dick cheney is right obama projects weakness

Dick Cheney is Right: Obama Projects Weakness

December 1st, 2009 | By: Michael van der Galien

Tags:

Leave a comment
| Trackback

Former Vice President Dick Cheney once again made headlines recently by criticizing President Barack Obama. As we’re used to by now, Cheney doesn’t mince words:

On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Now, let’s not get into a debate about whether or not Cheney hasn’t been guilty of playing politics himself in the past (he has, of course; that’s what politicians tend to do). What matters most is that he’s right. From the day he was sworn in, Obama has projected an image of weakness to the rest of the world. And that’s a dangerous thing to do.

Even those of us who criticized George W. Bush regularly during the last years of his administration (and before), have to admit that he at least projected an image of strength. Read more.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine


  1. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 16:44

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    America has the biggest military in the world, and the biggest single-country economy. There is no need to show strength. It’s something that you have.

    “Projecting an image of strength” isn’t about strength. It’s about fear and insecurity among conservatives.

    Conservatives are incurious. They have fear, instead, about what they don’t know. Many conservatives may not even know that America has the strongest military in the world, though it does.

    America spends, for example, 100 times more on the military than Iran.


  2. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 16:57

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    Regarding America’s military strength, if you know it, why are you talking about projecting an image?


  3. Jay_C

    December 2nd, 2009 at 16:59

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    Conservatives are incurious? Bengt, as a Conservative, I find it curious that Obama now will provide the troops, but wants all the troops out in 18 months, IN TIME FOR HIS RE-ELECTION. The timeline is based soley on what matters most to HIMSELF. Not the troops, not the future victims of nuclear terror; just him.

    Strength is certainly not letting soldiers die for a cause you don’t beleive in, that is political posturing, yet again, trying to have it both ways and is a kick in the groin to all that serve / have served in our armed forces.


  4. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 17:34

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    Jay C: I don’t see your point about the wars unless it’s extremely partisan. The Bush administration dawdled for years in Iraq. Most of the military hated it.

    I also thought the main point of the main blog post was about projecting an image of strength. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about.


  5. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 18:25

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    Come to think of it, the Bush administration dawdled in Afghanistan.


  6. Jay_C

    December 2nd, 2009 at 20:54

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #6

    “I don’t see your point about the wars unless it’s extremely partisan”

    I think my saying “The timeline is based solely on what matters most to HIMSELF. Not the troops, not the future victims of nuclear terror; just him” is much less partisan than your “conservatives are incurious” blanket statement. I was just pointing out how I was curious, as a conservative (regardless of Bush)

    I also find it curious how the “But Bush did it” excuse always comes up as a litmus test somehow. Actually, I disagreed with Bush on *many* of Bush’s Iraq policies… But that has been discussed (heatedly at times) here at this blog ad-nauseum, you can look it up if you’d like, but I’m sure you have better things to do.

    “I also thought the main point of the main blog post was about projecting an image of strength. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about.”

    Oh, but I was speaking about “projecting an image of strength”, hence my tying it all together saying…”Strength is certainly not letting soldiers die for a cause you don’t believe in, that is political posturing, yet again, trying to have it both ways and is a kick in the groin to all that serve / have served in our armed forces.” Sorry if that wasn’t clear.


  7. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 22:17

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #7

    Jay C: “strength” and “projecting an image of strength” are different. The latter is posturing.


  8. Jay_C

    December 2nd, 2009 at 22:51

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #8

    Bengt, Perception is everything. This article is about projecting and image of strenth.


  9. Jay_C

    December 2nd, 2009 at 22:53

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #9

    Ok, maybe this confused you…

    Maye I should have said, ***perception of strength*** is certainly not letting soldiers die for a cause you don’t believe in, that is political posturing, yet again, trying to have it both ways and is a kick in the groin to all that serve / have served in our armed forces.”


  10. Bengt Larsson

    December 2nd, 2009 at 23:14

    I think you’re confusing yourself now. You’re substituting different words from those I was criticizing.

    On another topic – incuriosity – where you didn’t like my assertion, why do you think Islamists, such as Al Qaeda, hate America? Do you think it has anything to do with US support for the ruler of Saudi Arabia?


  11. Doomed

    December 3rd, 2009 at 00:54

    Dawdling is much better then dithering.

    Dawdling

    1. To take more time than necessary: dawdled through breakfast.

    2. To move aimlessly or lackadaisically: dawdling on the way to work.

    Dithering.

    A state of indecisive agitation.

    intr.v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers.

    To be nervously irresolute in acting or doing.


  12. Jay_C

    December 3rd, 2009 at 16:31

    Bengt,

    1) I criticized your saying Conservatives are incurious, gave myself as an example of a curious conservative, that being my curiosity about the timeline for withdrawal being self serving for Obama. (no response on my curiosity on this from you) then I went on to show what strength / portraying an image of strength is NOT…it is NOT letting soldiers die for a cause you don’t believe in, that is political posturing, yet again, trying to have it both ways and is a kick in the groin to all that serve / have served in our armed forces.” (again, no response from you).

    2) Sure, we have military strength, but the point of this posting was that Obama’s “agonizing” dwindles our perceived strength, making it our weakness, and personally, I believe, all for his political gain to boot. To sum it up, I think it is simplest to say one is only as strong as how / when you are willing to act, when it comes to defense. If you don’t block the punch, or if you leave a friend out in the open for attack when they need your help, it is one’s own fault for not intervening)

    3) You then said:

    “I don’t see your point about the wars unless it’s extremely partisan. The Bush administration dawdled for years in Iraq. Most of the military hated it. I also thought the main point of the main blog post was about projecting an image of strength. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about.”

