Gibbs: 'War with the Def-Sec you have'

THE LAST PERSON WHO SHOULD BE OPENING HIS MOUTH = CHENEY

Whatever differences we as Americans have regarding President Obama's policy choices in Afghanistan, the one thing we can all agree on is that we're sick of hearing arsonists hanging around the fire they started telling us the best way put it out. Certain media, however, eagerly add kerosene to the flames by endlessly quoting them.

Thus, today, we've got torturer-in chief Richard Bruce Cheney - who lied us into war and further enriched himself and his wealthy cronies in the process - explaining to Politico how Obama has botched his decision because he actually spent time thinking about it. Therefore, the President is projecting "weakness."

Weakness is added to weakness, Cheney says, by trying some Gitmo prisoners in New York in civilian courts. Uh-huh. By hauling self-described holy warriors into American criminal courts to be tried with thieves and murderers means the terrorists have already won.

It takes no special effort or reading between the lines to see the main theme behind Cheney's remarks: Obama is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Nothing any Democratic President can do will ever stop the flow of "weak-on-defense" canards from warmongering Republican goons that began 60 years ago with shrieks of "Who Lost China?" President Obama could announce tonight the sending of half a million U.S. troops to Afghanistan, an invasion of Pakistan's border regions, the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, the summary execution of all the prisoners at Gitmo and Bagram, and declaration of martial law at home. Wouldn't matter. Cheney and the rest of the guys who weakened our national security by turning friends into enemies, assaulting the Constitution, hollowing out our armed forces and enhancing the role of mercenaries would still be complaining about weakness.

In the old days, the media avoided reporting Ted Bundy's views of the forensic team's analysis of his activities. But we live in a new era in which answers to questions like this are allowed to stand without a follow-up:
-
"Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don’t," he replied without elaborating."
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30024.html

It's not only hack online upstarts like Politico that purvey this kind of thug-minded right wing propaganda. The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed pages, where right wing armchair gladiators regularly demolish an array of strawmen, have become a cesspool, a Home for Washed-Up Neocons like John Bolton and Richard Perle, Karl Rove etc.

There's a legitimate forum for Cheney and the rest of the Republicans who failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, then expended $3 trillion and the lives of more than a million Iraqis, Americans and other human beings in a war of aggression that had zero justification. That forum is a war crimes court.

Until, however, the unlikely day when they can tell their lies under oath, they have nothing to say worth hearing.

First of all, the Bush Republicans (which includes Rummy) DID abandon Afghanistan. They blew it off to invade Iraq for no reason.

And secondly, who gives a damn what Rummy thinks? He's a war criminal who along with the rest of the Bush Republicans should be on trial at The Hague right now instead of shooting off their mouths to the media.

Rummy is a liar.

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee report confirms that when George W. Bush had the chance to take out Osama bin Laden a few months after the attacks of 9/11, he froze:

"When criticized...for not zeroing in on bin Laden, administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, responded that the al Qaeda leader's location was uncertain. "But the review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants underlying this report removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora," the report said. ...The report called bin Laden's escape "a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan."
.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/bin.laden.2001/index.html
.

The Bush administration ignored the soldiers in Afghanistan for years and then they left a report for President Obama on their way out of Dodge. How nice. And their report obviously wasn't very good. Gen McChrystal said as much when he asked for and received 40,000 more troops this past spring.

Gen McChrystal also said in his report that a thorough review needed to be done, something conveniently ignored by the "MORE TROOPS NOW!!!" Bush/Cheney/Republican warmonger crowd who were so quick to accuse President Obama of "dithering".

Rumsfeld is a liar and a hypocrite. He and smarmy chickenhawk Cheney are probably the two most unethical and unpatriotic goons in the United States. He rears his ugly head and starts barking about Obama and his Afghanistan war strategy. Rumsfeld and Bush's buddy Tommy Franks allowed bin Laden to escape capture.

Hmm, nice comeback by Gibbs. It was a good day for his lightsaber.

to cheney (sith lord palpatine) and rumself (abu graib), just a few words, love the US or leave it. you obviously hate your own people. next.

Gibbs is a thin-skinned jerk, kind of like his boss.

