Hillary Clinton Takes On Cheney
It took the administration a while, but they have finally decided to answer Dick Cheney’s criticism. The attack dog? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:”
Hillary Clinton stepped directly into the middle of this week’s political fray when she questioned former Vice President Dick Cheney’s credibility on the torture memos recently released by the Obama administration.
Now do not interpret this as approval of the job Cheney did when in office, but Clinton’s criticism is extremely undignified. Administrations do not criticize their predecessors. Obama should not criticize Bush and Cheney anymore, nor should his senior officials. Clinton is not a member of the U.S. Senate any longer, she is a prominent member of the new administration. She should behave accordingly.
As for the entire credibility issue: it seems to me that Cheney certainly has it. That does not mean that we should believe he is objective – he is obviously not – but if there is one man with inside knowledge about ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ it is him.
Clinton should start behaving like a states(wo)man, instead of the administration’s attack dog. If the White House is serious about bringing all sides together – heh: who believes that nowadays? – it should treat Cheney and Bush with the respect a former president and vice president of the most powerful nation on earth deserve.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I totally agree, Obama and Clinton should just let Cheney treat the current president with the respect the president deserves. Or the respect Cheney thinks the current president deserves.
Instead Obama should just start a serious enquiry into the torture allowed during the last two terms. It would be a great way to restore the respect that the most powerful nation deserves.
And it would probably end with Cheney getting what he deserves.
Clinton was not going after Cheney for no reason. Cheney has been launching broadsides at this administration pretty much since Obama took power, accusing Obama of damaging the economy and deliberately making the country less safe. If he chooses to inject himself in the debate, he has to expect backlash. Heat, kitchen and all that.
If Clinton had just gone after Cheney for no reason, I would agree with the “undignified” argument. However, Cheney criticized Obama and Rep. Rohrbacher quoted Cheney as an intro to his question to Clinton. It had to be addressed.
No not really, typically it’s done where Administrations *leak* information to the press, or let a lower minion start the snowball rolling downhill – someone as high up in the Admnistration as HRC should keep herself relatively out of the fray to avoid looking quite so pathetic. (granted difficult for her to do).
however the problem with sic-cing the press on Cheney is they’ve attempted to do so for eight years. And let their frothing behavior step in front of facts and proving their case.