in harm’s way. And the same lefties who were screaming and crying about a well-run war simply because we didn’t get Bin Laden are now perfectly sanguine about it, and even openly stating that the Afghan war may be unnecessary.
And every time this idiot dithers about a major decision, we are told by his fans that he’s “weighing his options”, that he “doesn’t want to rush”. The same guy who tried to cram through a massive health care takeover in two weeks, run through cap-and-trade in less than a week, and took over several US companies over the course of a few days. The same guy who railed on and on while campaigning about what we had to do IMMEDIATELY in Afghanistan.
How can you people look yourself in the face? Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound applauding this man’s every bad decision?

“WAY TO GO JOE!!” …. I only wish you had completed your sentence. Idiots Cheney & Bush had 8 years to fix Afghanistan for the country (and could have left office as heroes had they stayed focused there), but instead, they took care of their personal agendas by diverting the war to Iraq.
Cheney…go sit down in a corner and start writing your lousy memoirs. You’ll personally need to write them because history will judge you as the worst VP our country ever had.

Don’t you realize how ridiculous you sound applauding this man’s every bad decision?
Posted by: AtheistConservative | Oct 23, 2009 5:49:35 PM
I haven’t met anyone who applauds every bad decision, but I’ve met a few who ridiculously and compulsively think every good decision is bad and who whine about….well, everything. So much so that people of education and intelligence are running from the Party of NO as fast as they can. LOL!!!
There are several things wrong with your post. For example, when did McCrytal say he needed the troops? In case you have troubles with details, let me help you with that: Within a year. If he has them within that year will you be supportive or still grumble, fuss and drool?
You don’t sound well read on the situation in Afghanistan at all. Tell me where troops on the ground or commanders in Afghanistan have reported the effort as going well. I can pull up quotes about it not going so well– see McKiernan. Get a few facts under your belt and we can talk, or I’ll let my sister have at it with you as she enjoys arguing with folks from what she calls the antiquated party of “no, neanderthals and neocons” more than moi.

“Vice President Biden said Cheney was ‘absolutely wrong’ in accusing President Obama of ‘dithering’ while formulating a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“ ‘I think what the administration is doing is exactly what we said it would do,’ Biden said. ‘And what I think it warrants doing. And that is making an informed judgment based upon circumstances that have changed … to come up with a sustainable policy that has more than one dimension.’ ”
At what point — now that almost a year has passed since the election of Obama to be president — does deliberation become dithering? A month from now? Next year? After the next campaign fund-raising event, or passage of ObamaCare?
Continuing to vote “present” while calling it “deliberation” is not a sustainable option. Delay — whether unnecessary or not — puts our soldiers at greater risk of wounds or death.
Dithering is wholly unacceptable, and even worse if due to partisan politics.

Delay — whether unnecessary or not — puts our soldiers at greater risk of wounds or death.
***
Could you explain that, with a specific timetable as to when troops would have arrived if the decision had made, say, four weeks ago, or whether it’s made right after the election. Wouldn’t troops still arrive in spring, after the harsh Afghan winter? How specifically is the policy and strategy review or “delay” as you call it endangering troops? If you are knowledgeable on this topic, tell me what you think of the following bit from the Metz article “the hurry up offense” that I referenced earlier:
“there is no operational reason for a rapid “surge” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In Iraq, there was a window of opportunity which would have closed had the Bush administration not taken advantage of it. All of Iraq’s communities were desperate for a change, so the “surge” of 2007 was the right action at the right time. There is no such closing window in Afghanistan: Nothing suggests that a major increase in the U.S. military presence would capitalize on an opportunity which might not be available later. Time is not running out. In fact, much of the pressure for a troop increase in Afghanistan is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq. The popular notion is that the Iraq troop “surge” was largely or solely responsible for snatching victory from impending defeat, and this could be replicated in Afghanistan. Neither part of that contention is accurate. The decline of the Iraq insurgency came from a “perfect storm” of conditions, not simply the American troop increase. And, more importantly, Afghanistan is so different in so many ways from Iraq that simply applying the Iraq formula would be ineffective. ”
Curious cuz there seems to be a lot of impatience and scaremongering on this, without any substance, and I’m no expert so I’d love to know what you all base your opinions on. Anything real?

