I guess it was okay for Cheney to strong arm the CIA into saying what the CIA did not believe, namely that Saddam was actively developing nuclear weapons.
That's not politicization. That's umm, something else. Yeah, something totally different.
Wait ... so you're saying things are NO different under Obama as under Cheney and GW? I am not sure I heard you say that, or would even believe you would say that, though you infer it.
Strange that Foot in the Mouth Biden does not even enter the picture.
I think Nancy Pelosi would agree with you
Slandering Cheney [Guy Benson]
The New Yorker's June 22 edition will include an interview with CIA chief Leon Panetta, who suggests that former vice president Dick Cheney is "[almost] wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."
Three reactions:
(1) Has a sitting CIA director ever slandered a major American political figure like this before? It's alarming that Panetta evidently felt it appropriate to engage in partisan attacks in the first place. This type of inflammatory statement may be expected in the lefty blogosphere, not passing through the lips of a top intelligence official whose position is explicitly and necessarily non-partisan. Good thing the era of "politicizing intelligence" is over.
(2) One can only imagine the hue and cry we'd have heard if a Bush appointee of similar stature had insinuated that, say, Al Gore was secretly hoping for a terrorist strike against America. Will Republicans defend Cheney and demand an apology?
(3) With due respect to Mr. Panetta, Cheney has already made his point, and did so quite effectively. He managed to win this debate simply by employing persusasive arguments and appealing to reason. No outside "help" was necessary.
OK, Panetta now says he was just lying when he made the earlier statement. That proves this was just a politization of the CIA and that the head is a liar.
MacThulhu
Cuz heaven knows, it's never been done before.