I have two young boys, and many times when I write articles I tend to compose them over several days.  The last paragraph was all that I had completed as of last night.  I check the news this morning…Jackpot!  I could probably write five more posts based on a few well-timed sound bytes and quotes!  What never fails to astonish me is how far some people will go in an attempt to prove a point that has no grounding in reality.  Happy New Year!  Hopefully 2010 will be better than this poop-stain of a year!

(Read Part I of this post here.)  Former Vice-President Dick Cheney stuck his nose out yesterday in order to criticize how the Obama Administration is handling the attempted airline bombing in Detroit.  Surprise, surprise!  While Cheney does have moments in which he seems less of a war demon than others, his most recent statement to Politico served to reinstitute Cheney as king of the war demons.  It will no doubt also fill the talking points coffers on the Republican side of the aisle for the next few months, if not until the next election.  And what is Cheney’s new piece of criticism?  Wait for it…the Obama Administration is soft on terrorism!  Wow, I haven’t heard the whole “libruls are soft on terrorism, ‘Murika!” since the 2004 Presidential election.

Let’s take a look at a few key statements by Cheney.  The first one, but not necessarily the best one, is as follows: “As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again the President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.  He seems to think it he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war.”  Now, in this first statement, Cheney is referring to the fact that it took the President three days to publically respond to the crotch bomb attack.  As Politico points out, it took President George W. Bush six days to respond to the “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, and that attempt occurred only three months after the September 11^th attacks, so there’s the whole pot/kettle thing there for you. 

What’s even better about this statement is that it implies that the President could have done something more than he did.  What else could he have done?  Sure, he could have immediately gone on television and said something, but that hardly would have helped matters.  I suppose he could have bombed something, or somewhere, in retaliation.  But let’s face it.  There isn’t really anything better than a terrorist trying to blow up an airplane and only succeeding in lighting his underwear and part of the chair on fire.  Maybe it’s just me, but I think that this kind of incident is the equivalent of getting wood in the high school locker room shower.  Even if you come to school with a gun and kill everyone who saw you, you are still the shower boner guy, which makes you a mass murderer and pathetic.

Okay, so Cheney’s next set of statements really reaches for the stars:  “[Obama] seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war.  He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war.  But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.  Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war?”  Jesus Christ, Dick, give it up already.  It’s one thing when some teabagger from Indiana or Kentucky or somewhere in “Real ‘Murika” gets on the YouTubes and begins ranting about Muslims and jihad, and pussy libruls, and bomb all of the browns in the Middle East before they bring the fight here, and why does Obama want to kill my daughter and feed her to the terrorists while I watch.  It’s another thing to watch a prominent member of the last administration criticize the current administration during a security scare, basically so that more Republicans will get elected.

Read Part III of this post here.