VP Cheney Remarks on Obama [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

dennisw

10-22-2009, 23:05

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

Originally Posted by Richard View Post
Pure Polecatus Washingtonium speak - striped, spotted, whatever...the eternally accusative language of we-they finger-pointing.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

I have to disagree. Some of Cheney's points are very substantive. However, I get the impression that if he offers any negative viewpoint on Obama's policy or discusses Obama obvious waffling on Afghanistan, you consider it to be finger-pointing. Basically you're setting a stage where nothing can be said of a negative nature or it's discounted. What's left then?

Did Obama make promises to carry the fight on in Afghanistan? Is he waffling? How is that finger pointing? They ask the Bush administration not to go public with their findings on Afghanistan and then blame them for what? That the Obama administration cannot make a decision where there is risk. Same situation as the Somalia Pirates, but on a larger scale.

IMHO the threshold issue remains "are Cheney's negative comments substantive". If so, finger pointing is not the issue.

Richard

10-23-2009, 05:44

IMHO the threshold issue remains "are Cheney's negative comments substantive".

Exactly - but are they?

Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), who served more than 30 years in the United States Army and from 2003-2004 oversaw the training of the Iraqi military, responded to Dick Cheney's accusations on Afghanistan from last night:

"The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes.

"As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. But I dismiss men like Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did.

"No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation's youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right."

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1442

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

10-23-2009, 05:56

The Good General says "......."The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.............."

Damn - that sounds like Democrat talking points straight out of their over used playbook. And the Good General is.................?

Dozer523

10-23-2009, 06:18

Damn - that sounds like Democrat talking points straight out of their over used playbook. And the Good General is.................? Right Pete. This guy just isn't a team player. http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html

Pete

10-23-2009, 06:27

Right Pete. This guy just isn't a team player. http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html

I'm not talking about his "on the job" works.

More like what has he been saying since he retired.

It would appear the Good General has found his voice, and balls, after he retired. And the voice is "bash Bush all the time."

Dozer523

10-23-2009, 06:55

I'm not talking about his "on the job" works.

More like what has he been saying since he retired. It would appear the Good General has found his voice, and balls, after he retired. And the voice is "bash Bush all the time." Aww come on. I doubt he found them AFTER (this is such an old, dull saw) he retired. From the looks of his bio he's had a pair of big, brass ones (bangin' "O-Rang a-Tang). Might be he held his tongue while on AD because he was busy, maybe he was professional (maybe remaining on the job was worth it to him). Maybe after defending the 1st Amendment for 30 years he decided to try it. He might be right. The former VP was more then welcome to run for POTUS. . . but did not. (we're just talkin' Pete.:))

Richard

10-23-2009, 07:01

IMO - here's the issue:

Is Obama “dithering” as Cheney says, or acting in a thorough manner as the White House says?

Both sides have their supporters and nay-sayers at all levels of government bureaucracy - who are we to believe - meanwhile, the profligate Polecatus Washingtomium crowd have come forth yet again to step onto center stage and politicize the issue for their benefit...not ours.

Meanwhile:

NATO Moves Toward More Troops For Afghan War
AP, 23 Oct 2009
<snip>

Gates also sought to assure allies that the United States also will remain in the fight, despite the Obama administration's ongoing indecision over a war strategy.

"We're not pulling out," He said. "I think that any reduction is very unlikely."

He said President Barack Obama would consider specific plans for moving forward over the next two to three weeks.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091023/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/eu_nato_afghanistan
And so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

HowardCohodas

10-23-2009, 08:51

Random thoughts on this thread.

re: Cheney not running for POTUS. It has always seemed odd to many people that a Vice President would have no ambitions to be POTUS. I would think a forum devoted to people who understand honor and duty would be able to understand this.

re: Cheney speaking out so aggressively. I doubt that he would be speaking out if he was not convinced that the policies he speaks against are a serous threat to our nation. Bashing Bush has been an important theme for Obama since his campaign. Cheney did not begin to speak so aggressively until decisions that he considered dangerous were publicly announced or implemented.

re: The good general. I think he is basically correct in his criticism. However he fails to credit that the Bush administration recognized their failings and took action to prepare a plan to address it. Now Obama wants to take credit for other people's work. Like this is anything new for him. The general is being just as disingenuous as Obama is. That is something I cannot respect.

