-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
Streetcar Line
Crediting the Cheney Chronicles
Dick Cheney pays the price for declining to kiss up to the establishment’s demi-gods and demagogues.
Just as Dick Cheney predicted, heads are starting to explode all over Washington. Ranting ideologues who can’t even get their facts close to straight (hint: Cheney was in Texas, not Maryland, when he accidentally sprayed a hunting companion with bird shot) are now having conniptions because the former vice president dares to survive on this earth without apologizing for his existence. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell already has risen to Cheney’s bait, accusing his former colleague of using his new memoir to take “cheap shots” at Powell and Powell’s cronies. The vitriol and extravagant denunciations from boringly predictable sources are already rolling in.
The real “problem” with Dick Cheney, though, isn’t really a problem at all: It’s that he refuses to let the conventional wisdom of “official Washington” stand unchallenged. He prefers facts to cheap and misleading narratives. And he refuses to kiss up to the establishment’s demi-gods and demagogues.
Take Colin Powell’s complaints that Cheney was wrong to resent Powell’s long silence on the “Valerie Plame” affair in which Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, ended up convicted of perjury about a leak Libby himself didn’t commit, involving a claim about Iraq’s involvement with “yellowcake” uranium that Libby himself never made. The simple facts are that the now-identified leaker was top Powell aide Richard Armitage, that the leak was a mistake rather than part of a deliberately politicized strategy, and that Powell himself knew Armitage was the leaker but nevertheless let Libby (and Karl Rove) twist in the wind for years while prosecutors set underhanded perjury traps for him. (Rather than hash out all the details, I refer interested readers to these five stories — two by me — that set the record entirely straight: here, here, here, here, and here.) Powell’s behavior in this incident was highly unworthy of a statesman, and Cheney has every right to take offense on behalf of his loyal and effective (and innocent) aide, Libby.
But let’s set aside personal disputes and policy differences. Let’s just consider the media-created image of Cheney as a dyspeptic, conniving, malevolent “Darth Vader” of American politics. When he was chosen as George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000, his image was exactly the opposite: It was that of a reasonable, thoughtful, straight-shooting, wise and steady statesman. So what happened? As Cheney himself told the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger the other day, he doesn’t think he changed, but the world did. Then the media jackals, having refused to see the world’s changes the same way Cheney did, used the ever-silent vice president (remember how he always deferred to the president while in office?) as their bogeyman.
From what I saw and heard in five years in Washington, that image is as much of a lie as a lie can be. I can’t claim any close personal knowledge of the man himself, but I formed rather strong impressions from several informational opportunities: two small-group lunches at the vice president’s residence, one (mostly) on the record and one off; and a number of personal conversations with former Cheney aides who uniformly painted him in similar fashion. The picture is of a man who is, yes, all business and no nonsense, but also of one with a frequent, dry, and subtle wit; a refreshing straight-forwardness; a courage of his convictions but without a need to have his ego fed; and a striking subjugation of his own public image if necessary to best serve the policy causes he supports from sincere conviction.
His whip-smart daughter Liz sat in on both lunches, and I was struck by the fond, light, amusing banter between them both times. Indeed, what impressed me about Cheney’s interactions with his daughter, indeed with the whole group of about 12 of us, was the vice president’s ease of manner and comfort in his own skin. His was not a dark and brooding presence, but rather one that made up in genuine good will what it lacked in what this modern, feelings-saturated culture calls “warmth.”
To a person, meanwhile, his former aides say that he is one of the best (usually the best of) bosses they have ever worked for. Of course he expects hard work, excellently done, but he is reasonable, considerate, entirely respectful of family obligations, and good at knowing what can and can’t be delegated. He treats them like professionals, not like servants; and, they say, he is quietly thoughtful in myriad ways.
“The public perception of Cheney and the daily interactions with him were miles apart and polar opposites,” Shannen Coffin, former chief legal counsel to the vice president, repeated to me last week. “He was a relatively easy-going boss… always cordial and professional, with an impish sense of humor that kept things light for all of us and was an absolute delight to be with.”
An extraordinary career of nearly 40 years in high public life merits one heck of a memoir. If that’s what Dick Cheney has given us, with nothing held back, then more power to him — no matter how many heads figuratively explode.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/06/crediting-the-cheney-chronicle
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Chef Schnauzer| 9.6.11 @ 6:21AM
Mr. Cheney is one of the very few political figures worthy of admiration and imitation. I am thankful to God that he is true to principle. Thank you for confirming that he is a true gentleman. I know people who worked with Mrs. Cheney and came away with an assessment of 'brilliant' and 'truly kind and classy' - in this case a pair wins.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 7:58AM
'brilliant' and 'truly kind'...
So was Carter!
Noted you did not write how honest Cheney is.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:01AM
...because he is not.
Cheney's disingenuousness makes Clinton seem like Geo Washington cutting down the cherry tree.
PaulyD| 9.6.11 @ 10:10AM
Alan, thanks for showing us all the right heads are exploding.
Cosmo| 9.7.11 @ 5:53AM
Seeing Cheney on TV he looks old, he is on oxygen & has one foot in the grave, the other on the banana peel. Never should have been given a second term in 2004 after numerous heart-attacks. Hid out in a bunker for 8 years, running the government with no accountability. Approved the disastrous, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Wouldn't answer questions for 8 years, now wants to speak out...way too late, you old bastard.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:34PM
Ah, STICK IT with your invidious/obnoxious and truly asinine remarks concerning this patriotic American who has long served our country. GTH and stay there. please!!!!!!!
Jack in Wi.| 9.14.11 @ 3:19PM
Cheney and his murderous gang have almost destroyed the Republican Party, conservative movement, the Constitution and this country. The sooner That Cheney is buried literally and figuratively the better. This walking corpse is just a reminder to the world about how bad the country club and neoconservative Republicans were and are. He lied us into wars that made no sense and now the rest of us have to clean up the mess.
Riff Raff| 9.6.11 @ 4:02PM
Horse manure. Clinton is the unchallenged champion of liars. And a traitor to boot. You are a sick person.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:57PM
Riff Raff:
You are astounding. Time is fleeting. Your logic, takes control.
I do hope you recognize the twisted quote.
Chalkdust| 9.6.11 @ 9:04AM
Jimmy Carter was neither "brilliant nor kind". He was a possessed, ego-maniac who thought he could control events by his own brilliants as long as he had his wife's and Amy's concurrance. In short he was a dolt.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:12PM
Carter treated the people who worked for him like crap---especially the Secret Service.
loulou| 9.6.11 @ 10:24AM
Carter was not brilliant and he was not a nuclear physicist.
wanda andrako| 9.6.11 @ 2:04PM
Read what Kessler has written about the treatment of staff and the security staff for the presidents. You will get an entirely new view of Carter and other dems. Cheney is a great man with excellant judgment and loyalty. Powell was a total ingrate and nasty as the Sec. of State. I am glad that he was called on it. That ass Armitage should have been put in jail for what he did as well as the special prosecuter that knew who did was responsible for the leaks before he started investing.
The one thing I fault Bush on was not granting the request of Cheney for clearing Scooter Libby. He was very wrong on that.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:10PM
"The one thing I fault Bush on was not granting the request of Cheney for clearing Scooter Libby. He was very wrong on that."
Now we are getting somewhere. Bush was an ingrate himself: Libby rolled over in the clover but Bush didn't care.
