Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Tune In to Slog for the State of th… | "World Solar Capacity Reaches 101 G… »

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

War Cheney Says Something Positive about Obama

Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Of course Cheney supports Obama's drone program. WaPo reports...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says the Obama administration’s policy of targeting terrorists abroad with unmanned drone strikes is “a good policy,” even though he disagrees with most of President Barack Obama’s views on national security.

In an interview that aired Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” Cheney dismissed the need for “checks and balances” against the drone program. He says Obama “is getting paid to make difficult, difficult decisions.”

If you're doing something that kills people, Cheney will always be there for you.

FacebookShare

Comments (9) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I'm glad Cheney supports Obama's drone program. Family members shouldn't fight.

Posted by Spindles on February 12, 2013 at 12:14 PM

@6, that's how I read it. You have a tough job = you can decide to kill people.

Posted by biffp on February 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM

If there's one thing Cheney dislikes, it's the need for checks and balances.

Posted by Knat on February 12, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I read this a different way. The "man" suggested that if someone makes enough money and makes "difficult" decisions that said man should be allowed to shoot someone in the face. I mean kill them with impunity. It takes 400k a year and making decisions that some people would have a difficult time making to be allowed to kill people at will? Fuck I should have gone to college, professional murderer? The psychopath I'd prefer to never get out in me is dying for the opportunity.

Posted by watchout5

on February 12, 2013 at 11:00 AM

@3 Yeah, well now is the time that it's starting to get a lot more media coverage from a broader variety of outlets. Who was outraged about waterboarding before they knew it was happening? No one. Lack of awareness has always been a problem.

Posted by Hernandez

on February 12, 2013 at 10:55 AM

@1, " I like to cut all Presidents slack regarding National Security."

What the bloody hell does "National Security" ever had to do with anything?

Mass murder in Central and South America during the Reagan Administrtion?

Lyndon Johnson's occupation of the Dominican Republic and his sending arms and war materiel to the military in Brazil to help in their overthrow of a democratically elected government?

The overthrow of the populst/democratic and most popular government of Arbenz during Eisenhower's administration, when he (Eisenhower) also ordered the overthrow of the democratically elected president in Iran?

George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama to recapture drug money from Noriega?

What the bloody hell is your "National Security"? Have you not an inkling as to the people behind the creation of the American intelligence establishment during and after World War II?

Of the multinationals, by the multinationals and for the multinationals --- you sound as if you haven't read a SINGLE one of those WikiLeaked state department cables, sonny?

For chrissakes, how can one be so militantly ignorant today????????????????

Posted by sgt_doom on February 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM

@2, you mean to say that the groundswell of opposition from the liberals started AFTER Obama was reelected. *ahem*

The time to hold Obama accountable was last year..when he still had to face the electorate..little late now.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on February 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM

@1 The "deafening silence" is a construct of the conservative media.

We are starting to see a groundswell of liberal opposition as more people become better informed about this issue.

Every conservative news site or blog I've read keeps claiming that conservatives are the only ones who are upset. Just because they pull that out of their collective ass doesn't make it true. And conversely, I wonder if they would even be complaining if Romney was doing this? How much of the conservative outrage is legitimately directed toward the policy in place, and how much is just general opposition to anything and everything Obama does?

Posted by Hernandez

on February 12, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Charles,
I easily part with you on your last sentence. I'm fairly certain that both Cheney (and Bush for that matter) & Obama don't want to kill people. But, when any of them decide to engage an "enemy" with lethal targeting they want it done effectively and w/o collateral damage. That unfortunately is the nature of warfare.

However, as I've mentioned to you before I remain greatly apprehensive and abhor Obama lethally targeting US citizens (and others) in drone strikes w/o Congressional oversight (the Obama Admin. has since disclosed some docs to a Senate Select Comm.). As with "waterboarding" during the Bush years, first the secrecy then the "justification" followed.

Last time I checked, both assassination & torture are wrong. I like to cut all Presidents slack regarding National Security. But, with Obama and the drone strikes I find it eerily similar if not the same to Bush and "waterboarding". Check out Greenwald:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…

I also find the liberal Left's "deafening silence" on this issue deeply troubling. One wonders how they would react if this was a McCain or Romney as President.

Posted by lark on February 12, 2013 at 9:22 AM