Pete

10-23-2009, 12:07

The problem with the general is "he was in charge" of something.

Lowly enlisted swine can't up and say "I resign" but a general officer in charge can.

We now have a similar case in Afghanistan. Obama's hand picked general in charge said 2 months ago "This is what I need to win this fight." Well..., well..., well..., we're still waiting on word from the Obama White House.

If a General is going to do whatever the White House asks why give an opinion - just do what you're told.

Gee, do you think we'll ever see a general who says "I can't fight the war the way it should be fought so here is my resignation."

Dozer523

10-23-2009, 12:40

Random thoughts on this thread.

re: Cheney not running for POTUS. It has always seemed odd to many people that a Vice President would have no ambitions to be POTUS. I would think a forum devoted to people who understand honor and duty would be able to understand this. Guess I'm one of those misunderstood honorable people. Did he not run because he didn't want to lead or because he wouldn't win? Does it matter? .

re: Cheney speaking out so aggressively. I doubt that he would be speaking out if he was not convinced that the policies he speaks against are a serous threat to our nation. Bashing Bush has been an important theme for Obama since his campaign. Cheney did not begin to speak so aggressively until decisions that he considered dangerous were publicly announced or implemented. Betcha MG (R) Eaton feels something similar. At least he hasn't said "So?" yet.

re: The good general. I think he is basically correct in his criticism. However he fails to credit that the Bush administration recognized their failings and took action to prepare a plan to address it. Now Obama wants to take credit for other people's work. Like this is anything new for him. The general is being just as disingenuous as Obama is. That is something I cannot respect."So?" you just didn't like the way he was right? IMHO

HowardCohodas

10-23-2009, 13:14

re: Cheney not running for POTUS. It has always seemed odd to many people that a Vice President would have no ambitions to be POTUS. I would think a forum devoted to people who understand honor and duty would be able to understand this. Guess I'm one of those misunderstood honorable people. Did he not run because he didn't want to lead or because he wouldn't win? Does it matter? .

Probably not, however I don't believe he deserves any criticism for that decision. I did not criticize General Powell when he decided not to run because of the concerns of his wife either.

re: The good general. I think he is basically correct in his criticism. However he fails to credit that the Bush administration recognized their failings and took action to prepare a plan to address it. Now Obama wants to take credit for other people's work. Like this is anything new for him. The general is being just as disingenuous as Obama is. That is something I cannot respect." So?" you just didn't like the way he was right?

My disrespect is far deeper than that. No history of war that I have read showes perfect execution from the get-go. Those that I honor recognized the failures and then created and executed a plan to address the failures. The fact that the Bush administration recognized the failure and created a plan to turn things around does them honor. The fact that they held up the report and taking action on it at the request of Obama's people is typical of Bush. Unwise in my opinion, but then I'm not a patrician.

The general, on the other hand dissevers no respect for attempting to convince us that there was never recognition of the failure and no effort to address it. That, my friend, is not a honorable action.

Richard

10-23-2009, 14:40

MOO - but there appear to be a number of assumptions being offered up here based on the supposition that the former VP told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Personally, I have had great difficulty viewing him as being apolitically 'dutifully selfless' and 'honorable' since his performance in the Plame affair...and as far as his running for POTUS - Gríma, son of Gálmód, for President campaign posters come to mind whenever I listen to him speak.

Such is my bias towards the man and I admit it.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

10-23-2009, 14:50

...... Personally, I have had great difficulty viewing him as being apolitically 'dutifully selfless' and 'honorable' since his performance in the Plame affair...

What Plame affair?

Listening to the MSM again?

That whole cook up was a pile of crap the D's and their lap dog press were slinging around.

And that ding bat D tool knew the truth from just about the get go but still went on a witch hunt.

And for all that all they could get was Libby.

Sad, real sad.