Rurik| 9.6.11 @ 12:09PM
Statesmen sometimes have to lie or dissimulate in the line of duty. Even George "Cannot tell a lie" Washington and "Honest" Abe Lincoln did. It is called raison d'etat. It differs in that it is done for critical national interest, and not for personal gain or pettiness - as was Saint Colinpowell's betrayal of Scooter Libby.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:33PM
"Statesmen sometimes have to lie or dissimulate in the line of duty. Even George "Cannot tell a lie" Washington and "Honest" Abe Lincoln did. It is called raison d'etat. It differs in that it is done for critical national interest, and not for personal gain or pettiness - as was Saint Colinpowell's betrayal of Scooter Libby."
THat is correct; truth needs a bodyguard of lies.
Also, you are correct about Libby: which shows how ungrateful Bush was-- Bush showed his true colors in his attitude towards Libby; Bush was almost saying,
"you peon, Libby. You don't get a full pardon. So there.
Tough toenails, you little patsy."
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:56PM
... in fact that is probably exactly what Bush WAS saying. Libby took the heat but Bush didn't give diddly for Libby no matter how well Libby served Cheney.
I don't say Bush and Cheney were the worst ever to serve in the Executive Branch, but why the fanboy simpering over this old goat Cheney? you make it sound as if he is saint Francis or something.
Cheney was a ruthless, tough, aggressive SOB-- and those are his positive qualities.
Jack in Wi.| 9.6.11 @ 9:50AM
Cheney was and is a liar and master manipulator. He cherry picked intelligence to lie us into an 10 year war that has helped bankrupt the country and destroy the Republican Party. The only thing that I can say about Powell is that he disgraced himself when he went to the UN and lied his head off. An honorable man would have resigned on the spot rather then be used for such a project.
BD57| 9.6.11 @ 10:34AM
Thank you for your rant.
Shame it isn't close to "true" ... but, hey - you did your duty.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 11:15AM
"Cheney was and is a liar and master manipulator."
The old joke was: good thing Cheney didn't die in office- then Bush would have become president.
RCV| 9.7.11 @ 4:16PM
LOL
Jack in Wi.| 9.6.11 @ 1:36PM
Frankly: I thought Cheney would move to Dubai like Haliburton. Then it would be hard to prosecute him as a war criminal. Lying to get into an agressive war is a serious war crime.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:13PM
"Lying to get into an agressive war is a serious war crime."
Speaking of aggression: Cheney shot that hunter accidentally-- accidentally on purpose.
I think on that hunting trip (and on other occasions) there was just a tiny bit of... acting out on Cheney's part.
Jim| 9.7.11 @ 1:50PM
Like all your "colleagues" you fail to note specifics, preferring the easy lie, without facts that can be checked which might reveal you to be the uneducated person you are. I suppose you supported Clinton when he was PROVEN in a deposition to be a liar. All depends on who lies, huh?
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:36PM
No, instead he simply told the TRUTH, and as Jessup declared, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!
Riff Raff| 9.6.11 @ 4:05PM
How did Cheney "cerry-pick" intelligence to influence virtually every Democrat in Washington BEFORE Bush was elected? They all demanded something be done about Saddam Hussein, again BEFORE Bush was elected. Get your facts straight.
MOS was 71331| 9.8.11 @ 2:22PM
You claim, Cheney "cherry picked intelligence to lie us into an 10 year war." "Ambassador" Wilson said Hussein hadn't tried to obtain yellowcake from Niger. British intelligence said Hussein had. Bush, not Cheney, chose to accept (cherry pick?) the British statement rather than Wilson's. I can't say I blame him.
You may not believe Hussein was trying to develop an atom bomb, the most dramatic example of a "weapon of mass destruction." I do believe it. You also may not believe that Hussein had already used WMDs against Iran and also against some of the Iraqi population, but these are known historical facts.
When we and our allies invaded Iraq, US and allied intelligence thought Hussein had WMDs available. Perhaps that intelligence was incorrect, but senior officers in Iraq's armed forces also thought Hussein had those weapons. You're asking a lot if you want our appraisal of enemy capabilities to be more accurate than the appraisals of senior enemy officers.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 11:45AM
One of the best results if Obama is re-elected is the Bush dynasty would be finished forever.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:38PM
One of thes best results would be if Obama is severly defeated [which he will be so] and if you would go away forever!!!!
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:44PM
I don't really hate Cheney, not much; he is someone to forget (not to read his 2nd-rate book).
I just don't get it why you all can't say he was a tough old bird and leave it at that.
Instead you are simpering over Cheney like fanboys at a Partridge Family autograph event.
sirbourbon| 9.7.11 @ 1:30AM
Is it naivete or memorex?
" When he [Cheney]was chosen as George W. Bush's running mate in 2000,"
Cheney was the chief head hunter who was supposed to look for a running mate for G.W.Bush! Cheney claimed that no one fit the bill so he put himself in as the running mate.
nister| 9.6.11 @ 6:42AM
The author lies by omission.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 7:53AM
Agreed, nister.
"... because the former vice president dares to survive on this earth without apologizing for his existence."
If only Cheney had not been born the world would have been blessed. Cheney is allergic to any sort of truth: he said for instance that his success had Quote nothing to do with government Unquote; when if fact Cheney made millions from govt. contracts.
If Cheney were any more of a puppet his nose would be ten feet long. Cheney makes me appreciate Bush in comparison.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:41PM
You only dislike his due to his successful management/administration of Halliburton, which is a Texas corporation [since you obviously hate anything Texas, ie Bush, Perry, Halliburtin, and no doubt the Rangers, the Cowboys etc]. What possibly is your opinion concerning Dallas' Delay Plaza ??????????
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:16PM
I do like western Texas, I was there in '76.
I don't have to like exactly the same things you or anyone else does. I'm not a carbon copy of you.
Stuart Koehl| 9.6.11 @ 6:42AM
You can tell a lot about a man by his enemies, and by that benchmark, Dick Cheney must be numbered among the best of men.
Colin Powell, on the other hand, never fails to live down to my expectations of him (admittedly very low). He's always been a weasel who undermined his superiors whenever it served the interests of his own career--and now, of his "legacy".
Brian Mc| 9.6.11 @ 7:13AM
I'll go a step further, Stuart. An enemy of Mr. Cheney's is an enemy of this Republic...willing to sacrifice "our" liberties to gain anything they can from this debacle that we call the federal government. Sinister is too kind a word.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 7:55AM
Cheney isn't 1/10 the statesman Cap Weinberger was.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:04AM
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:05AM
less than 1/20
Dai Alanye | 9.6.11 @ 9:35AM
Every once in awhile Alan Brooks makes an accurate and incisive comment. This is not one of those rare times. In fact, he seems to be raving.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:43PM
Both were dedicated/loyal Americans....it's a damn sahme that we have such undedicated ones now capturing our country and destroying same from within, right????????
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:47PM
Stuart---yeah, I always liked Mr. Cheney---when I was in New Zealand, the Union I belonged to was threatening to strike for more money. The Union's head writer compared the Negotiator for the District Health Board unfavorably to Dick Chaney, stating that his aim was about as accurate.
