President Obama’s terrorism speech Thursday “was on the future,” said John Dickerson in Slate, on how to build a sustainable post-9/11 national security policy. Dick Cheney’s speech focused on the past, on how he and President Bush kept us safe from another attack. But Cheney was also, perhaps, refighting “the battles he lost in the last two years of the Bush administration.”
If anyone is attacking Bush, it's Obama, said Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard. No other president has “gone to such lengths to attack his White House predecessor.” It must be “embarrassing” for Obama that his “most prominent critic” was Bush’s No. 2. Especially since when Cheney says it was “unwise in the extreme” for Obama to abandon waterboarding, the Bush record backs him up.
Obama didn’t end waterboarding, Bush’s CIA did, over Cheney’s strong objections, said David Brooks in The New York Times. That’s why Cheney is really “attacking the Bush administration”—after his three post-9/11 “golden years,” he started losing national security fights to Condoleezza Rice. Obama’s merely polishing up the “Bush-Rice” policies.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- How academia's liberal bias is killing social science
- Diagnosing the Home Alone burglars' injuries: A professional weighs in
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- Why Pakistan won't hunt down the terrorists within its borders
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- How Wall Street is chipping away at reform
- How I lost all my money
- 10 things you need to know today: December 21, 2014
- Are there dogs in heaven? Let's hope not.
- You should be furious about Hollywood's gutless retreat on The Interview
Subscribe to the Week