Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

"FETUS,

TRANSGENDER, VULNERABLE, ENTITLEMENT, DIVERSITY,

EVENDENCE-BASED, SCIENCE-BASED."

Sunday, January 3, 2010

BIG DICK CHENEY EXPOSED FOR HIS LIES, DISTORTIONS, AND MISINFORMATION


UPDATE BELOW.

The scurrilous accusations and blatant lies that Cheney has been blow-harding all over the cable networks since the Underpants Bomber incident are so easily refuted, that one wonders if he has truly gone all funny in the head, because no one in his right mind would make such a pitiable fool of himself the way that this unfortunate ex-vp has over the last few weeks, spreading stupid, easily discredited falsehoods about Mr. Obama and his policies and statements on terrorism and terrorists.


Here are some of the lies Cheney has engaged in:


Mr. Cheney said that the Chritstmas attempted airline bombing incident had made "clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war."


But there is no clarity or truth whatsoever in that muddy Cheney lie because here is what President Obama has actually said:

"Evil does exist in the world," Mr. Obama said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms." 

On Saturday, in his weekly radio address, Mr. Obama:

"Disposed of the war-vs.-law-enforcement canard, pointing out that in his inaugural address he made it clear that "0ur nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred and that we will do whatever it takes to defeat them and defend our country, even as we uphold the values that have always distinguished America among nations."

Let's look at more statements from President Obama condeming terrorists and their vicious attacks:


On the Mumbai bombing of last November:

"These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism. The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks."

Joint statement by President Obama and India's Prime Minister Singh:

"Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognized that the India-U.S. partnership is indispensable for global peace and security. In this context, the interests of both countries are best advanced through the values mirrored in their societies.


They acknowledged the common threat that international terrorism poses to regional and global security. They condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and declared that there could be no justification for terrorism anywhere.


On the eve of its first anniversary, President Obama reiterated the United States’s condemnation of the terrorist attack in Mumbai in November 2008. The two leaders underscored the absolute imperative to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrorist attack.


They expressed their grave concern about the threat posed by terrorism and violent extremists emanating from India’s neighborhood, whose impact is felt beyond the region. The two leaders agreed that resolute and credible steps must be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities. These undermine security and stability in the region and around the world."


Joint statement by President Obama and Russia's President Medvedev:

"We agreed that al-Qaida and other terrorist and insurgent groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan pose a common threat to many nations, including the United States and Russia.  We agreed to work toward and support a coordinated international response with the UN playing a key role. We also agreed that a similar coordinated and international approach should be applied to counter the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan, as well as illegal supplies of precursors to this country. Both sides agreed to work out new ways of cooperation to facilitate international efforts of stabilization, reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, including in the regional context."


The Washington Post states in its January 3, 2010 editorial:

[Mr. Obama] "also demonstrated tenacity and pragmatism blended with a necessary reassessment of the flawed policies of his predecessors and a recommitment to the rule of law. He wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which is all to the good given its stain on the national character, but he has delayed that goal until acceptable alternatives can be found. He has brought criminal charges against some terrorists, but he has also sent others to be tried by military tribunals. He has invoked the authority of the executive to have lawsuits dismissed because they risk exposing state secrets. In addition to the new troop deployments, he has aggressively used predator drones to strike at terrorists, including outside Afghanistan. Even before the failed attack, his administration has been working aggressively with Yemeni authorities to deal with extremists there."


What then do we make of  the recent statements from Cheney?  Is there no one around him to gently point out his apparent dementia?  What else can explain how insane his easily discredited lies are?  There are pages and pages on Google to prove him wrong, and dozens of bloggers, columnists, and others who can document and prove Cheney to be a bald-faced and treacherous liar.  And it is treachery--to willfully lie about this presidents recorded statements on terrorism and terrorists--for what purpose?  Political gain? To undermine Mr. Obama's presidency, which in turn would undermine our national security?


Richard Bruce Cheney is a disgrace to the office of the vice presidency and to this country.

UPDATE FROM POLITIFACT:


"Cheney's comments echo a frequent criticism by conservatives that President Obama does not use the phrase "war on terror." We rated that True when it was made by talk show host Sean Hannity in November 2009. We noted in our ruling that Obama had said he didn't use the more general phrase "war on terror" because he viewed the conflict as a war against "some terrorist organizations."

With his statement to Politico, Cheney is going farther than Hannity did, directly alleging that Obama will not "admit we're at war."
But a review of Obama's statements of the past year makes it clear he has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations.

The fifth paragraph of his inaugural address: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

In a February 2009 CNN interview: "I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations."

In a March 2009 speech: He said that people might ask why the United States is at war and said, "Al-Qaida and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al-Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan."

In his December 2009 speech at West Point on his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan: He repeatedly called it a war and said, "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."

In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize: He said that "we are at war" and noted that "the world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense."

Cheney has offered lots of criticism of Obama in the past year (of the claims we've rated, 

Cheney has earned a True and a Mostly True). His remarks here go beyond opinion because he repeatedly says that Obama won't acknowledge that the United States is at war. But even a cursory examination of Obama's statements shows this one is preposterous. Obama has often said the United States is at war against terrorist organizations -- and has ordered a massive increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight that war. So Cheney's comment isn't just False, it's ridiculously so. Pants on Fire!"