I wrote a letter (which was published) pointing out that Dick Cheney's miss did some public good (he shot an attorney by accident) unlike the DHB negotiator, which was completely societally useless---NZ was paying its. An apology to Mr. Cheney from the ASMS Unuion then followed.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:48PM
Sorry--sentence truncated---NZ was paying its MDs about 40% less than Australia was paying its MDs, and thus losing MDs to Oz.
Cincinnatius| 9.6.11 @ 7:55PM
Right on, Stuart! Colin (Affirmative Action) Powell like (Affirmative Action) Obozo is another shining example of the failure of affirmative action! They are both liars, which apparently is the result of being promoted to positions you are incapable of handling, which requires you to manufacture personas to meet the challenges that are expected of you. In short, one lie (that you have merit), results in millions of lies to cover everything that happens after that initial lie...that you deserve the place you stole from someone more deserving.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.6.11 @ 6:43AM
A fine man, and the smartest I ever met, in business and politics.
Herb| 9.6.11 @ 7:12AM
Dick Cheney - the only adult in the room.
Remember in 2000 when the MSM gave backhanded praise to Dubya for choosing Cheney for VP because the latter had "gravitas"?
He's right, he hasn't changed. They have. For the worse.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:50AM
"and the and the smartest I ever met, in business and politics."
Maybe you didn't meet many smart guys in business and politics.
Brian Mc| 9.6.11 @ 8:56AM
...and maybe you've never offered anything productive to these conversations...
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 9:09AM
But you did not deny what I wrote above.
Chalkdust| 9.6.11 @ 9:12AM
Thanks Brian Mc for bring reason to the string of banalities.
Chalkdust| 9.6.11 @ 9:13AM
...ing...
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:44PM
He must have mainly met you instead/then, right??????????
Wally| 9.6.11 @ 10:30AM
Amen Herb. Can someone get a midol for Alan ?
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 11:13AM
how about Piracetam for Cheney?
or Deprenyl.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:45PM
How bout the BS of HOPE & CHANGE?????????
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 3:06PM
Deprenyl is primarily used as an antiparkinsonian drug or an antidepressant, Piracetam as a nootropic for college students (mild) bought online.
He's neither demented nor depressed. What's the point, Alan?
Riff Raff| 9.6.11 @ 4:06PM
Why Brooks? Because you are already on Thorazine?
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:18PM
Paxil.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:40PM
This is it:
I'm not saying Cheney is a monster like LBJ; but I do not have to like Cheney; and you guys are slobbering all over Cheney as if he were Jesus H Christ.
Riff Raff| 9.7.11 @ 11:03AM
No, we are not. YOU are slobbering and drooling while attacking the man. No one says you have to like Cheney, and if you don't like him, fine. But your attacks are unwarranted and unjustified.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:48PM
Well, Ken, that tells me all I need to know.
By the way, here's more body count from the Religion of Paul:
2011.09.06 (Yala, Thailand) - Islamists kill a 38-year-old teacher, then set his body on fire.
2011.09.06 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - A 9-year-old boy is among the victims of two attacks by Muslim gunmen, one at a teahouse.
2011.09.06 (Zakaleo, Nigeria) - Four Christians are burned alive when militant Muslims set fire to their house.
2011.09.05 (Dabwak, Nigeria) - An elderly Christian couple and their two grandchildren are shot to death in their home by Muslim raiders.
2011.09.05 (Qaisar, Afghanistan) - Sunni militants take out five civilians with a well-placed roadside bomb.
2011.09.05 (Parwan, Afghanistan) - The bodies of two German hikers are found three weeks after they were abducted and shot to death.
DaveS| 9.6.11 @ 6:44AM
The Plame affair was the biggest non sequitor of distracting politics of the last fifty years. I don't blame Powell so much as I blame Armitage - that is, of course, unless Powell impressed upon Armitage to keep his lips together. W should have pardoned Libby and not just commuted the sentence.
With respect to Cheney, who could ever have had a better Vice President? He was respectful to Lieberman in debate space and crucified Edwards. Yes, THE Edwards who was offered up a a Vice Presidential candidate. The 2004 Democratic party gave us Kerry and Edwatds. Hooo boy! We escaped that fate, but are suffering another.
SC Mike| 9.6.11 @ 8:13AM
Thanks a heap, DaveS, for the reminder about the 2004 Democrat ticket. I’d almost succeeded in wiping that from the near-term memory, then you had to bring it up. Here come the nightmares and night-sweats again..
Durn you!
Michael Tomlinson| 9.6.11 @ 7:46AM
Cheney is a fine and decent man.
One question I have for him why were Marines providing over watch at the Muthana chemical storage facility and why were some wounded by mustard gas from shells there as late as 2008 if WMD didn't exist?
DaveS| 9.6.11 @ 10:21AM
Silly you, for asking such a question.
PCC| 9.6.11 @ 7:46AM
A nice article. It does not comport with my overall impression of Mr. Cheney, but it does right the balance somewhat with persuasive positive first-person accounts. Thank you, Mr. Hillyer.
JimH| 9.6.11 @ 8:23AM
I don’t have any ax to grind politically with Cheney . And the incident has nothing to do with the man’s career, but ‘...when he accidentally sprayed a hunting companion with bird shot’ is the lamest way of expressing what he did, which was to carelessly discharge a firearm and shoot somebody. Why do you feel compelled to spin this incident? Birdshot? I guess the victim was fortunate that they were not hunting deer. The man made a mistake. No need for you to try to minimize it.
MikeBee| 9.6.11 @ 8:40AM
JimH,
As I recall, the incident was a pure accident, involving TWO people, not Cheney alone. Cheney shot at the same time that his hunting partner stood up and looked back, receiving bird shot in the face. The folks who want to make Cheney out to be an evil person twisted this incident into Cheney shooting his hunting partner, who was minding his own business, out of malevolent intent. The people who spin this incident are the Left, who have a political axe to grind with Cheney.
Stammon| 9.6.11 @ 9:00AM
Have you ever hunted upland game (field birds, dove, quail, pheasant)? If not, shut up. You have to be careful to not shoot your dogs, not shoot your friends, and stay out of the way of other shooters. The "victim" should have stayed down and back.
Chalkdust| 9.6.11 @ 9:24AM
Stammon...Thanks to the input by a fellow bird hunter who knows how to swing on a bird.
JimH| 9.6.11 @ 10:11AM
I defer to those who have first hand bird hunting experience. I never have, just some skeet shooting. Admittedly I have not seen all details of this incident and was not aware that the victim was not where he ought to have been. I assumed it to be the responsibility of the shooter to make sure that it was safe to fire.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.6.11 @ 4:34PM
Stammon,
CORRECT!
When one is bird hunting in a "line" one must stay in the line. Get "hungry" for the bird and sneak forward...you are stupid.
People who are ignorant don't understand that if the man was close...IN SIGHT...the bird-shot would have killed him. THE BIRD-SHOT MERELY RAINED ON HIM.
...Just another stupid lawyer.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:19PM
ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE!
Frosty| 9.6.11 @ 11:26PM
Second or third time you have claimed Cheney shot him on purpose. Yyou must know who the man is and why Cheney would want to shoot him. Enlighten us.
CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 1:04AM
That's libel and defamation, you jerk.
Too bad Cheney can't sue you into the poorhouse for the rest of your life.
P.S. I don't even think you're a real person. I think you're one a "Fake Person" that Obama cooked up with his Leftist billionaire internet cronies.
