I continue to be amazed at all the attention former Vice President Dick Cheney gets in the media, and today I ran onto a case of him trying again to revise history and claim others dropped the ball about 9/11 — not him, not President Bush, but specifically Richard Clarke, the former counter terrorism head under Presidents Clinton and Bush. (You can read Cheney’s remarks and the facts about what really happened here.)
Two comments about this, really:
1. How amazing is it that Cheney so blatantly revises history, flying the the face of facts that filled several news cycles back a few years when Richard Clarke was testifying before Congress, appearing in the media, etc. But, Cheney is a master of the number one political rule of our time: If you say ANYTHING loudly, firmly, and long enough, people will first quit objecting to it and eventually think it’s true. That’s called “brainwashing” or “propaganda,” or in America we call it “reality.”
2. I continue to be appalled at how many people seek Cheney out and give him a platform for such blatant revisionism, as though he knows what he’s talking about.
To be fair, many people on all sides (if there were/are “sides” in this matter) dropped the ball for 9/11 to happen. There will always be plenty of blame to go around if we wish to play the blame game. But, really, for the Bush-Cheney Administration to try to claim they were somehow not able to make the right decisions, or they were mislead, or those who should have known didn’t know, etc. — please, Mr. Vice President, step up to the plate and take some responsibility here.
Sure, it’s a liberal thing. They are already trying to prepare for 2012 by hammering anyone who might be able to beat Obama in the election. That’s what all this is about, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not, just sling horrible innuendo at him, or Palin, or anyone else who might want to run.
As for Carter, the one thing I truly remember about that era is how the hostages were kept imprisoned in Iran because they had no fear of him doing anything. How many days had Reagan been in office before they were released? Oh, wait, I remember the other thing, a gas shortage, high prices, etc. If every other world leader had been honorable, Carter might have done okay. But, it’s hard to be the only peace lover in the room.
On a side note, I met Billy Carter once, briefly, in his gas station. Cars were lined up 4 deep to buy gas from his pump – and he was charging $1 more a gallon than anyone else in the country. The driver of my car went in and had a beer with him. I had a grape Nehi ( sp? ) .
If you think this is a liberal thing, you just aren’t paying attention.
I have heard conservatives blame everything from the bad economy to athlete’s foot (okay, I’m kidding about athlete’s foot) on Jimmy Carter. Such people very conveniently ignore Reagan and Bush I and Bush II and honestly place blame for virtually all of America’s evils on good old Jimmy.
How’s that for “serious revisionism”?
Oops, my bad, I guess. As we clearly know from your many comments, liberal’s never get it right.
It’s interesting how liberals who want to claim every issue Obama deals with as starting in the Bush/Cheney era never want to admit that security issues that Bush/Cheney had to deal with originated out of the Clinton era.
Now, that’s some serious revisionism, right there, but oh wait, if liberals frame history it must be real, since they are, well, liberals and as such beyond repute.
My bad.
Hogwash.
Cheney got tired of all the lies Obama’s spin club was putting out there. He called them out on half a dozen issues, and you know what? The liberal left had to stop sputtering long enough to listen to their own drivel.
I wonder why the left backpedalled so quickly on almost every thing he called them out on? Maybe it’s because they can’t back their fictionalized fantasy world up with any real world facts?
We haven’t heard a whole lot from Pelosi the last couple of weeks, I wonder why? Hmmm?