Talking this morning Joe Scarborough took issue with Leon Panetta's assertion that Dick Cheney "almost wishing for" another terrorist attack. Mika Brzezinski made the salient point that if Cheney really was concerned, he should have called the President, the NSA, Homeland Security, etc for a private meeting and there is no evidence that this was done. But to bring unfounded concerns to the public without pursuing solutions is "not right."
Panetta said: "...It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."
Almost (Merriam-Webster): adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly.
Scarborough did the usual smirk, and after interrupting Mika twice then concluded that the former Vice-President was not required to pursue a private meeting because the President's "supporters" called him "evil" at one time. Case closed, Cheney is right and Panetta is wrong.
Here's my take:
1) I have never heard Obama or any of his cabinet call Cheney evil (although I personally believe he is-- look up the definition of "evil" and the Biblical references-- but my opinion is irrelevant). Many Bush and McCain "supporters", heck even the Vice-Presidential candidate Palin herself intimated that Obama was a terrorist, or at least "palling around with terrorists"; among other things too numerous and silly to even mention. Did that relieve Obama of common courtesy, not to mention pursuing national interest?
2) Panetta did not say Cheney wanted the US attacked, he said the it "almost seemed" (Cheney was looking for another attack. Well, it does "almost seem". Cheney has been mouthing off about this fear ever since 9-12-2002 and has never shut up, and apparently he never will.
3) We will be attacked again, that's a fact based on history. It may be an embassy, an army barracks, or even the homeland, because it happens with fair regularity... and Cheney-- and Scarborough-- will be there to say "I told you so." Thanks.
Scarborough did the usual smirk, and after interrupting Mika twice then concluded that the former Vice-President was not required to pursue a private meeting because the President's "supporters" called him "evil" at one time. Case closed, Cheney is right and Panetta is wrong.
Here's my take:
1) I have never heard Obama or any of his cabinet call Cheney evil (although I personally believe he is-- look up the definition of "evil" and the Biblical references-- but my opinion is irrelevant). Many Bush and McCain "supporters", heck even the Vice-Presidential candidate Palin herself intimated that Obama was a terrorist, or at least "palling around with terrorists"; among other things too numerous and silly to even mention. Did that relieve Obama of common courtesy, not to mention pursuing national interest?
2) Panetta did not say Cheney wanted the US attacked, he said the it "almost seemed" (Cheney was looking for another attack. Well, it does "almost seem". Cheney has been mouthing off about this fear ever since 9-12-2002 and has never shut up, and apparently he never will.
3) We will be attacked again, that's a fact based on history. It may be an embassy, an army barracks, or even the homeland, because it happens with fair regularity... and Cheney-- and Scarborough-- will be there to say "I told you so." Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment