Dick Cheney reams out Obama on Afghanistan—after Emanuel claims the dog ate Bush’s homework
There’s been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere about Dick Cheney’s speech on Obama’s “dithering” approach to Afghanistan. Much of it centers on Cheney’s criticism of Obama’s Afghan policy (or lack thereof) itself.
I’m interested in that. But I’m also intrigued by the dynamic between the two administrations.
George Bush remains Presidentially silent on the matter. But since President Obama has not been so reserved—he seems to relish the opportunity to bash his predecessor and blame him for most of the current problems of this country—Dick Cheney has become the attack dog for the previous administration, or perhaps the guard dog.
Last Sunday, Rahm Emanuel (speaking of attack dogs) went on state-approved CNN and said:
“[Obama] is asking the questions [about Afghanistan] that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side…It’s clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that’s adrift, that we’re beginning at scratch, just at the starting point”…Emanuel said it would be “reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create.”
But in his speech, Cheney revealed for the first time that the Bush administration had handed over a recent and detailed analysis of the Afghan situation to the incoming administration, one that Obama not only later adopted, but about which he asked the Bush administration to keep silent. The latter acquiesced—until now.
It’s one thing for Obama to use the work of the previous administration and pass it off as his own (which he apparently did in his March speech on Afghanistan strategy). I would suspect that most administrations do this in the transition from one president to the next. It’s a bit more unusual, I would imagine, to ask the previous administration to keep mum about that fact. But perhaps it’s not at all unprecedented, especially in matters of national security such as the Afghan war. But for that sort of exchange to work, there has to be an attitude of cooperation from the new administration towards its predecessor, at least on the issue involved.
Why would Obama have thought that he could take credit for Bush’s work while bashing him for not having done any? And don’t tell me that Rahm Emanuel was speaking for himself and without Obama’s approval on Sunday; I very much doubt it. I think Obama and Emanuel felt free to do so because of a combination of factors. The first is their reliance on the previously gentlemanly behavior of cowboy Bush (Obama knows it goes against the grain for Bush to criticize the next president), and the second is Obama’s own overwhelmingly audacious arrogance and now-habitual mendacity. And for the most part, Obama has gotten away with it—at least, so far.
But the Obama administration may not have factored in Cheney’s willingness to break the gentlemanly rules. I think part of the reason Cheney did this is that he’s genuinely alarmed at Obama’s Hamlet-like approach to the war; and part of it is that he’s personally outraged that the Obama administration violated the pact, relying on Bush’s silence and then using it to unjustly slam him.
Natually, those who hate Cheney will think he made all of this up, and that there was no such agreement. Or they’ll use any number of other excuses to justify what the Obama administration did, and is doing, and to excoriate Cheney and Bush.
But I think Cheney is telling the truth, and one of the reasons is that it explains a great deal, including the heretofore somewhat puzzling fact that back in March Obama seemed to have a strategy all worked out and yet here in August and September and October he feels the need to reinvent one. It appears now that the previous strategy was actually someone else’s work, and now Obama wants to come up with his own—and is finding it more difficult to do so than it appeared back in those distant, golden, simpler days of the 2008 campaign.
[NOTE: Cheney’s hard-hitting speech focused on much more than Afghanistan, although that’s gotten the most press. He talked about Obama’s misguided policies on eastern Europe and Iran as well. The entire speech is worth reading.
But the heart of the speech was Afghanistan, and it seems to me that Cheney bears a special anger at the words Emanuel spoke last Sunday. Cheney seems to be saying You want to play that game? Okay, I’ll bite. And so he takes the gloves off, and breaks his vow of silence [emphasis mine]:
This weekend [the Obama administration] leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.
In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision ”“ a good one, I think ”“ and sent a commander into the field to implement it.
Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.
Yes, indeed. Way past time, I’d say.]
Didn’t Obama’s transition team play a similar game with the financial crisis. As I recall, Bush tried to bring them into the decisions they were making so as not to interfere with Obama’s plans, but Obama didn’t respond. All the better to blame Bush for his own failed policies. This man puts nothing ahead of his own image, certainly not our country.
A bit OT: The new government in Germany is apparently going to push to have our few remaining atomic weapons in Germany removed. This is not what I consider a high-priority issue, but if it pleases the pacifists, it may dampen objections to other decisions the government will have to make. It’s the same old pattern of using the US as a scapegoat. I have no confidence in the foreign policy inclinations of the FDP, which will most likely occupy the Foreign Office. They all seem to be enthralled by Obama and are looking forward to Germany and Europe finally assuming their “rightful” place in world affairs.
expat: well, I think that would be the opposite game.
I also seem to recall that FDR refused to confer with Hoover for the same reason. See this:
Hoover, according to Alter, tried to involve Roosevelt in end-of-term actions, suggesting to the then-President-elect that they jointly appoint delegates to a World Economic Conference to be held in June 1933 (three months after FDR’s inauguration), a highly touted meeting which was arranged to tackle the global Depression. Roosevelt rejected the overture, fearing that his New Deal would be seen as just a continuation of the Hoover Administration if he worked with the departing President.
Alter wrote that on February 18, just two weeks before inauguration day, Hoover tried again to enlist Roosevelt into a joint effort — including a bank holiday — to stabilize markets, but again Roosevelt rebuffed the President.
In his book, Alter quotes James Warburg, a member of Roosevelt’s inner circle. The Roosevelt brain trust “wanted it to get as bad as it was going to get before he took office, so that he could come in on the turn rather than in the continuing downward spiral.”