 


15 comments:

Diogenes said...

This post unequivocally proves that the former vice president is a corrupt LIAR.

He is a representative of the GOP, a wanton, profligate LIAR.

Good luck with that, GOPers.

Shaw Kenawe said...

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"I'm very disappointed in the vice president's comments. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat -- I've worked for the past five administrations. And either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position -- both in terms of language he uses, and the actions he's taken -- or he's ignorant of the fact. And in either case, it doesn't speak well of what the vice president's doing. The clear evidence is that this president has been very, very strong…” - John Brennan.

Cheney is, of course, deliberately mischaracterizing, i.e. knowingly lying, about the current president.

Tom said...

Nothing new here. When Republicans don't have the facts, or truth on their side, they lie. Great leadership strategy?
The president has made himself perfectly clear about Afghanistan, and the use of force in general. Anyone surprised, was not listening.
It was obvious during the election, that a vote for Obama meant an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and a vote for McCain meant an escalation to start a war with Iran.
Seems some perceived Obama as more liberal than he really is. Wishful thinking I suppose, as a counter to the disgust for Bush.
The dishonesty of the Republicans has been exposed on a regular basis, this blog and Shaw being one of the best at pointing out the true facts.
Apparently republicans (especially Cheney) have not learned their lesson. They lost the White House and the majority in the House and Senate, yet, won't except any of those loses were due to their misbehavior as leaders.
Republicans are great at denying reality. Unfortunately, the people have swallowed those denials, and here we are. We are all having to deal with the consequences of their dishonest, negligent leadership.

Helen of Troy New York said...

Welcome back Shaw!

I see Cheney is spreading lies again. He apparently believes no one can simply check the record to see if he's telling the truth about Obama.

How do we know Cheney is lying? His mouth is open.

He IS a disgrace to this country. Your correct.

Where is the outrage on the Right over this blatant lying?

Dave Miller said...

The absence of any meaningful opposing views on this post testifies to the reality that it is hard to rebut facts.

Or Shaw is just really good at moderating comments...

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

An excerpt from Peter Baker’s NYTimes Magazine article, Inside Obama’s War on Terrorism:


A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama's policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record. Some worried they would draw the ire of Cheney's circle if they did, while others calculated that calling attention to the similarities to Bush would only make it harder for Obama to stay the course. And they generally resent Obama's anti-Bush rhetoric and are unwilling to give him political cover by defending him.

Thus, if the nuttery makes the claim that Obama is soft on terror, refer them to Baker’s article (not that they will read it, believe it, or accept anything that contradicts their preconceived viewpoint).

Infidel753 said...

Good post -- thanks for assembling all these.

Calling this war a "war on terror" was always stupid. Terrorism is a tactic. We didn't react to Pear Harbor by declaring a war on aerial bombing, we declared war on Japan. By saying that we're at war with terrorist organizations rather than in a "war on terror", Obama is just correcting Bush's garbled characterization of the situation.

Dave Miller said...

Thanks Shaw for including the update from politifact. The fact that they in the past have agreed with Cheney, lends real credence to their charges this time around.

Is it any wonder why we have heard no real GOP voices supporting Cheney this time around, except of course, Mr. Steele.

James' Muse said...

Cheney is a tool. I just posted on this too, before seeing yours...Ron Paul just came out to tell Cheney to shut up. Someone within the GOP is speaking up and saying they are tired of Cheney's BS...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lynne said...

So happy I can comment now without feeling like I'm going to get my head ripped off by some nutjob. I've been hanging around Shaw and wishing you well; glad you're back. Great post about Cheney. In my opinion, he's pure evil.

dmarks said...

I think it is unseemly for a former Vice President to vent like this. I guess I like it better when the former Presidents and Vice Presidents act in a statesman-like fashion.

dmarks said...

Infidel said: "By saying that we're at war with terrorist organizations rather than in a "war on terror", Obama is just correcting Bush's garbled characterization of the situation."

That's mere semantics. Like a "war on fascism" instead of "a war on fascist governments" (re: WW2). Or "A war in the gulf" instead of "Gulf War". I'm one of those who really does not care which of the phrases he uses.

Leslie Parsley said...

Good piece, Shaw. I wrote about this as well (but yours is much better - more in depth) and kept wondering: why is Cheney so stupid as to tell such outrageous lies and ones that can so easily be verified as just that - lies? Is he, like Joe, Glenn and Rush, so desperate for attention that he'll say anything or is he simply losing his marbles? Or, is he just one mean S.O.B.?

Some people are so dense they only understand pictures - not words; cliches - not thoughtful phrases;
snap decisions - not careful analysis. They are too eager to go to war even if the reasons are false and misleading.

Leslie Parsley said...

Thank you, dmarks. I've been thinking the exact same thing.

"I'm one of those who really does not care which of the phrases he uses."

It's kind of like "what's in a name?" You can change "janitor" to the fancier "custodian," but he's still a janitor. You can change "sales clerk" to "associate" but they're still a sales clerk. It all boils down to the same thing.