Sigaba

10-23-2009, 16:05

Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091022/pl_afp/usafghanistanunrestcheney/print).White House slams Cheney on Afghan 'dithering' claim
by Stephen Collinson Stephen Collinson Thu Oct 22, 2:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The White House slammed Dick Cheney Thursday, accusing him of years of neglect of Afghanistan, after the ex-vice president said President Barack Obama was "dithering" on troop decisions.

The latest fierce feud over national security between the past and current administrations flared up as Obama nears a fateful choice on whether to order thousands more troops to the Afghan war after an exhaustive strategy review.

"What vice president Cheney calls dithering, the president calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and the American public," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Gibbs said Cheney was in no position to fault Obama, saying he had ignored a previous request for more troops, lodged with the Bush administration and only met by Obama in March, soon after he came to office.

"The vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's for more than eight months," Gibbs said.

"I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

Cheney made his comments at a dinner in Washington on Wednesday, in his latest lacerating criticisms of the Obama administration on national security policy.

"Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission," Cheney said.

"The White House must stop dithering while America?s armed forces are in danger."

"Waffling while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy endangers them and hurts our cause.

"President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush administration than support our troops."

Cheney was particularly irked by a claim by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at the weekend that the Bush team had not asked tough questions about Afghanistan leaving Obama to start examining the war from the beginning.

The former vice-president said the Bush team dug into every aspect of Afghan and Pakistan policy in late 2008, and briefed Obama's team before he took office.

He claimed that Obama's initial new strategy unveiled in March and based on counter-insurgency was based largely on that study.

Gibbs said he did not know about the specific review, but took another swipe at Cheney, saying "I find it interesting that he's blaming us for something that he didn't see fit to do over, best I can tell, seven years of a war in Afghanistan."

Obama, who ordered an extra 21,500 troops to Afghanistan in March, is considering a request from war commander General Stanley McChrystal for at least 40,000 more soldiers for to fight insurgents in Afghanistan.

Cheney also took aim in his speech against other aspects of Obama's foreign policy, lambasting especially, his engagement of Iran.

While Obama was stretching out his hand to the Islamic Republic, Tehran was financing terrorism in Iraq, Syria and the Palestinian territories, Cheney charged.

While former president George W. Bush has muted criticism of his successor, Cheney has been a frequent and vocal antagonist to Obama.

In August, he told Fox News that he had "serious doubts" about how much Obama "understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."

In May, he and Obama waged a war of words over the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba, and interrogation practices branded by critics as torture, which Cheney defended and Obama outlawed soon after taking office in January.Is it just me or is the current administration taking every opportunity to brawl publicly with its opponents rather than live up to the promises of post-partisanship? Shocked. I am shocked.

In regards to the "years of neglect" argument, Mr. Gibbs did not use that phrase during his press briefing on 22 October 2009 (available here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-10/22/09/)). IMO, it would be very interesting to know if a member of the White House staff used the phrase off the record/privately or if it was introduced into the article by the AP writer/editorial staff.

Dozer523

10-23-2009, 16:25

Gríma, son of Gálmód, for President campaign posters come to mind whenever I listen to him speak.Richard's $.02 :munchin

Oh! and I didn't think anything could creep me out today.

Howard wrote :I did not criticize General Powell when he decided not to run because of the concerns of his wife either.
Howie, I had no idea Dick was worried about Colin Powell's wife. But that's sweet . . . does Colin know about this?

dennisw

10-24-2009, 00:32

Rangertab1 saidUntil Dick comes on this site and apologizes for being a strategic knucklehead with regards to how he and his friends blundered the most important, initial phase of the Afghan war, I will not listen to any polititalk coming from his mouth. He is the last one that should be weighing in on the decisions at hand, IMO.

I find it ironic that the former VP's poor judgment on the strategy of said war back in October of 2001 is the underpinnings of a discussion by the very men who would have made this thread non-existent had they been given the chance.

I'm not understanding the above. How was the war screwed up in October 2001? I need to be educated here. What mistakes do you believe were made in October 2001?

If the politicians, including Dick Cheney, would have allowed the US Army SF to do what they were created to do, this thread would not be.

Again, I'm unclear as to your point. I'm not disagreeing per se, but I would like to know what should have been done. What did SF not do, or what were they prevented from doing?

