Monday, March 16, 2009
A note on Dick Cheney
I missed Dick Cheney's interview on CNN yesterday morning, but Power Line has the transcript of some of the big moments. It is interesting reading, but in some sense undignified. These things need to be said at some point, but it feels too soon to me.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Mar 16, 09:52:00 AM:
He obviously feels a great urgency in communicating these points. It may not be "too early" at all, and in fact he may fear it might be "too late". Given Cheney's long service in highly politicized roles he must realize he sounds out of step with hope and change, and the fact that he's trying to shake our sense of security (are we back to pre 9/11?) nonetheless should perhaps add more urgency to his comments, not less.
By , at
Mon Mar 16, 10:36:00 AM:
Obama is going at breakneck speed, so I don't think it's "too early" at all. He's see a castrophe waiting to happen, I'm afraid.
By 
Georg Felis, at
Mon Mar 16, 10:53:00 AM:
(after reading Powerline) Hm, a fair, balanced interview with the Republican former Vice President on CNN. I need to look it up in Revelations, but I think this is one of the signs of the coming Apocalypse.
What seems to irk Cheney most is the present administration’s focus on terrorism as Reactive instead of the Bush administrations focus which was Proactive. On this I am solidly on his side, I do not think it is appropriate to have to sift thru the rubble and bodies of a terrorist attack on US soil for evidence in a criminal case, when that attack could have been prevented. The Obama administration actions will have consequences that will extend much more than the next four years, and I fear may well have an unacceptable cost.
It would be interesting to see the full, unedited transcript of the interview. Anybody have a link?
By , at
Mon Mar 16, 11:00:00 AM:
If Barack Obama had been treating George Bush and his administration of the last 8 years with respect, then I would agree.
But he isn't -- he's using every opportunity to insult and blame the former president for all of Obama's own woes and mistakes, so it seems only appropriate that the former vice president push back. If Dick Cheney doesn't defend the Bush administration, then who will?
By , at
Mon Mar 16, 11:44:00 AM:
Feces has been slung at Bush for years, just after he stole the election, a talking point that persists today. Inaccurate, as are most of the other claims. Nothing undignified about hurling actual truths back. W never did.
By , at
Mon Mar 16, 11:54:00 AM:
Cheney may not be the best messenger. Many Americans -- myself included -- think Bush-Cheney made a bad mistake by invading Iraq, were fiscally profligate at home, and created the political environment where we made the most leftist guy in the Senate our President ... and I'm someone who thinks Obama is the anti-Christ.
Meanwhile, as I write, Obama & Co have created the AIG bonus story as a distraction from their failings, and to fuel populist outrage that they'll hope to channel into support for their budget ... the mantra will be "The Repubs gave all this money to Wall Street, why not some for you."
Cheney talking just helps them.
Link
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Mar 16, 12:31:00 PM:
Well, I suppose his other option would be to just shoot Obama in the face. And we don't want that.
I think.
But it would be hilarious in 100 years, just like with Preston Brooks.
By , at
Mon Mar 16, 05:52:00 PM:
The only people who deserve to be shot in the face are Cheney and Bush themselves. They gave us this delightful specimen as institutionalized American policy:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/how-bush-and--1.html
Are you proud to be American or what?
By JPMcT, at
Mon Mar 16, 06:39:00 PM:
@ Anonymous 05:52
I saw your link. Some red stuff splattered on a floor (blood? catsup? barBQ sauce?)and the usual blather about "The Geneva Convention".
Being cold, having a hood on your head, having water poured on your face, being restrained, etc. etc...
I don't really see anything here that makes me feel better about Americans having their heads chopped on video with their families watching, having 3000 people incinerated, getting a faceful of mustard gas, getting raped or lowered feet first into a wood chipper.
Where was "The Geneva Convention" for those people?
If any of that "torture" saved one American life...and I strongly suspect that it did...then I only have three words to say.... GO FOR IT!!
By Chris, at
Mon Mar 16, 07:17:00 PM:
It's easy to criticize the things that responsible adults do. When you're not going to be held accountable, you can focus on abstracts and esoteric principles.
When Americans are killed because we've abandoned the aggressive posture we've taken since 9/11, I'm sure you'll be glad to go to the families and explain how it's much more important to remain true to ideals and feel good about ourselves.
By SR, at
Tue Mar 17, 12:32:00 AM:
I think it is a lot better to watch the actual interview which is available on you tube (broken down into five parts). Cheney was measured, confident, and forthright. He came across very well. John King, after starting out with provocative newspaper headlines, was along for the ride as Cheney gradually took over the interview.
CNN wouldn't dare ask him back when he has finished his book.
By Noumenon, at
Tue Mar 17, 01:26:00 AM:
Cheney said "He's got none of the skills and talents that Ryan Crocker had, who was our last ambassador, who did a superb job, deserves as much credit as Dave Petraeus in terms of how that process worked during the surge that led to the success we've seen now in Iraq."
That's very interesting. It's not the Republican party line, and it's not the "let's do everything with the military" approach that I expected out of him. And it reminds me that Marc Lynch (Abu Aardvark) predicted the surge would fail because Crocker and Petraeus were working against each other. I should ask him what happened there.
By davod, at
Tue Mar 17, 10:33:00 AM:
Was Cheney being over critical and man spirited. Not if you see how the person in charege of Homeland Security views terrorism.
"SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters.
That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."
This is even better than the Brits declaring terrorist acts by Islamic Extremists to be Anti-Islamic attacks.
George Orwell would be proud.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Mar 17, 05:09:00 PM:
Sounds like Sec. Napolitano is suffering from a bad case of Nuance Hyperactivity Disorder (NHD).
By Noumenon, at
Wed Mar 18, 04:39:00 AM:
it reminds me that Marc Lynch (Abu Aardvark) predicted the surge would fail because Crocker and Petraeus were working against each other. I should ask him what happened there.
Turns out he still doesn't believe it really worked. That article isn't as interesting as the text I linked it with -- if you were really interested in liberal reaction to the surge, try Thomas Ricks or, most interesting, Salon magazine.