Mimi| 9.6.11 @ 8:27AM
More people see Dick Cheney as a statesmen with a huge list of accomplishments to this nation...what is amazing to me has been: All of this was done by a man with Heart Desease ! That reveals a courage and selflessness quite extraordinary and remarkable. After 9/11 , I and many others felt that gratefulness that someone of his STATURE was in the VP SEAT!
History will note the gift that was given this nation by his service!
Anthony| 9.6.11 @ 8:59AM
Powell let the liar out of the bag, sort of speak, when he told the sclerotic Bob Schieffer, that upon learning it was Armitage who leaked Plame to Novak, that he immediately contacted the Justice Department.
Either Powell is a liar, which is certainly possible, given what a perfidious backstabber he is , or, Fitzgerald knew and still went after Rove and Libby to get a "Bush" scalp.
Either way, Dick Cheney will be known as one of the greatest American statesmen in American history, assuming we still have a nation going forward, if Hoffa and his union brownshirts don't go" wilding" on America.
DaveS| 9.6.11 @ 10:24AM
Both theories may be correct, as they are not serially related. Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was - and very early on. Unethical, he was. The non-crime morhed to a crime because Libby (stupidly) actually took notes of his actions and statements and could not recall them accurately on the witness stand. Hillary (I don't recall) Clinton, for one, would never make that mistake.
Anthony| 9.6.11 @ 10:42AM
Yes, you are correct. Fitzgerald did admit that he knew Armitage was the leaker early on.
An honest, dedicated, public servant, not hell bent on a political witch trial, would have ended the investigation there. But Fitzgerald is a political whore of the first order.
So he spent millions doing the bidding of his D masters, changed the focus of the investigation, and attempted to obtain a "process crime" conviction against Rove, and finally Libby.
Bush refused to shut this political witch trial down, because he was too timid to do so. His "new tone" in action.
Bush never stood up to the left, thus allowing them to destroy his presidency. Worse, he let the innocent Libby twist in the wind. To add insult to injury, Bush chose not to pardon Libby.
I'd love to get the real story on this!!!
I refuse to give money to the Bush library because of how he treated Scooter Libby and the Border Agents.
PolishKnight| 9.6.11 @ 9:53AM
Did Cheney say anything in his book about Bush not granting a pardon to Libby? For that matter, I don't think Bush granted pardons to unjustly convicted border patrol agents. Unrelated but similar to a theme, GW Bush's Federal marshalls confiscated guns from law abiding (and even enforcing) citizens during the hurricane Katrina disaster requiring people who had been running businesses and protecting property leave their neighborhoods to looters.
I wouldn't say that GW Bush was his own worst enemy (much like his father), but it's close.
loulou| 9.6.11 @ 10:28AM
Bush was a weenie just like his father.
Thank you for reminding us of the travesty against Ramos and Compean.
wally2| 9.6.11 @ 7:23PM
Yes, Cheney covered the pardon. He requested one several times and was very disappointed that Bush did not give Libby one.
He also covered the shooting in a little bit of detail. Essentially he thought the lawyer was still somewhere else when he came up from behind a hill with the sun to his back.
It was a very good memoir. He got onto Powell for the leak case, and Powell and Rice for N. Korea.
I liked President Bush, but I agree with Cheney's chriticism of some of Bush's actions.
loulou| 9.6.11 @ 10:27AM
Dick Cheney should have been President. He certainly would not have put Powell and Rice in positions of power. They were in over their heads. Window dressing--yes, power--no.
Who Knows?| 9.6.11 @ 10:52AM
Ah, those who forget are doomed to repeat----
I’ve always thought America has been (so far!) a lucky and unique nation, given all the close calls she’s managed to muddle through---see the battle at Midway.
However, in 2000 it should have been obvious to anyone who’s clearheaded that Cheney, not W, should have been elected president. Hindsight is 20-20 etc.
Maybe in the “see near things far, and near things far” prism, though, we were just lucky to have silent Dick from Wyoming as veep for those crucial eight years from 2001-2009.
Of course, luck being a lady, she needed her “man”, and the Universe threw up a non-gentleman named Colon Powell, who greasily fit the role of bad luck, practically to perfection.
America is about to go through the “growing pains” of adapting to the baby boomers’ retirements, but we’ve been suffering much the same kind of “adjustment” for all the decades since the Civil Rights days. Powell (and now, Obama) is just the most visible “baby” born from those wrenching times.
Imagine affirmative action “babies” being allowed to play in the NBA. On the playing court, wearing only a jock and minimal clothes, though, it is impossible to miss seeing how lacking in ability, athleticism and basketball smarts such a “ringer” is.
Now, in politics, especially in the big leagues in DC, those affirmative action babies like Powell and Obama, having arisen through the minor leagues, like the Army and state politics, a vast majority of the “game” is played in THE DARK. So, helped along by well-intentioned liberals in higher places, who would be white skinned, of course, such relatively lower qualified people simply can’t make a jump shot!
So, what do they do?
Lie, steal, cheat, and otherwise do whatever they can get away with!
Well, maybe the USA WAS lucky to have a COLON Powell in higher and visible office for so long. His first name has long instantly jerked my mind’s “knee” into the insight that we need—
A cosmic COLONIC!
Essentially, the country gets the leaders it deserves, and pace Mark Steyn, how can any sentient American NOT gather into their current memory the last “team” of such hot shots, say since Reagan departed Washington---almost a quarter century, NOW!---and be other than concerned? To put it mildly!
Well, why don’t we have at least a Washington DC COLONIC?
The dirty, rotten bastards running that sin city certainly stink to high HELL, and their stench is suffocating us all, even in the heartland.
Dick Cheney should be the NORM, not Cosmic Colonic Powell.
God help America!
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:58PM
Yup, "Colon" Powell.
Nick| 9.6.11 @ 7:43PM
Occam's Tool,
Make that "Colon Bowel."
Which is what I used to call him back during Operation Desert Storm.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 8:46PM
Nick, I stand corrected. Sheer GENIUS!!!
(As Colon's "Genius" was more akin to Wil. E. Coyote.)
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 8:50PM
I meant yours was Sheer Genius as opposed to Colon Bowel or his close peer, Mr. Coyote, "Super-Genius."
Nick| 9.6.11 @ 10:41PM
Thanks O.T.!
I appreciate it.
Shalom, and be well.
Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 11:06AM
To Alan, Jackboot, and all the other trolls:
Your slandering and ridiculous assertions about Cheney say more about you than him.
First, why do you always resort to lies, distortions, and slander to discredit a person who policies you disagree with? So, you did not like our involvement in Iraq and perhaps believe it was not handle well or needed. There are plenty of arguments that can be made for that position. Try using them.
Oh, by the way, did anyone notice how much more in common Jackboot from Wisconsin and Alan share than what they disagree on?
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:48PM
ST: Don't waste your valuable time questioning these moron's motives, but simply acknowledge their imbicilic status. Remember the old Philosopher Forrest Gump's words....STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES [and they's be in the doins business, obviously]!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 1:13PM
OF, you are absolutely correct.
Check this out. Describes the difference between RINOs and liberal democrats.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....crats.html
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:54PM
Simon, you are a very, very good man. Here's an example of a great argument on why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in 2003. Stuart Koehl and Ken, please destroy my argument gently, please. I raise it to hear your answers:
Iran was attempting a nuclear weapons program at that time and was funding terrorists more than Iraq (as it is now). We should have invaded Iran, and THEN gone for Iraq using Iran as a springboard. I believe that this would have more efficiently and with less US blood shed taken out terrorism in the Middle East.