"The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes.

"As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. But I dismiss men like Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did.

I don't want to criticize the good general too much, but frankly he's full of yogurt. I think one of the main problems in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the intelligence community was basically dismantled during the Clinton administration and we as a country did not have an accurate picture of what was exactly going on in either place. One of their contentions was that the Iraqi police would step in after the invasion and provide a stabilizing effect. It was total bullshit. The intelligence community assured the Iraq planners that the majority of the Iraqi generals and troops would lay down their arms and come over to our side once the invasion kicked off. Didn't happen. Wasn't it the head of the CIA who sat behind General Powell when he gave is historic address to the U.N. emphasizing weapons of mass destruction to the dismay of the defense department and the White House. Wong again. Then the good general has the balls to states that Bush/Cheney ignored the intelligence community in drafting their policy in Afghanistan. :mad: Gee, where have I heard this before?

So President Obama is having profound deliberations? Is the General trying to be funny? Did these profound deliberations take place during his 20 minute meeting with General McChristal as an aside to his Olympic bid trip? Or the one meeting they had before that.:rolleyes:

We just spent the last eight years where every jot and tittle regarding Afghanistan and Iraq was treated with nothing but partisan politics. We were inundated during the recent prolonged presidential campaign where both Wars were the center pin for partisan politics. Was the General asleep during this period of time? For him to suggest that Cheney is now injecting partisan politics is a joke of monumental proportions. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan.

Exactly what torture is the good general referring too? Water boarding? Harsh language? This guy has a page of democratic talking points and he's just reading them off. Once SF, strategic air support and the Northern Alliance kick the crap out of the Taliban, who made the decision to bring in more conventional troops to consolidate, etc. I seriously doubt this policy came from the White House. It sounds like Big Army all the way.

failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

Here's the final democratic talking point. Yes, Osama Bin Laden did escape or is dead. I imagine there are folks on this board who served on the teams tasked with the mission of capturing him. I also imagine these same folks could explain how the tribal connections and the most rugged terrain in the World made this task near impossible. However, many of the folks who were involved in planning 9/11 were captured or killed. Additionally, I do not believe that capturing Bin Laden was our main focus and to imply that it was the number one priority, tells me this man is being at best, intellectually dishonest.

I heard the same bullshit for the last eight years. Bring something new, or stay at home.

Sigaba

10-24-2009, 03:15

MOO, Vice President Cheney would serve not only his own interests but those of the nation more generally if he were to stop sparring publicly with the current president.

IMO, Mr. Cheney should focus on preparing a multi-volume memoir, getting his personal papers organized--and declassified, and participating in oral history projects. This is to say that he should do the things disinterested elder statesmen do.

(And also when it comes to shaping a debate, there's a lot to be said about getting there first. Churchill's The Second World War still shapes the historiographical debates over World War II and the origins of the Cold War.* And like it or not, historians, not politicians, get the last word in every argument. Even if no one else is listening, or cares, or is reading stuff by political scientists. But I'm not bitter.)
__________________________________________
* David Reynolds, In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War (New York: Random House, 2005); D.C. Watt, "Britain and the Historiography of the Yalta Conference and the Cold War", Diplomatic History 13:1 (January 1989): 67-98. In addition to its discussion of the Yalta Conference, Watt's article is useful in laying out how political debates over contemporary events shape initial stages of historical inquiry.

dennisw

10-24-2009, 03:32

IMO, Mr. Cheney should focus on preparing a multi-volume memoir, getting his personal papers organized--and declassified, and participating in oral history projects. This is to say that he should do the things disinterested elder statesmen do.

I'm hoping both he and President Bush do this. I imagine it must take some time to put these things together.

However, if one believes that critical mistakes are being made; mistakes that are serious it could affect our very existence, it would be hard not to say something. Reading the Reagan papers was fascinating. I can only imagine how interesting it would be to see the last eight years from Bush's perspective.

HowardCohodas

10-24-2009, 04:33

And no, brother HowardCohodas, just because one admits failure doesn't make me trust his judgement anymore. He wanted to be the VP and with that, making such strategic errors in war is not something I forgive lightly, if ever.