If cheney said it must be the exact other way!!! But he did rape the
Treasury with Haliburton so he may be a chicken hawk but he is a rich chicken hawk!!!

What an absolute idiot Joe Biden.
Just thank goodness we have such great experience to back up Obama.
We’ve doomed with these 2 nitwits!!!

I certainly won’t vote for EITHER of them again.

This particular Stewart remains firmly behind Joe Biden, for 30 yrs of gvt service as chariman of the froeign raltions committee, judicary, co author of the Biden Gelb plan for Iraq, which earned bi-partisan support during the 8 yrs of America’s darkest days under the Bush doctrine, the same Biden who is the sitting VP today and just came back from eastern europe discussing the missle defense pacts..the same Biden who councils and dialogues with the president every day, as opposed to the former VP at 23% approval whose former chief of staff Libby is a convicted felon, the same Cheney who ignored every report that supported the notion there were no wmd’s nor nuclear program in Iraq??
The very same stewart here supporting Bidens distaste for the former VP’s conduct.

Cheney is the old, cranky, man who falls asleep with a cigarette, sets his own house on fire, mananges to escape, then blocks the fire hydrant, sicks his attack dogs on the fire fighters, and stands across the street complaining about how the fire is being fought. Later we find out he owns the fire truck and gets paid for each fire.
Posted by: B. Bear | Oct 23, 2009 9:02:38 PM
_____________
B. Bear, I love you!! That’s brilliant. I’m using that at a party I’m going to tonight.

The “loquacious Blue Hen”.. Jake, your Biden Gaffe Obsession and your “on both knees” support of a media outlet whose owner admits it is a political persuasion tool, is wearing thin. A few months ago you referred to an accurate NBC story on M. Sanford as “slimy”. The shoe fits. Oh, Sam Donaldson called. He wants you to stop using his act.

===“Let’s assume they left us a review that was absolutely correct. ===
Yeah, let’s assume. Since at some point it will come out that they did indeed leave you a review that was absolutely correct.

“The loquacious Blue Hen has built a reputation in Washington, DC, for foreign policy expertise and a predilection for the gaffe.”
I don’t think expertise is the right word. And if the President is relying on Biden’s assessment of Afghanistan, we are really hosed.

Through the years Joe Biden has been a wonderful, colorful character. He has a genuine bite at times but mostly he is all show and no real substance. He is ready for a good fight any time, any place and you have to respect that.
He has been doing a great job keeping a reign on his propensity to rip off a couple of one liners that run a grain to whatever is happening. I look forward to him spouting off a lot more in the future and I wish he hadn’t put the brakes on here.

Jack: How did you ever keep a straight face through this pile of rubbish that hotair biden hurled at you guys?
aside from admitting that withdrawing missile defense was a colossal blunder.
what sense was there in any of the other words he strung together. And this is the guy in charge of Afghan policy?
hillary has GOT to get out of this Administration, they are idiots…

Obama and Biden are an absolute disgrace and embarrassment. You liberals should feel utterly ashamed.

“Plugs” Biden could be a great help to 0bamau, if he used him correctly. Barry should get Biden’s take on every foreign policy issue that comes up, and then do exactly the opposite of what Joe recommends.

can’t blame biden for not being willing to admit that his predecessor is correct when he says you’re screwing up.. but i do wonder if this administration realizes, while they are taking their sweet time to deliberate, that there are soldiers on the battlefield being killed RIGHT NOW ?!

Amazing how none of the left-wing talking point repeaters on this site can rebut the charges made by Cheney. Maybe it is because the generals in Afghanistan, particularly McChrystal and the Secretary of Defense feel the same way. It has been over a month since McChrystal made his recommendations. Yet here we are, with Obama fiddling while Kabul burns.
And those slamming Cheney would be wise to remember how the public felt he pwned Obama on the Guantanamo issue a few months back. Of course getting the better of Obama on foreign policy is about as difficult as beating a blind man at a game of Pictionary.

