Cheney, who with his clique of neoconservative compatriots, guided the
Bush administration's response to 9/11 in the months and years
following the attacks, was determined to engineer an occupation of Iraq,
which did not harbor al-Qaeda operatives. But Pakistan, long an
operational base for extremists, faced no threat of occupation or even
of accountability. Instead, Pakistan got huge increases in U.S. military
and humanitarian aid and massive structural support for the military
dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf, who used the U.S. money and
military might to maintain his rule while contributing little of value
to the war on terror.
"To maintain his power, with the approval of Bush and Cheney,
Pakistan's then-president Musharraf cut deals with the religious parties
that gave extremists succor, in particular the coalition called the
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA, or United Action Committee). Musharraf
also barred the parties of his main democratic rivals, including the
Pakistan Peoples Party led by the since-assassinated Benazir Bhutto
(Zardari is her widower)," Mike Hirsh, the veteran diplomatic
correspondent, observed in a 2010 assessment for Newsweek
of circumstances on the ground in Pakistan.
"The result was that
Islamism grew in power and influence under Musharraf's constantly
deferred promises to reinstate genuine democracy, even as Washington
delivered billions of dollars in aid." But, surely, the U.S. was getting
some juicy intelligence from Pakistan's notoriously thorough and
draconian spy network. Right? Wrong.
"The Pakistanis were chronically
stingy with intelligence," continued the Newsweek assessment. "Critics
such as Gary Schroen, the former CIA station chief, saw a pattern of
giving up second-rate Taliban or Al Qaeda leaders only to ameliorate
American mistrust, then retreating."
So what happened when candidate
Barack Obama talked about getting tough with Pakistan? What happened
when he spoke of going after terrorists inside the country Cheney made
America's top ally after 9/11? Cheney dismissed the Democrat as naà ¯ve
and unprepared. With President Bush, he ridiculed Obama's talk of
tracking terrorists inside Pakistan. As the 2008 election approached,
the vice president endorsed Republican John McCain as the candidate who,
unlike Obama, "understands the danger facing America."
After Obama's election, Cheney continued to attack the new president's approach to the war in terror in general and Pakistan in particular.
In February of 2009, Cheney complained that: "When we get people who
are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist
than they are with protecting the United States against people who are
absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I
worry."
In March of 2009, Cheney complained that Obama was taking actions
that would "raise the risk to the American people of another attack."
In April of 2009, Cheney told Fox News' Sean Hannity that the "Obama people" were abandoning "tough policies."
In May of 2009, Cheney appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" to what he
described as the Obama administration's "half-measures" and said:
"There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of
the American people are in the balance."
Throughout 2009, Cheney kept attacking Obama. The Los Angeles Times reported that: "Cheney,
who has been outspoken in his criticism of the Obama administration,
said on CNN's 'State of the Union' last Sunday that Obama has increased
the nation's risk of terrorist attacks by jettisoning key elements of
the Bush administration's aggressive approach."
"Now," Cheney said of Obama, "he is making some choices that, in my
mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another
attack."
Obama pushed back in March of 2009, asking in an interview with CBS's
"60 Minutes": "How many terrorists have actually been brought to
justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President
Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great
advertisement for anti-American sentiment."
Cheney's banging on Obama featured such wild claims that in the fall
of 2009 Vice President Joe Biden accused his predecessor of being "factually, substantively wrong."