Admitting failure and taking action is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for me to respect his analysis.

Sigaba

10-24-2009, 05:01

However, if one believes that critical mistakes are being made; mistakes that are serious it could affect our very existence, it would be hard not to say something.IMO, all the more reason to remain silent. Had Vice President Cheney left Washington, D. C. as a less polarizing figure, maybe his speaking out would advance the debate over GWOT. Yet, as he (along with Rumsfeld) worked so hard to stifle debate within Bush the Younger's administration, I don't see how he can establish a sufficient level of political and intellectual credibility to get his opponents to listen.

What I especially want is for Mr. Cheney to take us from his days as secretary of defense to his vice presidency and make the case for his increasingly hard line towards Iraq. MOO, there's a bit of a disconnect in the public eye (including my own) in how Mr. Cheney went from being a pragmatic policy advocate who emphasized the need of getting war fighters the tools they needed under Bush the Elder to the fire eater he was as vice president and is today.

Dad

10-24-2009, 06:19

Sigaba
A close look at Cheney's activities at Halliburton in that period would be illuminating as to the integrity of the man.

Richard

10-24-2009, 06:29

A close look at Cheney's activities at Halliburton in that period would be illuminating as to the integrity of the man.

As would a close look at his apparent pattern of encouraging the circumvention of law in formulating and carrying out White House policy. :confused:

Richard

Dozer523

10-24-2009, 06:31

IMO, Mr. Cheney should focus on preparing a multi-volume memoir, getting his personal papers organized--and declassified, and participating in oral history projects. This is to say that he should do the things disinterested elder statesmen do. That's just the slick professional Historian in you rearing it's head. If Dick does THAT you're set for life! All that checking, footnoting, analyzing and contectualizing it! You'd be set for life -- a regular Scrooge McDuck swimming in grant money! And what an analysis you would provide! We would probably finally understand what the hell went on over that 20 years.

ZonieDiver

10-24-2009, 10:59

Apropos of nothing... a major portion of my dislike for Cheney is for the same reason I disliked Clinton. "When bullets were flying, and people were dying" - he took an "I'm busy... call me later" attitude.

I sicken at parties with men my age talk tough on war, yet when their day came forward lo these many years ago - they stepped back, and gladly let someone else step up, either voluntarily or by positively responding to their draft summons.

In 1969 on the campus of the U. of Miami, there was tremendous "debate" about the war in Viet Nam. Marches, protests, and heated arguments between "pro" and "anti" war groups took place often. Many of my Army ROTC brethern took the hard-line stance. They were "proud to wear the uniform" and would "give their all for their country"! Then, on December 1st the first draft lottery was held. All of a sudden, you knew the chances of being called. Many of my "hard-charging" ROTC buddies got numbers in the 200's and 300's. Guess what? They dropped ROTC - no need for that 1-D deferrment any more. They no longer had to worry about "class load" or "gpa" or silly ROTC drill day uniform-wearing - just "get on" with their lives, and let someone else "do it!" Today, they can all - Clinton, Cheney, etc. Kiss my ass.

Talk the talk - walk the walk. If you didn't walk... watch how you talk.

Just my very biased 2 cents worth

Pete

10-24-2009, 12:26

........I sicken at parties with men my age talk tough on war, yet when their day came forward lo these many years ago - they stepped back, and gladly let someone else step up, ..........

Does that apply to today's Americans?

Been 8 years, plenty of time for the average Joe to step forward and raise his hand.

Surf n Turf

10-24-2009, 14:10

This is to say that he should do the things disinterested elder statesmen do.

Sigaba,
You mean like AlGore, Jimmieeee Carter, and BJ Clinton

Sigaba
A close look at Cheney's activities at Halliburton in that period would be illuminating as to the integrity of the man.

Dad,
Would you provide some “specifics” please, instead of innuendo

As would a close look at his apparent pattern of encouraging the circumvention of law in formulating and carrying out White House policy. :confused:

Richard

Richard,
You did say “apparent”, but would you provide some “specifics” please, instead of innuendo.