Whaddya think?
You are right, Simon. That is a much better example of respectful debate.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.6.11 @ 4:58PM
Doctor,
I hear you, sir, but honestly in my best opinion, invading Iran would have been similar to invading Japan in 1945.
LOT'S of casualties on our side. (hundreds of thousands).
Sadly,
If Iran nukes Israel, then Israel will nuke Iran into the stone-age. (and Israel now has nuke-armed submarines as well to make sure).
Furthermore, if Israel gets nuked, I would hope they nuke Mecca, Medina, Aswan dam, and Damascus.
(Damn! That sounds like Armeggedon doesn't it?)
Unless my Bible is screwed up....."a remnant of Israel" will survive and meet their Messiah, and bow every knee.
Nick| 9.6.11 @ 7:52PM
Occam's Tool,
If I may offer my two cents.
Funding terrorists was not enough of a casus beli to invade Iran, in 2002-03.
With Saddam and Iraq we had the U.N. resolutions to justify our use of force, in order to make sure that Saddam had destroyed all of his WMDs.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 8:47PM
Fair enough. I wanted to see what people I respect thought---I have gotten two excellent answers from Ken and Nick.
Nick| 9.6.11 @ 11:01PM
Thanks, again, O.T.!
I should have added that I think we would've been justified in launching air strikes against Iran when we found out that they were arming Muqtada al-Sadr and the other Shia militias.
We should have bombed their army bases, or, better yet, their only oil refinery.
C Bowen | 9.6.11 @ 8:15PM
He either lied his country into war, or was a dupe to Iranian intelligence in believing Iraq was a threat.
He lacked the honor to at least resign, let alone pull a Vince Foster.
Cheney is a liberal Republican--always has been. He is quite forthright with it as well--he pro-gay marriage, his wife wrote a book about lesbian romance, he has a lesbian daughter who got "married" and he is proud of it-- always saw that she got nice corporate jobs with the liberal media; he apparently attends a church with a Priestess.
And Deficits Don't Matter.
Seeing how wrong Quin has been about the budget and the debt ceiling, the only question is why the rest of the world hasn't put together what is going on here.
Nick| 9.6.11 @ 10:52PM
C. Bowen,
So, Mr. Cheney should have killed himself because you disagree with his policy views? Should I, also, off myself, because I agree with the decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Or, are only the members of President Bush's administration required to commit hara-kiri, because they disagree with you?
All the other views of Mr. Cheney's, which you list, are non sequiturs, I believe.
C Bowen | 9.7.11 @ 7:20AM
Cheney should have done something to preserve his honor and the integrity of the administration.
But he lacks honor so folks lose faith in the central government, and liberalism follows. The standard as a public face of the Executive Office requires some action to preserve faith.
Cheney is a liberal Republican of the Ruling Class and guys like Quin and the hippies at National Review keep pretending he is some kind of serious conservative even though its hard to find points of substance where Cheney is different then liberals.
Cheney's endorsement in Republican Primaries when to liberal Republicans, and they were defeated by the Tea Party candidates--then Quin goes on and on about compromising and letting the liberal Republicans rule.
Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 8:21PM
"Oh, by the way, did anyone notice how much more in common Jackboot from Wisconsin and Alan share than what they disagree on?"
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my enemy.
Jack in Wi.| 9.6.11 @ 11:28PM
I didn't resort to lies or slanders. I have been saying the same thing about Cheney for many years. He lied us into Iraq. It is the simple truth. I knew it when he was doing it and said so all over the internet. How Come Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Bob Novak, Brent Skowcroft, Norm Schwartzkoph me and many other principled comservatives knew that Iraq was no threat to anyone? It was all a pack of outragous lies. That were thought up by Cheney, Libby, Perle, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of the neocons. Where was the yellow cake, weapons of mass destruction, poison gas, biological weapons? Everyone who could think and had half a brain saw that Hussain was an old man with nothing left. His country was starving, had been under embrago for over a decade, was under constant surveliance. There is no way this could be anything but a pack of lies. This disaster should be placed right at the doors of those who caused this disaster. Cheney is number one on the list.
PolishKnight| 9.6.11 @ 11:31AM
I was thinking that the way the left has treated Cheney and even McCain indicates that the "game" has changed (referring to Who Knows above).
Remember the film Slap Shot? Newman's character played hockey which has notoriously become corrupted (according to the movie) and tries to play dirty only to be one-upped at the end of the movie.
The left has been playing dirty politics for years, but always knew better than to go for broke. They were nice to the moderate country club republicans who played ball, so to speak, and voted with them on earmarks.
The word is out though: When one of them tries to run for the oval office, the gloves come off. They fight as bad as they can. They mopped the floor with McCain and barely knocked out GW Bush. Romney? Fugget about it! They'll tear into him like vultures.
For good or ill, the game has changed and I welcome it. We've been on a slow decline for 20 years.
Maddox| 9.6.11 @ 11:54AM
Dick Cheney is one out of very few American heroes. He is so hated by all the left and some of the fake right because he is everything they are not. He is honest, unafraid of honesty, and a true patriot. If all politicians had his integrity America would still be thriving and a shining beacon to the rest of the world.
Oldefarte| 9.6.11 @ 12:51PM
The Chris Wallace/Fox interview of Cheney was quite informative and interesting. Chencey is/was one of the last, great patriots who has devoted a substantial portion of his life to this country!!!!
Patrick| 9.6.11 @ 1:33PM
Most all of you missed the point I think. In Cheney's USA Today interview Cheney said that after 9/11 the need for accurate intelligence required us to render detainees to foreign prisons, engage in extensive surveillience within the US (the misnamed Patriot Act), and engage in enhanced interrogation, the best known being waterboarding. The problem was all of these actions were either illegal, unconstitutional, violated international agreements that Ronald Reagan supported and signed, or violated established precedents going back over a hundred years. And I'm sorry just as president Obama doesn't get off the hook for good intentions regarding the health care bill, Cheney doesn't get a pass for his actions here either.
In the case of renditions, this was in direct violation of various Geneva conventions. Sean talks endlessly about American exceptionalism. Ask the Canadian we sent to the middle east where he was horribly tortured for six months only to find out, oops, he wasn't a bad guy about American exceptionalism. And there are scores if not hundreds more like him.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, and people like Scalia and Roberts have a bad habit of giving undue deference to the executive, the Patriot Act was blatantly unconstitutional as was the treatment of people like Padilla, an American citizen on American soil.
As for waterboarding: The not so Holy Inquisition used it. Since when is ANY THING they did acceptable for use by American interrogators? But American soldiers who did it during the Philippine Insurrection were courtmartialed. Waterboarding was named in some of the bills of indictment against Japanese war criminals. American soldiers who did it during Vietnam were courtmartialed. It's interesting to note that if Cheney thought this acceptable, why didn't his administration pardon those Vietnam soldiers found guilty of doing it? Those convictions are still on the books. The judge on Fox Business makes it clear that waterboarding is a clear violation of US law.
