The Same Old Washington Blame Game

The White House hits back: "President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it (we are at war)."

(WASHINGTON D.C.) - There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.

I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers.

Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural address, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaeda’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.”

At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Source: The White House Blog Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on December 30, 2009 at 03:34 PM EST

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Thomas January 2, 2010 9:06 am (Pacific time)

Mike what is Obama's anti-terrorism policy? So far, how's it doing?

Mike January 1, 2010 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

According to the people paying attention out there, the Administration's anti-terrorism policy is far superior to the policy than that moron Bush had. Mind-boggling. So the notion that the "buck stops here" is a few years too late. I am a proud gay man.

Thomas January 1, 2010 11:09 am (Pacific time)

I'm no big fan of either of the past Bush's administrations, but what I do remember is that in August of 2001 an intelligence memo crossed Cond. Rice's desk that terrorists may use planes in future attacks. These types of intelligence memo's are also routine in previous administrations. Considering that there are thousands of such intelligence reports happening on a weekly level, as reported by the media, all one can do is continue to respond in the best way they can with current info, and the warnings of plane attacks has been around long before the August 2001 memo. Sometime after the 9/11 attack those in opposition to Bush used the August memo (one of thousands) as their way to call Bush a failure in preventing the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 commision gave it very little importance, but there were those that made a good argument that it was the Clinton Administration (including 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelic) that failed to kill Osama on several occasions and put up walls between intelligence gatherer's to stop them from sharing info and run all intelligence through the Justice Department, which Jamie Gorelick oversaw in actual function instead of Janet Reno. These "walls" were still in place when Bush took office and were in the process of being dismantled when the attack happened. Regardless of whose to blame, this was a well planned attack whose planning began before Bush came into office. Subsequently after a few attacks of terrorism after the 9/11 event, we went over six years without any domestic attacks that killed or injured any Americans. And many terrorist attacks were stopped during this period. As an American I am fully behind the Obama Administration and support them in stopping future attacks, not because I support or refute his policies, but because I want America safe. I am troubled though about how the CIA has been maligned and how this will impact getting good people to stay and others to join the CIA in the future. When I served in the military I was involved in operations/intelligence while both overseas and in the states. Prior to getting out we all signed non-disclosure forms and the penalties are quite severe if we violate those agreements. Even though most intelligence I knew has been declassified and is public record, it is the intelligence gathering process that is of critical importance not to expose, and why we continue to observe those non-disclosure documents. What the current administration is now doing, and also planning to do is exposing how these processes unfold. How safe we are now will be known with the passage of time, so I will continue to support any administration as long as they are pursuing responsible policies.

Hank Ruark December 31, 2009 3:43 pm (Pacific time)

Friend EarL: Nothing personal...we've never met,which may be a good way to keep it !. BUT issue here is clear and relatively clean, except for Cheney/Bush connection. The author wrote: "To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President." That's indubitable truth, undeniable and deadly-relevant to what you wrote and in your queries, covering massive majority of events long before Obama appeared on scene. Thus mine re your original AND your queries,since here we try to stick to mainline point of article under comment. Your participation indicates health, valid and insightful interest, which we hope you will continue to share, while also learning from each part of the dialog experience here. We hold no brief for any party, cabal, group or other assemblage, and seek the best cogitation and consideration of real issues from all involved here. That's the heart not only of dialog but of democracy, built to operate effectively only by consensus gained from shared insights. BUT this is public-record forum reaching very literally around the world. You owe it to yourself to do a little cogitation first, no matter what the feeling-level intensity.

Hank Ruark December 31, 2009 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Please note that 9/10ths of what Earl relates happened long before any possible involvement by Obama on either policy or action level. IF one ignores timeline and heart-of-matter facts, it is possible to ask a whole array of precise-sounding questions while purposely further distorting the dialog. This is fine example of that specious and indefensible ethical action here, where we try to stick to historic fact provable or at least endorsed as fact by noted source persons and famed historians. If one wishes so to do, it is possible to concoct and serve up as actuality nearly any bill-of-goods, with some persons, often far too many, accepting statements as if truth that are malignly misstated for personalized ego-reasons. Another propaganda-analysis action is to provide proven factual source (as done here earlier with PNAC) and see if dialoger bothers to check it out (easily instantly done by Google at same keyboard !). Did that happen here ? Do you read any reaction to what that will indubitably show ? Judge all-such very simply: By the accumulated credibility of the source-involved. Of course that includes this one and S-N generally, too...

Hank Ruark December 31, 2009 3:01 pm (Pacific time)

Earl: Regret assignments here peclude proper answer - but surely you owe us answers to some questions: 1. Any experience relevant here ? 2. Time in militaryintel ? 3. Source for your radical, undocumented claims --some totalling near-treason declaration vis a vis elected officials ? 4. ANY contact yet with FBI? 5. Any publication record in reliable journals or other channels ? 6. Precisely,comprehensively what do YOU suggest the U.S. now do, to offset historic blame-creation by Bush IandII ?? Easy to complain, cavil and contort facts;not so easy to show rational, reasonable and workable way to solve very complex, inscrutable problem. I.e., show us your special right to speak to this issue, then lay out in detail how you would solve it without bloody further million-killer A-bomb.