Wait, I thought Obama recently told the world we were not going to put missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Now we are?
What is this?
Amateur hour?
Cheney is right. This adminstration dithers.

“you people elected a sitcom buffoon as VP”
_____________________________________
“hell of a lot better than the alternative . ..”
______________________________________
Hillary? I think she would have done a whole lot better than these knuckleheads.
I don’t know WHAT the Democrats were thinking nominating an inexperienced unknown candidate?
I wouldn’t have voted for Hillary but I wish she would have won. She at least is ‘capable’ of doing a good job when SHE goes to work in the morning.

Our brave patriotic troops are keeping Americans safe from whom? They are giving their all for us and willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedoms; what a pathetic state our country is in! We our troops our total support and our priorities should be nothing less!!
Please say prayers for their safety and bless our troops

I think Cheney was being kind. It sounds a lot worse than dithering to me.
Truly sad…god bless our servicemen and women.
By Peter Feaver Foreign Policy
“President Obama is presiding over a slow-motion civil-military crash occasioned by his meandering Afghanistan strategy review. The crash has not yet happened and is avoidable, but it also foreseeable. Of concern, the latest reports out of the White House suggest that Obama’s team is not yet fully aware of the dangers. If it happens, it will be a problem entirely of Obama’s own making and it could have a lasting impact on the way his administration unfolds.
President Obama opts for a misleading straddle in rolling-out the results of his first Afghan strategy review in March. He oversells the extent to which the new strategy is a radical departure from his predecessor’s, but more crucially oversells the extent to which he is committed to this strategy. And, like President Johnson in 1965 and unlike President Bush in 2007, he announces the low-ball estimate of new resources expected rather than the high-ball estimate. Military audiences hear what they want to hear — namely that the President is committed to resourcing the “new” COIN strategy –and do not hear what they do not want to hear — namely that the President is reserving the option not to resource adequately the new strategy and, indeed, to change his mind about the strategy in a few months time.
On 17 August, despite harboring serious misgivings about the Afghan mission — and despite the accumulating evidence that the Afghan elections, a few days hence, will be riddled with fraud — President Obama gives his most important speech since the March roll-out focusing on Afghanistan and uses the same rhetoric that he used on the campaign trail: Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Reasonable inference for military audience: The president is committed to fully resourcing this war.
# Throughout September, after the McChrystal report is delivered but before it is leaked, there start to be stories that indicate growing military frustration with the White House’s lack of strategic focus on Afghanistan. The military apparently believe that President Obama is paralyzed with indecision. This is the context for Woodward going to his source and asking for permission to run the report as a news story rather than as a book scoop: the White House is trying to bury the McChrystal report by refusing to act or even debate it. The result is a real civil-military problem.
# In response to the leak, the White House kicks into high damage-control mode…”

Lydia what isn’t accurate? Mess in Iraq? I thought we were leaving early.

I’m not a Bush hater…so your not going to agree with me anyway. But i do have a family member going to Afghanistan soon and I have every right to be concerned. Particularly when all you see the President doing is campaigning, giving speeches and fighting with Fox.
I think this should be his first priority and it isn’t.

Bush is not president now. Obama is. These are his decisions affecting troops now.
History will sort out all those questions.
All the finger pointing is just a diversion. It’s Obama’s problem now. He wanted to be president. He said Afghanistan was important. He said he had a strategy. His General told him what he needed. He needs to protect the troops over there or bring them home.

and Lydia you really seem to be arguing with yourself…how could that not bother you?

This brings to mind LBJ for me. Got my draft notice in late ’66 and went in. There was “light at the end of the tunnel” back then.
I remember it well and how we kicked it during the Tet offensive. That wasn’t what the news showed as I saw later. Even General Giap admitted the defeat many years later but said the war was won in the arena of US public opinion.That evidently works. Can’t argue with success.
Did LBJ dither? My opinion is, yup! Is Afghnistan the same as Nam? No. How many years were the Russinas, Brits and others there? Different war for sure.
The soldiers are better these days. They aren’t draftees for one thing but that sort of divorces America from the reality of war.
In respect to the VP’s son going to Afghanistan, it is my understanding that he is an attorney with the legal arms of the military. I recall that type from years back. He may get wounded by a paper cut or an IED as the latter are all too common. I rather doubt he has become well acquainted with his rifle. That is man’s best friend.
Of course, I am one of those “chickenhawks” that is referred to frequently. I didn’t go voluntarily but did come back with about four ounces of metal I didn’t have when I left. Airport security loves me.