Before you correct thinking gentlemen conduct an auto-da-fé on Mr. Chaney, et al, may I remind you of one unalterable fact --- We had NOT had another terrorist attack on American soil in over 8 years. Do you and your families feel as secure today as you did when Mr. Chaney was in office?.

SnT

Richard

10-24-2009, 15:46

You did say “apparent”, but would you provide some “specifics” please, instead of innuendo.

There are books on the subject - Charlie Savage's Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (2007) is one and Craig Unger's Fall of the House of Bush (2207) is another.

According to reporter and author Charlie Savage, the White House staff quickly coalesces into two camps: “Bush People[,] mostly personal friends of the new president who shared his inexperience in Washington,” which includes President Bush’s top legal counsels, Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, both corporate lawyers in Texas before joining Bush in Washington. The second group is “Cheney People—allies from [Vice-President Dick] Cheney’s earlier stints in the federal government (see May 25, 1975, November 18, 1980, 1981-1992, 1989, and June 1996) who were deeply versed in Washington-level issues, a familiarity that would allow their views to dominate internal meetings. These included [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and other cabinet secretaries, key deputies throughout the administration, and David Addington, Cheney’s longtime aide who would become a chief architect of the administration’s legal strategy in the war on terrorism”. Savage will observe, “Given the stark contrast in experience between Cheney and Bush, it was immediately clear to observers of all political stripes that Cheney would possess far more power than had any prior vice president.”

'Unprecedented' Influence - Cheney will certainly have “unprecedented” influence, according to neoconservative publisher William Kristol, who himself had served as former Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff. “The question to ask about Cheney,” Kristol will write, is “will he be happy to be a very trusted executor of Bush’s policies—a confidant and counselor who suggests personnel and perhaps works on legislative strategy, but who really doesn’t try to change Bush’s mind about anything? Or will he actually, substantively try to shape administration policy in a few areas, in a way that it wouldn’t otherwise be going?”

Expanding the Power of the Presidency - Cheney will quickly answer that question, Savage will write, by attempting to “expand the power of the presidency.” Savage will continue: “He wanted to reduce the authority of Congress and the courts and to expand the ability of the commander in chief and his top advisers to govern with maximum flexibility and minimum oversight. He hoped to enlarge a zone of secrecy around the executive branch, to reduce the power of Congress to restrict presidential action, to undermine limits imposed by international treaties, to nominate judges who favored a stronger presidency, and to impose greater White House control over the permanent workings of government. And Cheney’s vision of expanded executive power was not limited to his and Bush’s own tenure in office. Rather, Cheney wanted to permanently alter the constitutional balance of American government, establishing powers that future presidents would be able to wield as well.” [Savage, 2007, pp. 7-9] Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, will say after leaving the administration: “We used to say about both [Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office] and the vice president’s office that they were going to win nine out of 10 battles, because they were ruthless, because they have a strategy, because they never, never deviate from that strategy. They make a decision, and they make it in secret, and they make it in a different way than the rest of the bureaucracy makes it, and then suddenly, foist it on the government—and the rest of the government is all confused.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 299]

Signing Statements to Reshape Legislation, Expand Presidential Power - To that end, Cheney ensures that all legislation is routed through his office for review before it reaches Bush’s desk. Addington goes through every bill for any new provisions that conceivably might infringe on the president’s power as Addington interprets it, and drafts signing statements for Bush to sign. In 2006, White House counsel Bradford Berenson will reflect: “Signing statements unite two of Addington’s passions. One is executive power. And the other is the inner alleyways of bureaucratic combat. It’s a way to advance executive power through those inner alleyways.… So he’s a vigorous advocate of signing statements and including important objections in signing statements. Most lawyers in the White House regard the bill review process as a tedious but necessary bureaucratic aspect of the job. Addington regarded it with relish. He would dive into a 200-page bill like it was a four-course meal.” It will not be long before White House and Justice Department lawyers begin vetting legislation themselves, with Addington’s views in mind. “You didn’t want to miss something,” says a then-lawyer in the White House. [Savage, 2007, pp. 236