Gibbs ducked the Rumsfeld assertion of no troop requests while he was SOD. Gibbs admitted Obama was talking about troop requests in 2008, when Gates was SOD. However, when you read the transcript of BO's speech, it defies credibility to claim that BO was only talking about troop requests from 2008. The context of his comments was how launching the Iraq War drew resources from Afghanistan. Classic WH spin; not technically dishonest, but intellectually so.

---------

The BO speech threw some red meat to liberals. Particularly with shots about Iraq and the prior administration, as well as talk of troop withdrawal. I kept waiting for a health care reference. Must have been left on the cutting room floor. The WH needed to throw a bone to liberals to keep them on board with what BO is really doing. Strip away the fluff and it boils down to this - BO is sending tens of thousands more troops to a foreign land to fight militant Muslims. It defies the liberal point of view, and BO's former point of view, that our military presence in Muslim countries is what is creating the problem; e.g., more terrorists.

------------

As far as the withdrawal deadline talk, I have no quarrel with having a date in mind for the mission to be accomplished. I do question the wisdom of making said date public to an insurgency that has a track record of outlasting major powers.

Broad stroke.*Open ended* military presence in Muslim countries which results in supplying more terrorists-- in no way contradicts the liberal pov, his previous stance, or what he is doing now. "I do question the wisdom of making said date public to an insurgency that has a track record of outlasting major powers." You can't argue with this as we don't have much to go on to show otherwise. I try to think of it in terms of that other war that is waged in the US on a daily basis, between street gangs. Depts have limited resources, they target an area concentrating their resources, and pull out. This displaces activity-- whether or not the targeted individuals know about the crack down (most often they do) does not matter. The problem is making sure the area you crack down on is left strong enough to deal with off-set, once it comes back. THAT takes a whole local attitude change and some unconventional methodology.

Can't say I have much use for Rumsfeld. He never impressed me. I think he is responsible for dithering around with Iraq for years.

Lobesterman, I disagree that BO's position was that only "open ended" commitments cause more terrorists. He used that rationale for opposing the Iraq surge, which was designed to be temporary, and indeed, was temporary. I don't think your gang analogy is really on point either. A better one would be police announcing they are cracking down on a given area for a year, then announcing that they are pulling out and not returning. What would gang members do? I have no idea. That's why I think it's a poor analogy. I do have an idea what the mujahadeen will do, because they have done it before - they will never give up their resistance, they will claim victory when we leave, then try to reassert control of the country. The whole key to this, at least in my view, is to train an Afghan force that can protect itself and take on the mujahadeen if necessary. From what I understand, they are years away from that.

They'd do the same thing-- stop long enough until you leave and/or move over to the next town possibly come back. Modern policing strategy and modern military strategy - crack down v surge - borrow a lot form each other. The success of a crackdown or a surge is not as dependent on when you strike, for how long, or who knows - speeding criminals Taliban al-Qaeda - the grape vine will always give them a sense of what their opponents are up to - the key is sweeping the area and leaving something in place to deal with the off-set when it comes back (we agree this is the key). In the case of speeding, road bumps. In the case of criminals, effective neighborhood watch program. In the case of the mujaheddin, a police force. It's not only as simple as that, the police force is only as good as the people who live in the area, attitude is key. The weeds, pun intended, will comeback, as you indicate.
--
He also said this about the surge, which was designed to be temporary but was reliant on the quality of breathing room required for the Iraqi forces to stand up, and the generals assessment of the conditions on the ground including shape of the Iraqi forces manning up (open-ended):
--
"My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to them here's our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required......I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and … take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out."
- Obama Couric CBS July 22, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/eveningnews/main4283623.shtml
--
I'm not denying he was against the Iraqi surge, but in context of a war that was badly planned and/or carried out for so long, his skepticism at the time the surge was brought up, including while it was resulting in more as-expected causalities, could be oversimplified into a loaded broad stroke that, "our military presence in Muslim countries is what is creating the problem; e.g., more terrorists."

Do not despair, Oblahma is making another speech on Tuesday..you can catch up on the latest revsions by his "staff" on Wednesday. Oh, I know, itis supposed to be a speech about Jobs 'n Stuff. but it will be the same as the last 100 or so 'speeches.