Biden examines Cheney’s speech point by point and using his new status as wise veteran adviser to the President responds “who cares”. Let’s hope his counsel to the President consists of more thought and depth. Troops are in foxholes at this very moment and they need support or immediate withdrawl!

Wow a blowhard who has been wrong on every national security decision in the last 30 years, Obama’s in good hands
No the administration isn’t dithering, ( sarcasm) the media won’t report that Obama knew in July McChrsytal wanted 40,000 more troops and was told to wait, until after the Healthcare August passage, didn’t work out, now 4 moths later Hair Plugs, thinks it’s acceptable for Obama to play Hamlet on the world stage’ Should I, shouldn’t I”, while placing our troops in more danger, the General’s and our allies in limbo as if major strategic objectives in Afghanistan are changing daily, that it’s understandable these bozo’s take a 4 months ‘ strategic view”, after announcing another new strategy only a few months ago, one assumes it came after another of their lengthy ‘ strategy reviews”, I guess not lengthy enough.
The last part about giving up Missile Defence, for Russian co-operation, and then needlessly insulting allies when informing them, treating them with barely any respect, (Mr I known my poor misguided country has been dismissive and arrogant world tour but Barack is going to change all that) and then Hilary and Obama getting a public slap down from Putin, won’t even meet her.
Smart Power at it’s finest.

Do not try to read into McCrystal’s request to suggest that our present troops are in dire need of backup. That is NOT what his request was about. His request was about what he would need to do the mission presented to him originally.
Suggesting that our troops are in danger if more troops are not sent is political nonsense aimed at creating partisan animosity. That would ONLY be true if the mission remains the same and Obama does not send the additional troops.
President Obama is re-evaluating the mission. The President has not wavered or waffled on his promise to keep the focus on those that caused 9/11. In fact, by calling for clarity in our mission, he is doing JUST that.
Based on recent intel, our primary target is MOSTLY in Pakistan, NOT Afghanistan. Therefore before we commit more blood and treasure to this cause, we need to have a clear plan on what and why we are doing it. That is smart and sensible, and a lot more than the previous admistration did.
Any claim that he is ‘stalling’ or ‘dithering’ is garbage. Cheney is just wrestling with his own demons.

President Obama had time to spend two and a half hours talking with liberal TV pundits like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, Frank Rick, Maureen Dowd, and Gwen Ifill, to whine about how mean Fox News has been to him.
He only had about 20 minutes to talk to General McChrystal, mostly to fuss about talking to allies in London, and not playing to the party line.
That speaks volumes, and Americans get it.

Thanks Joe Biden!! You Obama worshipers missed the whole point(some of you on purpose, I’m sure). The White House said there was no plan left for them, Cheney said there was. Ol’ Joe just admitted there was one with his yeah but it’s outdated comment. Another lie from the WH confirmed.

“I think what the administration is doing is exactly what we said it would do,”
Absolute drivel.
Before the election Barack Obama had ALL the answers and knew exactly what to do.
McChrystal has the support of all the NATO commanders. Obama IS dithering because this decision is going to cost him politically and that’s ALL he cares about. It’s his war now.

Cheney is an idiot and a war criminal that should be hanged for his crimes. His opinion is of no value. My only complaint about Obama is that he has protected Bush and Cheney from prosecution for their crimes. Obama should declassify all the torture and rendition documents, photographs, and evidence showing their role in the torture and deaths of prisoners.

Military moral is in the tank with these two clowns, Obama & Biden, running the show. There is hardly a soldier in the armed forces that is willing to give these to numbskulls that never served a day themselves in service to the country the time of day.

Well then Dave, Clinton is just as culpable since he could have taken out OBL and didn’t. Also, by your logic, FDR is responsible for Pearl Harbor.
CASE OPEN

Yeah, lets listen to the party that started two wars and had NO IDEA how to finish them. THAT’S THE TICKET!!