The concept of "illegal combatants" exist nowhere in any of the Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to and the legal opinions by Yoo and Baybay mean nothing since both Nuremburg and the conventions made it clear that each individual must establish the legality of the actions he takes on his own. He cannot rely on the laws of his own country.
Given all this, Cheney defends clearly illegal/unconstitutional actions anyway in the name of defending the country. Are all of you on board with this? Good intentions does not justify bad actions. Those interrogators who waterboarded KSM over 150 times broke the law. Cheney had no authority to authorize that.
At the end of the day Tracy in Judgement at Nuremburg is still right, when the enemy is at your throat is when you must most hold on to your principles. Cheney did the exact opposite, he violiated his oath and threw our principles under the bus.
PolishKnight| 9.6.11 @ 2:56PM
Rendering detainees to foreign prisons isn't necessarily unconstitutional or illegal especially if they aren't US citizens.
Typical hyperbole.
Ironically, it was Obama's willingness to give terrorists a full civilian trial that caused him to order a simple assassination of Bin Laden rather than a capture or interrogation...
Cpm| 9.6.11 @ 9:07PM
Rendition was a Clinton era policy, wasn't it?
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:56PM
Patrick,
these were terrorists, and technically spies. Their lives were forfeit. Further, my daughter is worth their being taken apart if it will save her.
I wouldn't have waterboarded KSM. I would have dissected his testicles with a mirror so he could watch.
patrick| 9.6.11 @ 3:25PM
Occam: and the authority under either the geneva conventions, the US codes, or the Constitution for what you propose to do comes from where? Care to quote a citation? "Defending the country" or "saving my wife, daughter, or whomever", is never justification for violating the law, or behaving in a manner inconsistent with the principles on which the country was founded. Quote something from the Founders that would support the actions you propose to take. And yes you are right, we have the right to execute spies, but find me any international agreement that we are signatories to, any precedent we have ever established prior to 9/11 be it Tokyo, Nuremburg or anything else where we agreed that spies or other similar "detainees" could be tortured and abused. Cite one. Name me the section of law that authorizes it. And tell me how you would feel if one of our spies were similiarly treated. By your definition they are illegal combatants too aren't they? Are you okay with someone doing to them what you propose doing to KSM say in response to a predator strike on a home which kills only civilians, an all too common event these days?
All employees of the federal government, soldiers, civilians alike, take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That oath binds them anywhere in the world and constrains their actions regardless of the nationality of the people they deal with. Beyond that the unalienable rights doctrine is universal and binds all people at all times. As Americans if we are to be truly exceptional then we can not do as Cheney said, we can not torture and abuse people regardless of any high minded reason put forth. We must stand by our principles and find other methods, other methods that in fact work and have been shown to be just as effective.
Skippy| 9.6.11 @ 4:30PM
If our laws and the various conventions to which we are signatories are, in fact, suicide pacts, then the law is an ass and should/must be ignored.
In wartime, I prefer to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
God bless Dick Cheney.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:51PM
Fair enough, Ken. I wanted to hear an opposing argument.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 6:55PM
not high minded; we are fighting irregulars, and not just irregulars---they deliberately kill civilians.
Our guys ARE beheaded, by the way. We carpet bombed Germany and set up firestorms, and nuked Japan after firebombing Tokyo and killing 100,000 civilians.
These guys are fighting wars without clearly defined combatants. You go ahead and be noble if you wish. Someone comes after my kids, I will fight horribly dirty. The correct number of Islamists to exchange for my Rebekah should she be harmed is 1.6 Billion.
If you can kill spies, you can do it slow, and offer a quick death for cooperation.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 7:21PM
In short, I disagree with you. I'd rather win the war and worry about the legalities later. Let me quote Lincoln on this:
"The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I am able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life."
Lincoln was talking about rebellion and the actions taken to win against it (we DO have the right of Habeas Corpus), I am talking about defeating terrorist Islamic scum. I would no more advocate these extreme measures for the run of the mill armed robber or murderer than I would advocate that the sun should be made to stand still.
But if some Achmed from Syria knows something about a nuke about to go off in NYC, I want to be able to prevent that. That's the point that Lincoln made, and he was right.
Win the war first.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:58PM
We shot the Germans under Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge who attempted to illegally infiltrate our lines( in American uniform). As they were illegal combatants, we could have done more.
Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 3:14PM
The Military Commissions act of 2006 codified the term "Unlawful Combatant." One of my friends is a former instructor of Rule of Law at the war College, I could ask him; however, I know he endorses the concept of killing family members of Islamic terrorist due to the fact that they are Tribalists.
Me---I know we are fighting people who behead babies. Casino Royale ball whipping is perfectly appropriate if accurate. Torture, properly checked, can give you wanted data.
CalMark| 9.7.11 @ 1:09AM
Either you are a liar or an ignoramus. The Law of War covers Illegal Combatants in detail. '
To be classified an Illegal Combatant, only ONE of the following needs to be satisfied: not in uniform; no military organization with a recognizable chain of command; not fighting on behalf of a national government entity.
What's more, illegal combatants may be executed, upon discovery, without any due process. The fact that any terrorists are still alive is a tribute to American mercy.
P.S. Yes, that means that those thugs we disarmed on commercial aircraft could have been pasted up against a wall and shot the moment the plane came to a stop. And I am of the opinion that we should have done just that.
Conservative Bob| 9.6.11 @ 2:11PM
Mr. Cheney is an a man of honor.
The left hates him because he his effective and principled.
He is a man of stong character. We were fortunate that he chose to serve the nation in a time of great trial.
If those in office no,w in say the Oval office, VP, DOJ, or several high offices had a fraction of the character and integrety Mr. Cheney has our nation would be much better served with a substantially better future outlook.
AC| 9.6.11 @ 2:40PM
I like Colin Powell for the same reason I like Barack Obama, he is a sometimes entertaining celebrity. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, IS a demi-god.
Jock Driver| 9.6.11 @ 3:30PM
..and you are a fool.
Cpm| 9.6.11 @ 9:04PM
Jock Sniffer.
Christopher Manion| 9.6.11 @ 3:11PM
It's rather tiresome at this late date to see Amspec peddling the self-serving falsehood that all of Cheney's critics are leftists. The war in Iraq divided conservatives (witness the rumbles in the Philadelphia Society following the invasion), and for good reason (for starters: the Constitution. At least I hope that's still a good reason!).
This inconvenient truth was consistently ignored, alas, and we got Pelosi in 2006, and then Obama in 2008.
Thanks, Dick.
Aren't conservatives supposed to **oppose** the Manichees who are bent on endless gnostic missions to perfect the world by bloody force?
The fact is, many conservatives actually disagree with Richer Perle and Dick Cheney. And without support from those conservatives, no Republican will beat Obama, because a lot of voters feel the same way.
I love Mr. Hillyer's line about "establishment's demi-gods and demagogues." What tedious treacle. Cheney is at the epicenter of the establishment -- if the Military-Industrial complex ran Skull and Bones, they'd probably put a bust of Cheney in there and throw out Geronimo.
All the GOP needs to do to guarantee Obama's second term is to trot Dick Cheney out next Labor Day for another victory parade, and keep the party going until November. Sycophants unite! We have nothing to lose but the next election!
To paraphrase Barry Goldwater at the Chicago Stockyards Convention in 1960 (with some Bob Dole from 1976 thrown in for flavor), "Grow up, Conservatives. **Democrats** are the War Party. We are for freedom, peace and prosperity."
