Democrats do not know whether to pity former Vice President Dick Cheney or to vilify him. Once again, he has launched criticisms of President Obama’s security policies that are more partisan than professorial, akin to the kind of thing a mid-level communications director would say more than the words of a statesman. Indeed, there was a juvenile flavor to Cheney’s statement that Obama is "pretending" we are not at war and that such pretending makes Americans less safe, especially the way he repeated the charge of "pretending."
We accord former chief magistrates and their top assistants the status of statesman. We look to them to embody the role by transcending partisanship and engaging in more thoughtful contributions to the nation. Even Richard M. Nixon, despite the humiliations of Watergate and his forced resignation, was accorded the role of statesman and he fulfilled it with some measure of dignity, publishing learned books on foreign policy. After all, Presidents and Vice Presidents see things and experience things that the rest of us don’t. They make history every day. We want them to contribute from that unique source of knowledge and experience to our collective knowledge, so that the entire nation can learn from their time in the Oval Office or near it. This is why we spend so much money on presidential libraries and why someone like James Baker, who never held either of the top jobs, has an institute at Rice University.
Former Presidents and Vice Presidents may come out of retirement every four years to address their party’s conventions, but mostly they work on non-partisan activities. Indeed, the joint efforts of former Presidents George H. W. Bush (#41) and Bill Clinton on behalf of the victims of the Tsunami in 2004 and Katrina in 2005 exemplify how statesmen should act in their retirement. Bush and Clinton had fought a bitter campaign against each other in 1992. They two could scarcely have come from more divergent circumstances, one the privileges of Kennebunkport and Greenwich and the other from the rural poverty of Hope, Arkansas, but both men joined the small club of former presidents and that common experience trumped their previous rancor.
None of this has characterized Mr. Cheney’s time since he left office. Unlike most vice presidents, Cheney did not aspire to the top spot. So, his transition to post-partisan could have been immediate. Instead, he has engaged in the kind of gutter attacks that do dishonor to his office as well as to himself.
How should the Democrats reply? They should pay Cheney for his remarks. It is hard to imagine someone with less credibility about foreign affairs than Mr. Cheney, the genius behind the Iraq War. That war, and the zeal, to say nothing of the distortions, with which the administration made the case for it, took the nation’s focus off Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism. The Iraq War recruited hundreds, maybe thousands of new militants for the ranks of Al-Qaeda and similar groups. The Iraq War cost America the support of our allies. Yet, this is the man we should listen to? Instead of implementing, and evaluating the implementation, of the 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney was too busy selling the existence of non-existent WMDs in Iraq. That is why Mr. Abdulmutallab was able to get on a plane bound for Detroit with a bomb in his underwear. Indeed, while Cheney has denounced Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo, the leaders of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, where Mr. Abdulmutallab received his orders, had been released from Guantanamo by the Bush-Cheney administration. Yet, it is this man Cheney that we should listen to?
Cheney is undoubtedly sincere, but sincerity is a terribly low bar. If his track record were not so poor, the content of his charges, and the manner in which they are delivered, would also suggest that the Democrats should pay him for his efforts. He is not only churlish but childish. His venom is so palpable, his Manichaean worldview so relentless (and so tinged with anti-Muslim race baiting), and his willingness to assess the President’s motives so sophomoric, the Democrats should want nothing more than for this man to be the face of the GOP.
I suspect that his outbursts are an attempt to poison the jury pool or to cast suspicion on any prosecution as politically motivated. Hopefully Obama and his Justice Department have the courage to investigate and prosecute despite such ham handed tactics by Mr. Cheney.
Of course, the statute of limitations on war crimes does not run out, so if Obama fails, some later President my go forward. Death does not do Cheney any good either, since there are no statute of limitations on God, especially if no evidence of repentence is shown.
Al Qaeda's attack on us in 2001 was a direct offspring of Sadam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and our subsequent occupation of the "holy land" in Saudi Arabia - - which the good for nothing Saudis begged us to do to save them from an invasion.
Bin Laden attacked us because the Crusaders were back in their desert holy land, near Mecca, everyone with a rudimentary understanding of the history knows this.
Two party system?! What a sad, pitiful, satanic joke. More like the twin heads of the same coin. Oh wait, that more realistically represents capitalism and communism.
The only pressure the Bush-Cheney debacle responded to was from Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. That's how losers "govern."
Mr Winter criticises Cheney and by extention the Bush administration for taking its focus off an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and focusing instead on one that was winable. CNN reported that not one US troop was lost in Dec in Iraq. Mission Accomished?
Finally it is laughable that nearly a year into Mr Obamas presidency Mr Winters would blame former president Bush's alleged failure to implement the 9/11 Commission Report for the successes of the Underwear Bomber. When will the dems stop making excuses for BOs failed presidency like I make excuses for my six year old?
How convenient to eliminate 9/11 from any evaluation of the Bush Administration, but to include all terrorist atacks as an indictment of the Obama Administration. Also, regarding the implied efficacy of the Bush policies in preventing terrorist attacks, post hoc ergo propter hoc much?
