Early last week, former Vice President Dick Cheney emerged from his eerie, dark lair once again to assail President Obama’s foreign policy.

In October, Cheney claimed the president was “dithering” on the decision of a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our enemies,” Cheney said.

This time he accused Obama of “projecting weakness” by engaging in long periods of “continual agonizing” before finally settling on a strategy.

The new administration’s intensive three-month review of Afghanistan policy illustrates a seismic shift in decision-making style President Obama has brought to the White House. I find it interesting that the former vice president is such a vocal critic of Obama’s cautious deliberation, considering the approach he took in Iraq.

In the 1990s Dick Cheney was a member of a Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century. Other notable members included neo-conservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. This group co-wrote a letter to President Clinton arguing for the use of military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Cheney had desired an invasion of Iraq long before Sept. 11.

After the attack and during the run-up to the Iraq War, the vice president did everything he could to attempt to link Saddam with al-Qaeda in order to build the case for war. If he could associate the dictator with terrorists, he would finally get his chance at regime change in Iraq.

Analysts from the CIA conducted a review of roughly 75,000 pages of documents and insisted they could find no connection, but Cheney continued to pressure mid-level officials in the hope they’d reach a different conclusion. He needed to produce the intelligence that would justify the invasion he wanted. In the end, the “link” between Saddam and al-Qaida became a key justification for the war in Iraq even though the CIA turned out to be right — the connection did not exist.

The contrast between Cheney and Obama could not be clearer.

The New York Times published an article last week that detailed Obama’s decision process on Afghanistan. According to the Times, “Mr. Obama peppered advisers with questions and showed an insatiable demand for information.”

The president frequently “invited competing voices to debate in front of him,” and conducted a review process that was “intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating.”

Rather than attempt to cook up evidence in support of his case, as Cheney had done, Obama’s approach was to explore every option available and assess the merit of each. What Cheney calls “dithering” was actually necessary, thoughtful deliberation that was sorely lacking in the last administration.

American soldiers have been dying in Afghanistan for more than eight years, unemployment is hovering around 10 percent, we are in the worst economic downtown since the Great Depression, and the national debt is out of control. Frankly, at a time like this President Obama owed it to the American people to take a long, hard look at this policy.

I am glad the president took his time on this decision and conducted a thorough, vigorous review. Decisions this important should not be made from the gut. Rather, they should come after careful weighing of the best possible action.

Reach columnist Chris Jordan at opinion@dailyuw.com.