Cpm| 9.6.11 @ 9:03PM
Hey, think back almost exactly 10 years ago and try to discover the event that changed the country and the Bush administration forever. Do you think that might have had a significant effect on policy?
aware| 9.7.11 @ 6:19AM
"...the event that changed the country..."
Yeah, as a businessman for 30 years, I now have to have a notarized copy of my birth certificate EVERY year to renew my business license. I go to 1 government agency, then to a notary, then to another government agency.
This is additional proof that modern "conservatism" is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Defending a statist storm-trooper like Cheney is defending massive government. Then tomorrow we will have a piece here about "limited" government, no doubt. What a confused bunch the neo cons are.
Cpm| 9.7.11 @ 6:52PM
It's always fascinating running into someone still stuck on 9/10.
David Shoup| 9.6.11 @ 4:04PM
Good article, Quin, but you made one mistake. You called Colin Powell a "statesman". He was a conservative (as in "carefully spoken, self-protecting, cautious") politician who was never a Conservative (as in believing in the principles of the Constitution such as limited government, limited taxation, the right to keep and bear arms, etc). His immediate switch to the Far Left Obama displayed this very clearly.
WilliamR| 9.6.11 @ 5:44PM
When it came to foreign policy Colin Powell was much more of a conservative than Cheney
shipley130| 9.6.11 @ 4:06PM
All of them are SOBs.
WilliamR| 9.6.11 @ 5:43PM
Cheney should be read out of polite company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....03064.html
Skippy| 9.6.11 @ 6:13PM
Imagine if Armey were a retired Establishment politician trying to burnish his legacy by piling on Cheney.
Nah! Couldn't be!
Bottom line: I don't care what he told Armey.
Iraq had to fall and I'm only sorry we didn't crush Iran and Syria at the same time.
Intelligent Design| 9.6.11 @ 5:43PM
I recommend Stephen F. Hayes book titled "Cheney"
W| 9.6.11 @ 5:47PM
Powell made the decision to stop Gulf War I and leave Sadam in Iraq, and persuaded Bush to stop the advance. He supported Obama over McCain for the sole reason that Obama is black, and not for what was best for the country. His record on Libby and Armitage has been well reported here and elsewhere.
Powell was a Republican only to advance his career because Bush I was a Republican. He was never a conservative. And he is clearly not an honorable man given his conduct in allowing Libby and others to be persecuted when he should have spoken publicly to end Fizgerald's witchunt.
Bush II should have pardoned Libby. He seemed weak and withdrawn in his last year in office,did not defend himself, his policies, and did not defend the people who worked for him.
Why did Fitzgerald continue his investigation when he knew the leaker was Armitage, and continued to waste money on a useless prosecution?
wally2| 9.6.11 @ 7:27PM
Everybody in charge wanted to stop in the first Gulf War once the objectives were met not just Powell. Cheney mentions some errors that were made in how they stopped, but nobody was going to Bagdad and take out Sadam
WilliamR| 9.6.11 @ 7:46PM
Powell advise not going to Baghdad. History has proven him correct. Cheney and the NeoCon chicken hawks horribly wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk
Stirling| 9.6.11 @ 5:47PM
Great comments:
My take would be that if mine enemy is not interested in "Geneva Convention Regs", then all bets are off as to getting needed info to stop them.
Patrick| 9.7.11 @ 9:38AM
Sorry, at Tokyo the Japanese asserted that having not signed the Geneva accords, they were not bound by them and therefore could be not tried under them or anything similar to them. Not being signatories to the accords allowed them to behave in any manner they saw fit and therefore the trials themselves were illegal. We rejected that position and tried them anyway hanging not a few of them. The point we established is there are normative behaviors we believe everyone, ourselves included must adhere to regardless of the circumstances. Once a person lays down his weapons the controlling authority must treat that person in a humane way, cannot abuse him for any reason. Execute yes, torture and abuse, no. Our own laws do not grant us permission to do that and no international accord permits it.
Every tyrant in the 20th century, Hitler, Stalin, all of them used "national security" as the reason for their misdeeds. Hitler justified his actions against the Jews in the name of defending the country. Stalin confronted with the need to bring the Soviet Empire into the modern age considered the the Ukrainian famine an acceptable price for doing so.
When any of you here buy into the ignore the Constitution/laws/international agreements to "defend the country" argument, you risk going down a road you don't come from, that countries like Germany, the Soviet Union and others never did come back from on their own or took decades to do so. You risk Auschwitz and all of it. You risk the Japanese internment camps again with just different people in them this time. The risk is real. Are you all prepared to run that risk? Is it worth it? Or do we find a way to beat these guys playing by the rules? And we can, we've shown we can. We're better than this. I believe in the fundamental greatness of this country. But our history shows with the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Indians, the terrorism against blacks in the south after the Civil War what we ARE capable of doing if we're not careful. What Cheney did and advocated took across a line and down a road that sometimes you just don't come back from. Be very careful here. Be VERY careful.
W| 9.7.11 @ 11:01AM
Patrick,
You sound like Obama before he was elected president.
Patriot Act. It was passed by an overwhelming majority in each house of Congress. And has been re-enacted. The Supreme Court has not ruled it unconstitutional. Just because you believe it is unconstitutional does not make it unconstitutional.
Waterboarding. Again the Court has not ruled this is illegal. We waterboarded three terrorrists, with doctors present, using the same methods we use to train our military. To compare the waterboarding of three undisputed evil terrorrists as equal or in the same sentence to the Nazi murders of six million Jews, two million Gypsies, and hundreds of thousands of civilian political and religious opponents of the Nazi regime, is blasphemous. It shows you are not serious, and should not be taken seriously.
Geneva convention. This, as you should know, applies to military captured in battle, and has always meant soldiers wearing the uniform of their country. It has never meant spies, or terrorrists. In WW II, FDR executed six German spies captured on Long Island after a quick military trial. They were captured, tried, and executed within one week. Is FDR a war criminal? Is Truman a war criminal for using the two atomic bombs on Japan?
Is Obama a war criminal because he has continued the Bush policies, and expanded the policy to use Drones to kill terrorrists? Does this violate some of your unidentified international agreements, or other unidentified laws?
To put it bluntly, to compare our war on terrorrism after we were attacked, and are still attacked as in Fort Hood and other attacks, approved by Congress and two Presidents, to leading to Auschwitz is foolish and idiotic at best, and treasonous at worst to make such unsubstantiated charges.
Patrick| 9.7.11 @ 12:47PM
Read the book Takeover. Read the latest book by Bruce Fein. Read the latest book by the judge on Fox Business. Read the article a year or two ago by Andrew Sullivan, a conservative in The Atlantic. Also read the sum total of of my comments here.
You're missing my point sadly. Auschwitz doesn't happen over night and did not happen over night. Nor did the genocides in the Soviet Union or Rwanda take place overnight. What I am saying is that these things start with small steps. I am objecting to taking to small steps which can and have lead to Auschwitz. And in our country led to the near extermination of the Indians. Go the Great Smokey Mountains sometimes and watch the play Unto These Hills about the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokees which only a handful of people like David Crocket opposed. The danger is real.