Wow. Is that your defense of Cheney? To take one month our of seven years and tout it as a success? And how many Iraquis died in the same time period? Oh, that's right, they don't count Iraqi deaths; that's ''collateral damage.''
Seriously, dude, you're going to have to do better than that. Do you really think one month out of seven years is a significant barometer of sucess? Or is that some lame-ass attempt to justify your idealogy?
"Do you really think one month out of seven years is a significant barometer of sucess?"
No I do not but I do think the steady progress over the years indicate what I stated which was that the war in Iraq is winnable if not allready won. Contrast that with Afghanistan where no matter when we leave al-Queada and the Taliban are sure to return.
Eric you have no idea what my ideology is to be sure most of us are complex and not easily confined to your nicely created boxes. My intent was not so much to defend Cheney as to highlight the hypocrisy of Mr Winters and any who are so blinded by ideology as to find an action objectionable based on who performed the act rather than the act itself.
With that said, Dopey has decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan!! Where is the outrage from the left. Cheney cannot send men and women into battle to kill and die in an unwinnable war, BO has.
"Do you really think one month out of seven years is a significant barometer of success?"
No I do not but I do think the steady progress over the years indicates what I stated which was that the war in Iraq is winnable if not already won. Contrast that with Afghanistan where no matter when we leave al-Queada and the Taliban are sure to return.
Eric you have no idea what my ideology is, to be sure most of us are complex and not easily confined to your nicely created boxes. My intent was not so much to defend Cheney as to highlight the hypocrisy of Mr. Winters and any who are so blinded by ideology as to find an action objectionable based on who performed the act rather than the act itself.
With that said, Dopey has escalated the war in Afghanistan!! Where is the outrage from the left? Cheney cannot send men and women into an unwinnable war to kill and die. BO has.
What did the war in Iraq accomplish except the enrichment of Bush friends and relatives? We weren't in any danger from Iraq. They did not have WMD, remember? It is being generous to say that Bush-Cheney made a mistake with regard to Iraq out of fear of Saddam Hussein, but it looks far more likely that they took advantage of fear they induced in order to benefit themselves.
While it may be the same in Afghanistan whether we stay or go, it is the case that it should not have been left in the condition it was in so that our efforts could be directed toward Iraq. In my opinion, trying to fix it now has all the promise of time travel - none likely. However, Obama does serve Republicans as well as Democrats, and clearly he is bowing to Republican preferences in attempting to finish up things in Afghanistan.
Certainly if I knew then what I know now I would not have supported the war in Iraq. However I and many national Democrat leaders had the info we had and based our support on such. With that said it is also true that no WMDs have been found in Afghanistan, would it be fair to say that it also was not and is not a threat?
I am glad you unlike so many blind haters do not tread the ground of presuming to know Bushs' motives. Speculation is fine but too often the accusations are stated as fact. Similarly I will not presume to know BOs motive for continuation of the Afghanistan war but would speculate that his motive is not bipartisianship, and I would hope not for it would demonstrate a lack of moral principle that he would fight a war for political gain. So why are we continuing this war? Wish Mr Winters would address that.
You see the speck in the Deacon's eye. But you don't notice the log in your own eye.
Peace.
Milbo, I believe love of neighbor extends also to people who are not American. If hearing a homily against war, torture, lying, secret prisons and mass murder would offend you to the point that you could not receive the Body of Christ, the Prince of Peace, then that is certainly your choice. But to call people to love of neighbor and to heed the Great Commandment and the Ten Commandments is not political, and as a minister of the Gospel I am not required to extend consideration to those who advocate breaking the Commandments as though they had some legitimate claim to an equal voice. They do not.
The post is about Dick Cheney. To my knowledge, no one has accused him of having an abortion; nor do I.
If you want to discuss the current role of Mr. Cheney, this is the place. If you really want to talk about just anything else, you could start your own blog. Opening up rabbit holes in this thread and trying to lead people down them does not hide the poverty of your arguments.
I am almost positive that President Obama's primary motivation in accomodating the request for more troops in Afghanistan is not bi-partisanship. However, the Republican position on the matter is clearly in favor of more troops, and I would suggest that that is a politically motivated position.
Whenever I evaluate what a president does, I try to put myself in his shoes. Therefore, if I were president, I would be considering whether bringing more troops into Afghanistan might improve the situation there before we leave, especially if the general on the ground there were recommending it. Since no one is actually clairvoyant, it would seem to me that the only way to know would be to give it a shot. This is what I think President Obama's decision amounts to. I do not consider it an escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, whenever I put myself in President Bush's shoes, I would come up with a different approach and be disturbed by his choices. So long as the UN inspector was saying that he was finding no evidence of WMD in Iraq and that inspections were thorough and would be ongoing, I found no justification for invading and destabilizing Iraq. It seemed rather like fulfilling the wishes of Osama Bin Laden whose strategy was to get us to deplete our nation militarily and economically.
That the Bush approach has not turned into a complete disaster may have to do with God's grace. It certainly has nothing to do with brilliant leadership.
Deacon Eric, thank you for your service.