    I addressed all you concerns saying that what I said was much less partisan than what you said about your ““conservatives are incurious” blanket statement, and added that your throwing GW Bush into the mix had as much to do with this discussion as the price of tea in China . (IE the “Bush did it too” broken record) (No response..Am I detecting a trend?)

    4) Then, you ignored my statements, and went right to criticizing something else I misspoke on, saying ““strength” and “projecting an image of strength” are different. The latter is posturing.”

    5) I then said “Perception is everything” and I apologized about using the wrong words, changing “strength” (which you pointed out correctly was different than the topic at hand) to “perception of strength”

    Any response on my other thoughts above? (Other than 5, which we already covered)


  13. Jay_C

    December 3rd, 2009 at 16:48

    I probably could have summed this all up better, saying strenth is only as good as it is **percived** by the opponent you will use that strength to help the soliders om tjhe ground.

    I think where we disagree is you think the folks we are at war with right now do not consider who weilds that strength and how. It seems that you think that since the strenght is there, in and of itself, is a threat. To some degree that is true, but if the current President is seen as someone that will not use that strengh, then that is a weakness that they will use to their advantange, and they only have to be right once to hit us on our home turf.

    Slightly off topic off topic, but this opens it up to not just Afganastan, but here at home, what are his thoughts on Gitmo? letting terrorists into the US prison system? What does he think of trying KSM in NY (not a military tribunal) It is no longer “the War on terror” it’s the war in Afganastan and Iraq. All these send a message of softening to a pre-9/11 mindset….that talking will **now all of a suddne** somehow work.


  14. Jay_C

    December 3rd, 2009 at 19:43

    perfect example of what I am talking about… (not related to Afganastan, but where you see it one place, it will probably materilize in others…as is seen below)

    “It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent. In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.”

    All examples that lend credence to an overall perception of weakness…

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29993_Page3.html


  15. Doomed

    December 3rd, 2009 at 19:50

    Im gonna knock you out in the first round. I’ve only trained to fight for one round.

    After the first round if I havent knocked you out. I’m leaving. You win.

    So what is your strategy to fight a one round wonder?

    Your most likely gonna train to rope a dope for 3 minutes.

    My strategy is to outlast you for 3 minutes.

    Same goes for Afghanistan. I want the boys home Today.

    BUT..that being said…if your gonna fight…fight.

    If not what the hell are we even doing there and that is precisely what Obama is trying to instill in the American public. He wants Americans to become quitters….just like the progressive left has always been quitters when it comes to any conflict that requires deadly force.

    He is fostering a “QUITTER” mentality with this speech. Its slow poison. Let it take its time. About 18 months worth.

    For all intents and purposes its defeatist. So why not just leave now.

    I quit…round one goes to the terrorists.


  16. Michael Merritt

    December 4th, 2009 at 07:50

    Jay_C:

    It is no longer “the War on terror” it’s the war in Afganastan and Iraq. All these send a message of softening to a pre-9/11 mindset….that talking will **now all of a suddne** somehow work.

    I disagree. I have previously argued for a more well defined goal. I think a “War in Afghanistan” and “War in Iraq” are still a bit vague, but none more so than the phrase “War on Terror.” As we have seen in others wars on vague concepts (war on drugs, war on poverty), such things never have an end date, and are practically impossible to win, because if you defeat one element, another takes its place.

    Terrorists have always, and will always, exist in one form or another. You may be able to have wars against specific groups, and win them too. But it is folly to say you will declare a war on all terrorists and expect to win that war.

    Conservatives may think saying “we declare war on all terrorists” makes them look strong. I think it just means they don’t have a plan.

    But, go ahead (and this goes for liberals too): draw me up a plan of how our army will plow through all terrorist organization until we win the War on Terror. Let me know what programs are being put in place to confront the problem of radicalization. Then I might get behind a “war on terror.” But until then the best we can do is fight one organization at a time. That is something within site, and more tangible.

    Doomed :

    Dawdling is much better then dithering.

    Dawdling

    1. To take more time than necessary: dawdled through breakfast.

    2. To move aimlessly or lackadaisically: dawdling on the way to work.

    Dithering.

    A state of indecisive agitation.

    intr.v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers.

    To be nervously irresolute in acting or doing.

    Frankly, neither seems like words with many positive connotations, and the definition proves it. Afghanistan was basically ignored after Iraq was started. It was a mistake to think we could effectively fight on two fronts with as little man power as we had.

    Afghanistan was worst than dawdled; it was more or less abandoned.


  17. Doomed

    December 4th, 2009 at 12:53

    While I don’t disagree MM one must remember that Bush negotiated with the NATO alliance to take over the bulk of the duties in Afghanistan while the USA focused on Iraq. Nato agreed.

    REMEMBER for the first time in History NATO involked the clause of its charter that said an attack on one is an attack on all. They agreed to go into Afghanistan and help their fellow member who was egregiously attacked. Once Afghanistan was negated well we know the rest.

    Remember the Democrats and OBAMA campaigned on the GOOD WAR. Afghanistan.

    In that context it has not so much been the USA’s fault as it was our LIBERAL brethren from Europe who no longer have the stomach for warfare.

    After the 20th century I do not blame them but never the less Afghanistan was not ignored in the least…It was poorly managed by NATO who did not have the will to lose a single troop. Hence the aggressiveness needed to get anything of substance done was sorely lacking.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.