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
- The dangers of our passionless American life
- The essential techniques that every home cook should know
- Why you should stop believing in evolution
- Why the West should let Russia have eastern Ukraine
- The real reason conservatives should be outraged that police killed a white youth
- 10 things you need to know today: August 29, 2014
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- 4 strategies for organizing your money, based on your personality
- Even critics of the euro didn't see this coming
- The amazing resurrection of Mitt Romney
Subscribe to the Week