Earl December 31, 2009 1:54 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark do you believe that Libya, upon seeing what happened to Saddam Hussein shortly after the start of the Iraq war, was the reason he came clean and asked us to help them dismantle their WMD program? Do you think other countries also reached out to us to avoid an action that may have exposed their behind the scenes assistance of terrorists and other warlike actions against America that were going on long before the 1972 Olympic Games bloodbath? How many countries around the world are receiving on location military assistance from us to combat terrorism? Who began that policy? How many lives has that policy saved? Of course we cannot answer the latter question, but we know lives have been saved by just using common sense. When was the last time "after" 9/11/2001 that our enemies had a successful terrorist attack in the states where someone was killed? Who was president? In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands. Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded. How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? "I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!" Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy! Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed. And so, despite 5 billion Americans over time opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day. This is not a political problem, it is much deeper than that.

Editor: Earl, you know damned well that 911 happened on Bush's watch and it came after dire warnings from the Clinton Administration, that the little bully pulpit president didn't even have the common sense to heed, or maybe it is much worse than that. Your implication in the last sentence really bugs me, you are trying to suggest that Obama is what? Your guy brought this nation to its knees, at least Obama is trying to go after a real enemy, not a made up one. There are by the way, far more terrorists in the Israeli military than anywhere else in the world.

Hank Ruark December 31, 2009 12:26 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Ear: Kindest analysis of yours convoluted over years of Bush I-II "forest" is to note you see only "trees" in Obamatime, sprouting only in ONE YEAR vs situations starting with cabal led by Cheney et al and PNAC over 30 years. Check it out for yourself via Google-start with Project for New American Century, then Bush-lies to move into Iraq attack. Because of PNAC and attitude it reflects, Bush I began U.S. attack on Iraq, and Bush II + Cheney chose to fire-again at $3-TRILLION cost for absolute unnecessary second-shot at empire and oil now backfired. Situations so triggered set up millions of new enemies, multiple terrorist-schools,and extremely complex concentrated consequences now totally out of control by U.S.mission-work management,demanding massive military continuance with more massive costs and no possible cost-containment. "Warrior word politics" has no bearing with basic historic fact, findable by those who will but seek in good faith from undeniable depth of detailed public record,and huge pile of published books. Want PDF book-list ? ID self to editor with working phone for direct action. Small fee: $25; covers computer time and printout, with either email or postal delivery. Do you now seriously contend that Obama did NOT inherit the entire Bush-spewed set of base incompetencies, fed by fully thousands of B-appointees ??

Earl December 31, 2009 9:05 am (Pacific time)

Last Sunday the DHS secretary said the "system" worked and two days later that the "system" did not work. Her flip-flops are consistent going back to earlier this year when she said that all returning veterans could be easily recruited into becoming domestic terrorists. Then after some public outrage she recanted and did not even apologize to the 23 million American veterans. Note: She (the Administration) failed to ID the terrorist who killed all our brothers and sisters at Ft. Hood, why? Then last Tuesday Obama said that the attempted xmas bombing was an isolated extremist incident, even though there was plenty of publically reported stories that this was a terroriast conspiracy. Several members of the Whitehouse staff and several congressional democrats blamed the previous administration. Last March the DHS secretary said in a major interview that they were replacing much of the previous administrations policies and that our different intelligence organizations were rapidly coming online to share information. If the Bush system, which was a dynamic changing one put in by the previous administration was so flawed, then why are they blaming it? Didn't they replace it with their own system? The primary responsibility for elected members of congress and the president is to protect us here, domestically. Read the oath of office they take and decide in your own mind how they are doing in adhering to their sworn oath. The terrorists' are not worried about this administration as is obvious to anyone with a heartbeat. These radical Islamist terrorists have been killing Americans going back to the founding of this country innitially off the shores of Libya. They are here now, and pursuing them as criminals, instead of enemy combatants will only continue to cause the deaths of many more Americans. We are war, and those of you who want to play warrior word politics really need to start focusing on the here and now. Back in the early 40's we caught enemy combatants (Germans) on Long Island, New York. There was a miltary rial and they were executed. There were no more enemy intrusions of note after that incident. We have the same laws in place now, so what are the current policies in place? Miranda rights to enemy combatants who are here to kill us!

Hank Ruark December 31, 2009 8:24 am (Pacific time)

"Anon" et al: Denial of overwhelming historic realities is solid symptom of progressive, and threatening psychological situation. Have you checked with your psychiatrist yet ?? Having fallen this far by denying history, seems that's badly-needed next step. The historic public record --and Bush administration's own statements-- clearly show the lies and long-continued national and international deceptions used to bring on attack on Iraq --by choice, to build "empire" and seize oil. Costs now continue to run well past $3 TRILLION estimate by Nobel-winner economist Stiglitz, detailed in award- winning best-seller book. See PNAC details for full documentation of early plans, created by Cheney et al, carried out in part by Bush I, re-ignited by Bush II. PNAC includes political assassination as major tool; simple Google-search will show up the record on PNAC... Do you contend realities on record never happened ? If so, fly-at-it with your sources... Honest,open,fully democratic dialog here offers you that truly American opportunity, reflecting "exceptionalism".

Anonymous December 30, 2009 9:45 pm (Pacific time)

At least Bush kept us safe. Obama Administration failed in every point. Obama loves to talk, but don't take actions. It took Obama three days to make a statement about the incident on Christmas Day. This Administration is not able to protect Americans. This Administration is more interested in not offending the Muslim community and winning the hearts and minds of the terrorists.

Editor: Bush kept who safe? The people in the Trade Towers? No. The thousands of Americans killed overseas along with the hundreds of thousands of collateral damage casualties? Nope.

You can choose to live in a make believe dream world if you want to. I know that you use different names when you leave comments here which is a show of very low character. Bush endangered not just Americans, but the whole world.

[Return to Top]