Throughout the campaign, Obama said Bush underresourced Afghanistan.
Isn’t Afghanistan underresourced now?

“Cheney, unlike the many advisors President Obama has on the ground in a situation that seems to be changing on a daily basis should refrain from such comments that only help to destabilize the situation”
Oh, you mean like Generals Petraeus and McChrystal, with whom our Dear Leader hasn’t spoken but twice now? The most recent meeting being for 25 minutes on Air Force One after The Messiah jetted off to Copenhagen to expend the prestige of the Presidency on his home town’s Olympic bid?

“Do not try to read into McCrystal’s request to suggest that our present troops are in dire need of backup. That is NOT what his request was about. His request was about what he would need to do the mission presented to him originally.
Suggesting that our troops are in danger if more troops are not sent is political nonsense aimed at creating partisan animosity. That would ONLY be true if the mission remains the same and Obama does not send the additional troops.”
O RLY? Do you bother to read any actual military assessments or informed commentary from the theater? Try reading Michael Yon’s blog. There are a number of other competent (as opposed to Administration political advisors) commentators out there. Lack of adequate troops means seeding ground to the enemy. Ground which is used for recruiting, training, and logistics. It means inadequate patrolling of civilian communities to lend a sense of security to the population, a sense that they can resist the Taliban and they’ll be protected by Coalition forces. Without the additional troops, the Taliban gains strength. Establishes strongpoints. Sets up ambushes in poorly-patrolled areas. Mines roads. All this means more dead Americans. But none of them are related to any of Obama’s thug buddies from Chi-Town so it’s all good.

Obama’s List of Priorities
1) David Letterman Show
2) Fundraiser for Countrywide Chris Dodd
3) Fundraising for Deval “failure” Patrick
4) ACORN
129) The troops
Posted by: Karen | Oct 24, 2009 9:41:59 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Cheney’s List of Priorities (Refined)
1) Re-write the history of the ‘Cheney administration’.
2) At all cost, avoid taking responsibility for letting the terrorists attack the USA 8 months after the start of the ‘Cheney Administration’…even though he knew they were planning to attack.
3) Attend banquets to receive awards with convicted felon friends for starting two wars, torture, outing USA CIA operatives, and other assorted crimes.
4) Travel the country, promoting the continued use of ‘water-boarding’ and other forms of torture
5) Make plans to shoot another friend in the face with a shot-gun.
6) Re-write the history of the ‘Cheney administration’.
7) Re-write the history of the ‘Cheney administration’
8) Re-write the history of the ‘Cheney administration’
.
.

I have to admit that some of the arguments on here don’t make sense to me. For example, when did McCrytal say he needed the troops? Within a year, yes? Wouldn’t troops arrive in spring after the harsh Afghan winter whether the President made his decision four weeks ago or three weeks from now, given that military campaigning in Afghanistan pretty much stops when winter arrives?
I posted much of this before but I didn’t get responses so I’m still baffled by the arguments from the right. If troops are sent within the year time frame set out by McCrystal, wouldn’t having put clear achievable goals and a sound strategy in place that addresses the “partner problem” make sense to those of you on the right?
I read yesterday that there is no operational reason for a rapid “surge” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “In Iraq, there was a window of opportunity which would have closed had the Bush administration not taken advantage of it. All of Iraq’s communities were desperate for a change, so the “surge” of 2007 was the right action at the right time. There is no such closing window in Afghanistan: Nothing suggests that a major increase in the U.S. military presence would capitalize on an opportunity which might not be available later. Time is not running out. In fact, much of the pressure for a troop increase in Afghanistan is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq. The popular notion is that the Iraq troop “surge” was largely or solely responsible for snatching victory from impending defeat, and this could be replicated in Afghanistan. Neither part of that contention is accurate. The decline of the Iraq insurgency came from a “perfect storm” of conditions, not simply the American troop increase. And, more importantly, Afghanistan is so different in so many ways from Iraq that simply applying the Iraq formula would be ineffective. ”
Another argument that makes no sense is the one that purports that President Obama is postponing a decision on Afghanistan to placate the left wing of the Democratic Party to sustain support for health care reform. The more plausible explanation is the “partner problem” which has been discussed. Can someone on the right explain why the partner problem doesn’t factor into their criticisms? Nor does the fact that on the first page of his assessment McCrystal noted the situation was worse than he thought.

