I had just eaten an early lunch, so scanning the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Dick Cheney was the most I could bear without a bucket and mop. This passage, however, somehow caught my eye in full:
[W]hat Barack Obama has been standing up doing, saying, is we’re getting out of the Middle East. We’ve gone to zero now in Iraq. He announced just a couple of weeks ago that he’s going to go to zero in Afghanistan in 2016. That makes absolutely no sense at all. In fact, you’re almost implementing Osama bin Laden’s desires. That’s why he attacked us on 9/11. He said it was because he wanted to drive us out of the region. Obama is in fact taking us in that direction.
Let me see if I understand this as Dick Cheney understands it. Our decades-long meddling in the Middle East--not a hatred of our "freedom"--was the prime motive for bin Laden's attack on 9/11. Presumably such attacks--and certainly attempts at such attacks--will never cease as long as we meddle, especially militarily, in the Middle East. President Obama is thus working to extricate us from said meddling, which to a great extent would obliterate the sort of Middle East hostility that brought us 9/11.
And this, Dick Cheney opposes.
Do I have that right?
Logic and Cheney are two words that do not belong together in the same sentence.
The real irony is that what bin Laden was specifically mentioning was our having a military installation in Saudi Arab. He never mentioned trying to drive us out of the ME as a whole.
After 9/11, one of the first things the Bush Cheney administration did was close that base down. So who was appeasing whom?
Posted by: japa21 | June 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM