It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney says Obama's policies 'raise the risk' of U.S. terror attack

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Cheney says Obama's policies 'raise the risk' of U.S. terror attack


edition.cnn.com

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended the Bush administration's economic record, the invasion of Iraq and the treatment of suspected terrorists, warning that reversing its anti-terrorism policies endangers Americans.

"President Obama campaigned against it all across the country, and now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack," he said.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Well isn't this sad?

Poor Dick trying to win some leeway with the Republicans, maybe he's trying to get a job.

It's great, he even goes as far to say that the wiretapping and torturing practices were "essential" in stopping attacks, multiple ones according to him.

His whole argument is.."stuff Happens".

Ha what a joke!

Any thoughts folks?

~Keeper



edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Maybe he is planning an attack?
2nd line.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Excuse me for using a ridiculously common theme, but wtf??
This administration is doing the same thing that the former was doing.
Dick Cheney is an effin moron at best.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
"Obama has begun to wind down the war in Iraq, which has cost more than 4,200 American lives and nearly $700 billion in direct costs. But Cheney said the United States has "accomplished nearly everything we set out to do" in Iraq, including establishing a democratic government in the Middle East."

Funny how this article makes absolutely no mention about how many innocent Iraqi lives were lost and ruined. Oh, I forgot, their lives are of no importance to the American media. Yep, it was all about a twisted form of democracy being established in the Middle East - Halliburton profits had nothing to do with this war.

Who was it that said, "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public?" Or something to that effect.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What? Fear mongering from Dick Cheney? It can't be!

Assuming Obama's policies could raise the risk of an attack on the United States I doubt it would ever be for reasons Cheney gives (closing Gunatanamo, stopping torture).

And at this point, why would anyone believe anything this man has to say?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Poor cheney just can't stop can he. I bet he mutters it at night in his sleep.

I am sorry,but a terrorist attack is not the worst thing in the world for me.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Poor cheney just can't stop can he. I bet he mutters it at night in his sleep.

I am sorry,but a terrorist attack is not the worst thing in the world for me.


Would be if you was caught in the middle of it.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Cheney's problem is that he misses being in a seat of power. He is lusting for that power back.

And it clearly shows who was in charge in the Bush N Co. regime.

Cheney....go home to your fancy ranch up in Jackson Hole and stay in that hole and dont come back out of it!!




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Cheney's point, while impetuous, is certainly valid. The conception of terrorism wasn't merely a fabrication to enable some higher-ups to make a profit through war. I mean, it obviously happens; what egomaniacal opportunist wouldn't take up the occasion to engage in some illegal, albeit highly concealable profiteering? Regardless, there do exist people that want to harm this country, and whether their motives are purely reactionary is irrelevant.

I still don't believe the recent attack justified the extent of the fiscal deficit and legislation of the previous administration; however, our national security was abysmal up until that point anyway. This was just an opportunity to upgrade; spending tax payer money happened to be the only way to do it. It's not like Bush went into the presidency expecting to go to war or to even deal with terrorism. They were, and especially Iraq, current issues at the time. I wouldn't have expected any other President of the U.S. to ignore them. The extent of Bush administration's reciprocation still remains arguable, but cannot be proven until the relevant historical data is made public.

Anyway, I think this news item is pretty old. They make Cheney out to look like a single-minded, embittered demagogue. I don't think that is particularly fair. We just don't know the scope of these terrorist attacks.

Just a note, but so far reportedly sixty-one recently released Guantanamo inmates have returned to terrorism. The Pentagon's system of classification could be inappropriately critical, or worse the data could be completely inaccurate; an attempt to raise political pressure on the new President. In the end, none of us knows for sure and I don't think it would be fair to pass judgment prematurely.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
If you are like me, and you think 9/11 was a massive inside Job where people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld played a role in it's devious conception and carry through.

Hearing the worlds of Cheney talk about a new terrorist attack, and previously mention a Nuclear Terrorist attack which btw if we remember bent spear and Minot Air force Base and the B-52 which flew with 6x150 MT stealth cruise missiles in an alleged violation of everything regarding the handling of nuclear armaments within the US and the person at the end of the chain of command being Cheney...

I am very f'n scared of this guy and what he could do to America.

The terrorists are inside the Government, not outside in some damn cave.

Geesh... wake up.

Order out of chaos... problem, reaction, solution... The Cheney way.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
This is nothing on the surface but an advertisement for the continuation of a terror based system of government. We are in fact constantly being terrorized by our government whether democratic or republican through the nonsensical notion that an unconstitutional security umbrella has managed to keep foreign terrorists from infiltrating and carrying out attacks within the United States while everyday tens of thousands of illegal alliens and tons of illegal narcotics flow unhindered accross the borders.

The only terror based plots since 911 that have been publicly prosecuted have been homegrown ones that coincidentally the core members of the tiny cells where FBI informants who virtually set up the cells and encouraged them to conspire in theory and do a little research on what they might attack which is the bare minimum the Federal Government needs to make a conspiracy case against anyone. Two people talking about a plan that is illegal even if it leads to absolutely nothing but that one talk is all that is needed to meet the minimum prosecutable standard of an illegal conspiracy provided their is at least one credible government witness to it.

Cheyney seems to be virtually another false flage attack to come once the current system still in place is decomminisoned in Gitmo.

While Obama supporters applaud this, and Neocons imagine Islamic Jihadists will soon be moving next door and knocking on their own to borrow a cup of sugar, an incredibly vexing question comes of all this as Obama talks to other countries about taking the Gitmo Detainees.

Wasn't Gitmo supposed to have at least some people purported to be involved in the 9-11 plot? There is all this lofty moral talk about its the right thing to not hold these various enemy compatants under American control but not one hint that anyone in the world will have to stand ever before a Judge and Jury in a Public Trial to answer questions about 9-11.

