Dick Cheney has no business talking about “dithering” in Afghanistan or to criticize any Administration for projecting weakness, unless that reporter is willing to call Cheney out for his hypocrisy.

Today, Politico unflinchingly reported Cheney’s criticism of Obama’s Afghanistan policy on the eve of Obama’s address to the nation to announce the policy.? Of course, every major news outlet seized the report and – yet again – presented Cheney as an objective, valid critic.? The Today Show actually had Karl Rove, who has NO foreign policy credentials at all (he is at best, a domestic policy/political wonk) to join in the criticism.

Never mind how hyperbolic they got anytime Al Gore or Bill Clinton dared to raise their heads, let alone express any disagreement with Cheney’s dogmatic foreign policy.

Here’s the only thing you need to know about Cheney’s criticism:

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.

And that reveals Cheney’s criticism for the partisan garbage it is.? It’s not a matter of competing philosophies on matters of foreign policy.? It’s taking potshots from the cheap seats without taking any responsibility for your own failures.? That’s all this is.? For the media to present this as an elder foreign policy statesman respectfully disagreeing with the Administration is journalistic malpractice:? there is nothing respectful in Cheney’s criticism.

It’s unfair to suggest that Obama is proposing a change in policy from the Bush Administration.? That unfairly suggests that the Bush Administration HAD a policy regarding Afghanistan.

It’s not “cut-and-run” to have an exit strategy.? Cheney apparently doesn’t understand that an exit strategy is, by definition, the circumstances that an Administration measures “victory:”

But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen ?sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win.

Cheney (honestly?) thinks that if America announces a policy in which it is committed to giving the security over another country to that country’s government, it will encourage the people of that country to support the “bad guys” because America isn’t committed to being there forever.? The obvious fallacy is that if we didn’t have an “exit strategy” we become the “bad guys” because the people view us as a foreign occupying force imposing its imperial powers on them to prevent them from self-government.

The article graciously ends with Cheney declining any effort to “draft” him to run for President in 2012.? The article fails to note that the draft effort was started, on Fox News, by Cheney’s daughter and has been joined by nobody.

I am so sick of Cheney being presented as some foreign policy elder statesman when he is nothing more the an ideological hack who, by any objective estimation, has been proved wrong over and over again.? Remember that Cheney’s hand-picked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was removed over his objections to the surge strategy.? The strategy that Cheney breathlessly, and unquestioned, now takes credit for.

 

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!