You’re right, there’s only urgency to provide more troops if you’re already in the country, or you have family serving in the country. If you don’t, who cares if a US soldier is killed because of inadequate patrolling and security? It would appear you don’t read the reports coming out of Afghanistan regarding operations there, and you don’t speak to any officers who are serving there who are aware of the operational realities. The fact is that the Taliban are making advances due to inadequate Coalition troop strength. Inadequate strength means lack of presence in the countryside. This allows the Taliban to bully communities into supporting them, since no Coalition aid can be realistically expected. Also, indecisiveness in our commitment is sharply observed by a population who are going to have to remain there, whether or not US troops leave. Hmmmmm, if the Yankees are going to leave us in the lurch in 3 years anyway, maybe I ought to fork over my opium crop money to the Taliban so when they come for payback after the US is gone, they’ll leave my family alone?
“Partner problem”? Having coalition partners join us in the field is nice. But ultimately this is a question of US national security, and most of our partners have for 50 years learned to enjoy the blanket of security provided by US forces. Most of our allies have no desire or political will to expend blood and treasure for US security goals. Get over it, we need to provide for our own security, and if allies show, that would be really sweet of them.
As for the ANA and Afghan police, you’re attempting to build a modern national army from a tribal society rife with internecine violence, ignorance and illiteracy. Might take some time to build competency, no?

“Partner problem”?
***
Refers to the government in Afghanistan, not NATO troops and allies.

Whatever Cheney has to say about the present administration, BO and the gang can thank Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore – they set the new standard.

You don’t just wave a magic wand and a division’s worth of troops show up in Afghanistan. Orders must be issued. Logistics must be arranged–transport of troops and equipment, quartering of troops, security of forces, integration of additional forces into the operations plan, beans, bullets, band aids. Formations slated to go must be notified months in advance so they can get pre-deployment training which can take months. Equipment must be inspected, repaired, overhauled, replaced prior to leaving. They don’t just get the order and board a plane the next day. Also, it’s not required but it’s rather considerate if the Commander in Chief gave sufficient advance word that the troops can say good bye to their families and can have time to make arrangements for their absence.

“You repubs keep saying bush kept us safe AFTER 9/11. That’s like getting the brakes fixed on your wife’s car AFTER she flips it 6 times!
“Well honey, what are you complaining about?, you haven’t gotten into an accident since I fixed the brakes, and besides, your limp is almost gone now.”
You Kool Aid drinkers seem to forget the USS Cole. The US Embassy in Kenya. The Khobar Towers bombing. The 1993 bombing of WTC. Numerous other attacks under the previous Democrat administration. A feckless Clinton WH which imposed bizarre limits on US intelligence. Eric Holder and Jaime Gorelick should have been subpoenaed before the 9/11 Committee and indicted for endangering US citizens. The “Firewall” the Reno Justice Dept erected prevented US intel from tracking the 9/11 hijackers. Again, I ask the Kool Aid drinkers: so you know organization X is planning a “major attack” on the US. They have been for years. Uhhhhhh…so just where are you gonna recruit the psychics who are going to tell you precisely when and where the attacks will land? Where are the psychics who will tell you precisely which of the 300 million people in this country are going to carry out the attacks? You people are incredibly clueless about intelligence activities or even the basics of security. All I hear is a bunch of ignorant 5 year olds bawling “WAAAAHHHHH!!! They knew somebody wanted to hurt us and they didn’t stop them!” What, should we have carpet bombed Afghanistan in Feb 2001 after Bush was inaugurated. Maybe a few airburst nukes over Kabuhl and Pakistan’s NWFP? And a few nukes over select US cities where the 9/11 hijackers were harboring? Oh yeah, we didn’t know where they were harboring because due to Clinton Administration policies, CIA couldn’t tell FBI we had a bunch of dangerous AQ operatives entering the country. And again….why didn’t Clinton take Obama when he was offered to us by the Sudan? All I hear is “WAAAAAAAHHHH, Bush is a bad man!” Whatever. Either put up logical, clear actions the Bush Admin could have and should have taken which would have prevented 9/11, or stop your ignorant snivelling.