The greatest violent crime in American History is truly going to be judged by CNN and FOX News to it's fullest public conclusion within 72 hours of a vast conspiracy the Government knew nothing about 3 days early on the day of the attacks?

Talk about having someone's back. How I wish Obama change supporters would change enough read even recent history and understand how this is no favor to any American to deny us some form of independent judicial inquiry.

What haven't we accomplished in Iraq that might still be planned? Have any significant number of troops really already departed that weren't previously scheduled to rotate out after the completion of their units tours and the Sourge? Have any that might of made it any further than Afghanistan where the withering war against the mostly rural populace hasn't brought one single plotter of the 9-11 attacks ever into an American Court room, but has propped up a weak and corrupt central Government in Kabhul that so far the only noticible achievements seem to be a new Oil Pipeline to export oil from the old Soviet Repulics across it's terrain and a 90 fold increase in heroine production. What real strategic change is Obama looking for in Afghanistan a 100 fold increase in heroine production?

Does anyone know if Cheyney is still Chairing the Council of America's know that he no longer runs the government from the Naval Observatory?

Where is our great leader running the country from now? Hopefully not a hunting lodge near you or me!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


Would be a bad thing if my house burned down or I got into a serious car wreck or got stuck on some train tracks. LOL, one of my fears. I am train checker.

if a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 happened every year, your chances of being involved are still only 1:135,000.

You have a lifetime risk of 1:1300.

You have a better chance of being murdered, drowing, falling. And I think, even being killed by a vending machine on you.

So if you let Cheney and and company convince you to be afraid, you have truley been terrorized.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 



The conception of terrorism wasn't merely a fabrication to enable some higher-ups to make a profit through war.


No, that was incidental.

The purpose of public fear is to concentrate authoritarian power. That's why the 'image' of terror was developed and propagated in this and other countries.

Terrorism is not a spontaneous event. It has causes. And it's not always called 'terrorism'. We referred to the Nicaraguan insurgents as 'freedom fighters' remember? Yet the techniques they used were terrorist.

Another 'terrorist' organization just became the ruling party in El Salvador. I bet they won't be referring to their efforts as 'terror' either.

All crimes are hate crimes, all crime is terror, all terror is crime.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
So.. if less funding goes to his pockets.. he'll cause another 911 ?

Gotch ya.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I don't think we should listen to anything Dick Cheney has to say.
Ever again.
He is a criminal.
Criminals do not deserve a voice.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I wonder what he would feel like if he had to live on unemployment of 400$ a week or less like millions of others. He needs to go shoot some more lawyers.

mikell



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


You mean the American State-Sponsored terrorism levvied on Nicaragua?

Under the guise of subsidization of crops? The same program that killed a lot of Nicaraguans?

Or, the chemical attacks on them?

Yeah, Cheney himself is a terrorist. I think this is what cognescent has missed in his analysis.

PS - By the way, Bush wasn't the first president to utter the words "War on Terrorism"... That would have been Reagan. During the Nicaragua affair.
It didn't fly that time. Americans weren't stupid enough.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


And it makes me wonder if that egomanical profiteer just happens to be a member of our own government.
Perhaps one who is the major shareholder of the company that received billions in no-bid-contracts due to the same events.

Cheney is a terrorist.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Maxmars
 


You mean the American State-Sponsored terrorism levvied on Nicaragua?

Under the guise of subsidization of crops? The same program that killed a lot of Nicaraguans?

Or, the chemical attacks on them?

Yeah, Cheney himself is a terrorist. I think this is what cognescent has missed in his analysis.

PS - By the way, Bush wasn't the first president to utter the words "War on Terrorism"... That would have been Reagan. During the Nicaragua affair.
It didn't fly that time. Americans weren't stupid enough.




This goes back into the 1850's. People really need to study history more. There is a film, made in the late 80's titled "Walker-A True Story", about William Walker, who became the ruler of Nicaragua in 1855 through 1857 under the support of C. Vanderbult, one of the richest men in the world at that time who happend to control all of the ground transportation seperating the Atlantic and Pacific trade lanes.

In that time, Walker led a collection of soldiers and volunteers into Nicaraqua under the guise of "liberating the country for freedom" and did nothing but go around and murder, plunder and take over the entire country from the Nicaragua people. Walker, being so entranced by power and lust for control, turned on his primary supporter, C. Vanderbult and ended up being abandoned, with no re-supply of ammunition, medicines and men. In the end, Walker was overrun and executed in Honduras in 1858.

Near the end of the film, there are clips from the mid 80's military action during the Reagan era, which were called "manuvers", showing the continued killing of innocent Nicaraqua civilians by OUR military. These "manuvers" were fully supported by congress, and even Reagan stated in a speech that there would be "No US troops will be sent to Nicaraqua". Well turns out it was exactly the opposite.

Today, you got the US military once again infultrating another nation, most recently Iraq, over false premise and obvious lies, same as it was with the "manuvers" in the mid 80's, and way back in the mid 1800's with the "liberation of Nicaragua".

Its all the same terrorizing game, and no doubt in order to support it, to supress the truth of it...you have to instill a level of false fear into the public so they go along with the game.

Darth Cheney is only trying to return that level of fear into the sheeple so that they will scream "O-BAHH-ma keep us safe from mean ol terrorists we create ourselves", to keep that military industrial complex chugging forward, spending billions we dont have so that Cheney N Co's interests continue to earn profits from it through the military industrial contractors.

It doesnt take a slide rule to see the obvious...but it does take open eyes, and a clear . to see when your being played.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 16-3-2009 by RFBurns]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join