[antimedia] antimedia: Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1176686085.shtml


   ....the Heritage Foundation the other day, and [1]his speech is well
   worth reading in its entirety. Here's just part of it.

     In their move to the left, many leading Democrats have turned not
     just against the military operation in Iraq, but against its
     supporters, as well. I think of the case of Senator Joe Lieberman.
     I've known Joe since I was secretary of defense, and we debated
     each other when he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. I've run for
     office eight times in my career, and I have to say that Joe is the
     toughest opponent I've ever faced, and also the one I've most
     admired.
     Joe and I see many issues differently. He's a center-left Democrat,
     and he has been throughout his career. Yet last year Joe was
     targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. Al Gore
     himself, who famously endorsed Howard Dean in 2004, refused to help
     his former running mate, Joe Lieberman, on grounds that he doesn't
     get involved in primaries. Senator Lieberman's Connecticut
     colleague and best friend in the Senate, Chris Dodd, campaigned
     against him. In a tough political fight, Joe Lieberman was
     abandoned simply because of his firm stand on the war -- a stand he
     has consistently held regardless of whether the news was good or
     bad, or whether snapshot polls agreed or disagreed with him.
     Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman was re-elected, winning more votes
     than the Democratic and Republican candidates combined. The
     campaign against him was the political equivalent of street
     theater, and the voters of Connecticut showed little interest. It
     is tempting, I suppose, to view the current situation on Capitol
     Hill in the same way -- as mere posturing by a liberal element that
     has no chance of prevailing. But it's far more serious than that.
     We're talking about a congressional majority with real power and a
     liberal agenda that, if followed, would have serious consequences
     for the country.
     In light of recent events, it's worth asking how things would be
     different if the current Democratic leadership had controlled
     Congress during the last five years. Would we have the terrorist
     surveillance program? Or the Patriot Act? Or military commissions
     to try unlawful combatants? All these measures have been essential
     to protecting the American people against enemies who are
     absolutely determined to cause another 9/11, or something far
     worse. And it's an open question, I think, whether the current
     Democratic leadership would have put these protections in place.
     They've even created controversy over the words we use to describe
     the challenges now facing America. According to news accounts, one
     committee in the House has decided to stop using the phrase,
     "Global War on Terrorism." I'm left to wonder -- which part of that
     phrase is the problem? Do they deny the struggle is global, after
     the enemy has declared the ambition of building a totalitarian
     empire that stretches from Europe around to Indonesia? Do they deny
     this is a war, in which one side will win and the other will lose?
     Do they deny that it's terror that we're fighting, with unlawful
     combatants who wear no uniform, who reject the rules of warfare,
     and who target the innocent for indiscriminate slaughter?

   Be sure to read it all. (Hat tip to [2]The Discerning Texan.)

References

   1. http://www.heritage.org/Research/nationalsecurity/cheney041207.cfm
   2. http://discerningtexan.blogspot.com/2007/04/cheney-blasts-dems.html