As Andrew Sullivan in his commentary pointed out, it wasn't just waterboarding. It was so many other things to so many other people under our control that meet the definition of torture. The detainee at Abu Ghraib tied to a shower head, beaten to death. And stuff like this happened far too often. The renditions not supported by any convention or any law we have. And the fact is so many of the people we tortured and abused were innocent, rounded up without any evidence that they were terrorists. At Gitmo many of them were handed to us by the Northern Alliance who simply wanted the bounty. At Kunuz(?) American soldiers stood by and did nothing while General Dostom's people massacred thousands of prisoners under is control. On what basis did they let that happen? Why didn't they threaten to call in air strikes if Dostom didn't not stop what he was doing? You see again the abuse was frightfully wide spread.
And you sir are just wrong on the conventions. The Geneva accords were expanded to include most anyone under the control of someone. This was meant to cover civilians like the Jews under Germany for example. Read all the accords carefully and you will not find any exceptions that allow us to behave as we do today, sorry. The accords are clear that anyone who puts down his weapon cannot be mistreated for any reason. Go do the reasearch yourself.
As for the area bombings of WWII. Within the Eighth Air Force they were controversial and and some of the officers at high levels voiced concerns that they were exposing themselves to possible war crime indictments after the war. You may be aware that after the war Bomber Command because of the controversy over their methodology and the number of civilian deaths, were not accorded the honors the other services got and only now is their monument being constructed.
The atomic bombs may or may not have been necessary. You may recall at the time that Truman was urged to do a demonstration off the coast to show the power of the weapons rather than drop them. That might have produced the same results.
This controversy about using war as an excuse to thrash the Constitution is not new. Go back and read the 1866 Supreme Court ruling where they basically totally repudiated everything Lincoln had done. They were adamant that war or national emergencies cannot be an excuse or a cause for throwing the Constititution under the bus. That is as true today as it was then.
Notice today the furor over civilian deaths as a result of the predator strikes. The norms of WWII no longer apply and the quote "collateral damage" of those years is totally unacceptable today. Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Fein, a well known conservative, the judge and the book Takeover makes convincing cases that Cheney and others did violate the law and the Constitution.
Again, be clear on what I'm saying, Auschwitz and similar events took place over a period of years and were largely justified, as was Kristallnacht for example, because the country was at risk. The "most civilized country in Europe" as Germany was viewed ended up murdering 12 million based on a national security justification. Tom Paine said to secure our own rights we have to defend the rights of those we despise. Tell me where he's wrong? Rights aren't just for those we like, they have to be enforced for those we positively HATE. Because "enemy of the state" sooner or later will be defined to be someone you care about. And if you don't speak out against the abuses of the Cheney years now, then as Martin Neimollor said in his famous quote, when they come for you, there won't be anyone left to speak out for you.
W| 9.7.11 @ 3:39PM
It is you, sadly, who does not understand. There was absolutely no basis in fact for the Nazis to kill the Jews, Gypsies, and political opponents. It was based on pure hate. We were attacked by the terrorrists, starting with the 1993 World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, the embassies, the USS Cole, and finally the World Trade Center again. We are defending ourselves with reasonable measures. Anyone who compare waterboarding of three evil terrorrist, especially KSM, with Auschwitz is not to be taken seriously.
Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Fein, and the Fox judge do not sit, fortunately, on the Supreme Court. You make take their opinion as more important than the vote of Congress, two presidents, and the Supreme Court, but normal, reasonable people do not agree with you.
I have done the research to know that terrorrists are not covered by the Geneva convention. You are either deliberately attempting to mislead, or just ignorant.
I suggest you read the books and columns by a real attorney, Andrew McCarthy, and forget Andrew Sullivan.
Nobody, not even the Nazis, believes the Nazis killed the Jews, Gypsies, and others for security reasons.
D Roamer | 9.6.11 @ 6:15PM
The Scooter Libby and Colin Powell incensed me no end. I am glad the Mr. Cheney is out there "clearing the air". I trust Cheney and no one else in DC. It's lies spewing out everyday from Obama and down the chain of command. Sickening.
David| 9.6.11 @ 6:35PM
When Bush the younger (who was my 5th choice in the repub primary back then) nominated Cheney as his running mate, I was thrilled. Even so, I couldn't helping wishing that Cheney were the one on the top of the ticket.
W| 9.6.11 @ 7:22PM
The ticket for 2012: CHENEY-PERRY.
Peter F Killie| 9.6.11 @ 7:22PM
The best favor Dick Cheney can do for the Republican and Conservatives alike is to quietly fade away. He may be right about many things and wrong about others but he is a professional Beltway politico and I doubt there is a more alienating figure in politics today.
W| 9.6.11 @ 7:23PM
Alienating to whom? Obama alienates over 50%
wally2| 9.6.11 @ 7:31PM
One thing that stands out when reading Cheney's memoir is how very experienced he was when he was selected as VP. He served as White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Congressmen, member of the house leadership, CEO of a major corporation. As much as I like Palin's political views she was very inexperienced to be VP. Not compared to Obama, but to most previous VPs
Buck Ofama| 9.6.11 @ 10:37PM
But someone has to graduate at the bottom of the class... affirmative action dipshit Ovomit!
C Bowen | 9.6.11 @ 7:48PM
This is the guy who thought Iraq was a threat? LOL--typical liberal Republican allying with the Clinton/Albright wing to make another Islamist state in the Middle East.
Cpm| 9.6.11 @ 8:57PM
What a great patriot and a true American hero. I laugh when he engages in mind games with democrats and progressives, one-sided as it is. In a battle of wits with Dick Cheney, they are unarmed.
Tool| 9.6.11 @ 10:53PM
It's lies spewing out everyday from Obama and down the chain of command. Sickening.
monster energy t shirts
monster energy hoodies for women
Tool| 9.6.11 @ 10:55PM
I wouldn't have waterboarded KSM. I would have dissected his testicles with a mirror so he could watch.
cartier frames
monster energy t shirts
POST American| 9.6.11 @ 11:08PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
--Crooked smiles --Crooked smiles
-----The Bushes n' Clintons/ Obamas n' Cheneys
------Crooked, crooked SMILES one and all.
Chris| 9.7.11 @ 7:32AM
Another sad article supporting a neo-Con who himself admits he doesn't understand our Constitution. Or did you not hear Cheney tell Chris Wallace on Fox News "It's OK. It's a democracy. I don't need or I didn't need 100 percent to prevail. I only needed 50% plus one."
SOURCE: http://content.usatoday.com/co.....eap-shot/1
No Dick, it's a Republic, and you need more than a majority, you need the Constitution and law on your side too.
But the neo-Cons don't care about the law, they just want to be like big government liberals except they want a police state instead of a welfare state.
Richard Baker| 9.7.11 @ 6:58PM
Remember, Powell didn't get his stars because he was a stellar leader of men. He got them because he was a consummate political soldier. David Hackworth had him right about Powell in his book "About Face." When Powell was an Assistant Division Commander (ADC) at the 4th ID, his Division Commander was not at all impressed with Powell as a leader or an officer. His duplicitousness towards President Bush is typical of the scheming political officer. His type are like fleas in the Army. Fie on him.
antidote| 9.9.11 @ 6:22PM
The man is a criminal, he should be in jail, or worse. Too bad he has such excellent taxpayer sponsored healthcare, or we might be rid of him by now!
Nick| 9.9.11 @ 7:38PM
But, he is not! Ha-ha!
He's making millions. Choke on that!
Halliburton Lives!