JiminStl …..here’s a hint….when you get memos saying that terrorists are planning on flying planes into buildings……..HOW ABOUT READING THEM AND PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!!

Biden is supposed to be the “screw up” in the White House.
But he is the one sent over to make up with our allies for Obama’s boneheaded mistakes.
What’s Obama afraid of?
His soft power is getting him rolled by our enemies so he has begun to realize we need our allies?

“The loquacious Blue Hen has built a reputation in Washington, DC, for foreign policy expertise”
Jake, I love ya for being one of the few mainstream journalists to actually ask tough questions to the Obama administration, but when you call Biden a foreign policy “expert” you take two steps back. Biden has been on the wrong side of history on every big deision over the past 20 years.
1. he voted against the first Gulf War
2. he voted against the Irag invasion even with the intelligence from most of the world that Saddam had WMD’s
3. He voted against the very successful surge, wanting to instead partition Irag into three areas for the Sunnis, Shiia and the Kurds.
So, he’s batting zero. What Joe Biden is is a typical blowhard second-guessing Senator who is never called on his own track record by the mainstream media.
Come on, Jake, you are better than that!

“JiminStl …..here’s a hint….when you get memos saying that terrorists are planning on flying planes into buildings……..HOW ABOUT READING THEM AND PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!!”
The White House gets memos on terrorist plans to do all manner of nastiness. What’s credible? What’s not? Who are the operatives? Can they be found? Apprehended? Are they even identified? Shall we just ground all commercial air flights for the indefinite future based on a memo regarding a THREAT? “PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!” Uh, okay. How? Instead of more bawling, why don’t you first specify the intelligence which was at hand, the threat environment in which the White House was operating, the level of confidence with which this was reported, and the actions which you’d take to “PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!!” Oh yes, and make sure that whatever actions you take aren’t political suicide. Even after 9/11 blithering idiots like yourself then accused Bush/Cheney of “scaremongering”.

Oh–and how many attacks occured on US soil after 9/11 under Bush/Cheney?
Posted by: JiminStl
you mean the 9/11 attack didn’t count under Bush & Cheney’s watch? fascinating POV..
curious that the right now wants and expects Obama to clean up Bush’s policy failures in 1 year after Bush ignored Afghanistan for so long.
Cheney and his daughter should keep their mouths shut as they, and the rest of the neo-con crowd have been wrong on just about every prediction they’ve ever made.

The neo-con mind is a wonder of nature.
When neo-cons were in power for 9 months, like on 9/11, a prior Dem. administration was totally responsible. But, when neo-cons lose elections, Dems. are charged with responsibility from day one. That’s how things work in those afflicted with Cheney Alternate Universe Syndrome.
I’m also weary of this screed that Bin Laden’s death or capture prior to 9/11 would have changed things. Khalid S. Muhammed R. Yousef et. al. were, according to Cheney, the architect and planners of 9/11 beginning in the mid-1990′s. OBL just wrote the check. So, neo-cons, want us to believe no other rich Arab would have stepped in in OBL’s absence? And if I’m wrong, why did Cheney let OBL escape at Tora Bora? Too busy, calculating how to maximize Haliburton profits to make sure his deferred compensation package got paid.

“Said the Vice President today: ‘Could it (the announcement scrapping the missile shield program) have been done better? Yeah. Obviously it could have been done better.’”
Bat puckey, Jake – you’re smart enough to know better. That announcement was carefully and intentionally PLANNED to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the USSR’s invasion of eastern Poland. The State Department has a protocol section whose only job is to keep the Poobahs aware of such things.
Obama’s intention could not have been clearer – the message to Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics is “We’re throwing you back into the Russian bear’s cave. Get used to it.” I wonder what he’s got planned for the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Massacre?