cheneythreat

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone out of his way to criticize the current President Barack Obama. Cheney frequently cites factors such as Obama’s willingness to provide information to terrorists about interrogations through released CIA memos, his decision to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention facility, and his refusal to accept “enhanced” interrogation techniques as valid and necessary.

While the former Vice President has every right to voice his opinions, just as Al Gore does with his views on the environment and climate change, his willingness to target the current president within the first six months of his administration represents a vital threat to national security because he is attempting to publicly undermine the commander-in-chief of the United States. It’s intentionally subversive to current American national security policy, and borderline treason.

Let’s understand the context. The attacks of 9/11 happened during the Bush-Cheney administration. Their response was to involve the U.S. in two wars, both of which are viewed negatively by the public and as unsuccessful by some military officials.  Bush and Cheney put together eight years of policies, programs, and practices that set the foundation for today’s weakened economy; this includes a unilateral approach to the Global War on Terror that has alienated most of the world. In all, the former Vice President certainly stands on shaky ground as an oracle of national security.

Cheney has repeatedly offered that Obama is weak on protecting America, and openly claimed the President doesn’t understand the global terrorism threat. Why should we think these words do not embolden terrorists more than the release of memoranda stating which methods will no longer be used in interrogations? Does it not make sense in the former Vice President’s mind that by publicly undermining the current President’s authority, we as a nation become weaker in the eyes of those who would like to do us harm?

As a former Army soldier with 19 years of military experience, and a Veteran of two military conflicts, it is quite frustrating to watch a “retired” commander who did so little to look out for American troops act as a spokesman for those of us who served to protect and defend the country.

While in uniform, we were always trained to adapt, preserve, and move on, even when we disagreed with a commander. It was fine to be upset with a leader or his/her decisions, and there was always an appropriate mechanism for voicing appropriate concerns. The appropriate channel was use of the immediate chain of command; the inappropriate channel was open confrontation.

It is completely contradictory for Cheney to go in front of national media and opine to the world that the current President isn’t good at protecting America. The presidential campaign is over, and there is no election this year; so, what is the former vice president’s end game?

Perhaps there is a bit of resentment over the president’s high approval and favorability. After all the Bush-Cheney administration did have some of the worst public evaluations in history. The fact that Cheney and Bush played such minor roles in the 2008 presidential election should speak volumes about how their own political party views their political status. Yet, while the former President Bush has welcomed his new found freedom—calling is “liberating,” the former Vice President refuses to accept his role in presidential history, is just his-story.

This past week, the media characterized national security speeches by Obama and Cheney as “dueling.” However, if one examines the content of both speeches Obama’s was 80% informative and 20% critical, while Cheney’s was 80% critical and 20% informative. There was no real duel. Cheney can’t do anything and his decisions have no governmental authority.  Obama is the only one of the two who can still be held to account for his political decisions.  Thus, it’s clear which of the speeches was more “politics” and which was more “principle.”

 In short, the former Vice President, an individual with extensive knowledge of world affairs and classified information, has gone on record as an expert to claim the commander-in-chief of the United States is making America less safe.  I wonder what terrorists are thinking right now?

David C. Wilson