For his part, years later, Hoover wrote the bank crisis that ensued “was the most political and unnecessary bank panic in all our history” and “it could have been cured by simple cooperation.”
Hmmm—I may feel a post coming on.
Monday morning, Rove eviscerated Emmanuel and Obama, making the same point as Cheney made yesterday: Bush made a strategic review and gave it to the Obama Admin and kept quiet about it at the request of the Obama Admin.
Rove video on Fox News Channel
That is fascinating. Never let a crisis go to waste.
I don’t think Bush wanted to involve Obama for cover. I think he genuinely wanted to avoid doing anything that would screw up Obama’s freedom of action. The similarity in both cases is that Bush tried to cooperate with the new administration, and the latter bungled it. It’s all of a piece with Obama’s citing his 9-month “reign” as proof that America is salvageable.
They all seem to be…looking forward to Germany…finally assuming their “rightful” place in world affairs.
Uh oh…
Good for Cheney. It’s a shame he’s got a bad ticker, or he’d be Presidential timber, as opposed to the aldermanic twig we’ve got in office now.
I am a twenty-two year AF veteran; spent 2 1/2 years in HFZ’s, lived in three different countries, deployed to a half-a-dozen terrorist and rat-infested s-holes and currently work with Joint Forces who regularly rotate into and out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and various classified locations.
The simple question I and all servicemen and women ask of our leaders is, “who do you want in your foxhole?”.
Cheney or Obama?
I can state with absolute certainty that Obama is absolutely detested by 75% of our armed forces – only a handful of pathalogic liberals, who can separate reality from their ideals, still support the guy.
The Obama administration’s vacillation over Afghanistan is due to domestic politics, not the region’s “political side”, “military side” or “strategic side” – and whether they’re prepared to admit it or not, every serviceman and woman knows this to be fact.
C’mon here, you’re breaking the Great Unwritten Rule regarding America’s Affirmative Action success stories: You’re supposed to say, and keep saying, what a marvelous wonderful job they’re doing with their wonderful, marvelous intellect; and you need to remind any doubters that any little hitches in their progress toward greater greatness is obviously the result of America’s entrenched racism.
You’re NOT supposed to carp about them sitting around in their well-padded chairs waiting impatiently for the next wave of adulation for the genius with which they inhale and exhale.
Tsk!!
Just watched the video. Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
Obama’s strategy, even vis a vis domestic politics, is stupid. He’s given hostages to Fortune. Thanks to ill-advisedly running his yap, and letting himself be perceived soft on terrorism, his record on preventing terrorist attacks has to be absolutely perfect or he will carry the can for any attack.
Imagine if, by contrast, he’d praised and thanked the outgoing Administration for its efforts, and promised to keep up the fight they’d begun. Then Obama would not be on the hook if an attack should occur. This way, he’s 101% behind the eight-ball. It’s an unnecessary risk, and a stupid one to take.
Bush has been mighty quiet since he left the lawn in Marine 1. If he ever decides to talk about things he has held close to the vest, I would think some jaws will drop. I hope like hell he’s writing a book.
What Occam’s Beard said about Darth Vader, excuse me Dick Cheney. I second the motion.
Dick Cheney is someone who could wipe the floor with ∅bama in a debate.
Standard operating procedure for Obama.
He has a long history of jumping in at the end and claiming credit for legislation. (Heck, I don’t even think he wrote his first autobiography.) So it is no surprise that he took credit for the outgoing Bush administration’s plan on Afghanistan.
He has a long history of jumping in at the end and claiming credit for legislation.
I had the same thought, and think it also pertains to the Harvard Law Review.
This stuff from Cheney is amazing. Why don’t we have more people like this? We need a Health care Cheney, an economics Cheney….
Good for Cheney. It’s a shame he’s got a bad ticker, or he’d be Presidential timber, as opposed to the aldermanic twig we’ve got in office now.
There’s another, younger Cheney with a good ticker and a winning debate style — Liz Cheney. I like her even more than Sarah Palin — and I like SP a lot. She has co-founded an organization. I think we will be hearing more about Liz in the coming years. I would not be at all surprised to see her on a Presidential ticket someday.
Liz’s debate technique: http://tinyurl.com/ykkjvp4
http://www.keepamericasafe.com
But in his speech, Cheney revealed for the first time that the Bush administration had handed over a recent and detailed analysis of the Afghan situation to the incoming administration, one that Obama not only later adopted, but about which he asked the Bush administration to keep silent.
Whoa…. Whoa…. Whoa…. I thought that detailed analysis and plan was a product of the Office of the President Elect.
(remember that horseshit?)
Yep. It was the first of a series of new lows.
First, I got a kick this morning at the thought of a Palin/Cheney ticket.
Then I got a bigger kick out of the thought of a Palin/(Liz) Cheney ticket!
Can you imagine the apoplectic reaction of the left – especially among groups like NOW – to a Republican ticket that had a female in both roles on the ballet instead of a transparent effort at a token female to prop up some old worn out RINO?
And before anyone with qualms about women in high office speaks up I got 4 words for ya – Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – aka, the Iron Lady.
Lastly, just gotta say – I miss Cheney being in the White House…..
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – aka, the Iron Lady.
Yep, she was the only real man in NATO until Reagan took office. Pity nobody in the UK seems to be made of the same stern stuff these days.
neo, I just caught your “state-approved” CNN dig. Beautiful!
Cheney’s demeanor adds credibility to his performance. He’s not hot, not obviously invested emotionally, he comes across as simply recounting events to set the record straight.
Devastating.