Gonzales’s second mission is more puzzling. The lawyers are to constantly look for ways to expand presidential power, he tells them. Bush has told his senior counsel that under previous administrations, the power of the presidency has eroded dramatically. (Ironically, some of the losses of executive power came due to the Republican-led investigation of former President Clinton’s involvement in Whitewater and his affair with a White House intern, when Secret Service bodyguards and White House attorneys were compelled to testify about their communications with the president, and Congressional Republicans issued subpoenas and demanded information from the White House.) It is time to turn back the tide, Gonzales tells his team, and not only regain lost ground, but expand presidential power whenever the opportunity presents itself. Berenson will later recall Gonzales telling them that they are “to make sure that [Bush] left the presidency in better shape than he found it.” Berenson will later remark: “Well before 9/11, it was a central part of the administration’s overall institutional agenda to strengthen the presidency as a whole. In January 2001, the Clinton scandals and the resulting impeachment were very much in the forefront of everyone’s mind. Nobody at that point was thinking about terrorism or the national security side of the house.” Berenson does not learn until much later that much of the direction they have received has come, not from President Bush, but from Vice President Cheney and his legal staff, particularly his chief counsel, David Addington. [Savage, 2007, pp. 70-75]

http://www.historycommons.org/index.jsp

echoes

10-24-2009, 15:58

Cheney on the date of 9.11.01...Vice-President of the United States of America/ decision maker/DID SOMETHING!

Obama on the date of 9.11.01...Um???? Community Organizer of kum-by-ya orchestra/NO military service/NO military leadership/lighting a candle and humming kum-by-ya!

And the question about VP Cheny is what again???:munchin

Holly

edit to add: I have no military service, but am hopeful that I am still allowed an opinion? After 9-11, the Bush/Cheney/Rummy White House did not allow another attack on U.S. soil. This, am sure, is due to the brave actions that were not reported in the media, by U.S. Special Operations Forces.

P36

10-24-2009, 18:19

Isn't some sort of informal "policy" for former Presidents/VPs to leave the current administation alone?

I'm glad he's gone personally. (and yes, I'm a Republican-but President Bush, VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld really dissapointed me when it came to priorities in Iraq/Astan)

Surf n Turf

10-24-2009, 19:05

As would a close look at his apparent pattern of encouraging the circumvention of law in formulating and carrying out White House policy. :confused:
Richard

There are books on the subject - Charlie Savage's Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy (2007) is one and Craig Unger's Fall of the House of Bush (2207) is another.

Richard,
Interesting read (and “interesting site / links”), but you have not addressed my basic question, per your quotation first – What “apparent pattern of encouraging the circumvention of law in formulating and carrying out White House policy”
Did he, and others, constantly look for ways to expand presidential power ?
ABSOLUTELY. And after 911, I am satisfied that they did it well enough to keep us safe up until now.
Under his predecessor, presidential power was eviscerated, and the congress became stronger. This battle between the executive and legislative is as old as our Republic, but I see nothing that Mr. Chaney did as “encouraging the circumvention of law”
I also notice that the current President has not decreased presidential power. He has strengthened it exponentially, declaring a national emergency (and the expanded Executive powers that go with the declaration).
So if you didn’t / don’t like the former administration – that’s OK, I also had some problems with them. But I think it is a tad too much to accuse the former VP of lawbreaking. :)
SnT

Richard

10-24-2009, 20:05

I never accused him of 'lawbreaking' - I accused him of being a political skunk by 'encouraging' others to 'circumvent' the law while he remained just beyond its grasp - and there seems to be a lot of agreement on that among those who actually worked for or dealt with the man. YMMV but I personally think the former VP would do well in a starring role on stage as Henry Potter, Grima' Wormtongue, and Montgomery Burns.

I patiently await the release of his memos so we can see for ourselves what he actually said and inferred instead of relying on the man's questionably 'honorable' word.

So if you didn’t / don’t like the former administration...

I didn't/don't like the former SecDef and VP...and am struggling to find anyone beyond the current POTUS' daughters to like in the current administration.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Surf n Turf

10-24-2009, 20:24

I never accused him of 'lawbreaking' - I accused him of being a political skunk by 'encouraging' others to 'circumvent' the law while he remained just beyond its grasp - and there seems to be a lot of agreement on that among those who actually worked for or dealt with the man. YMMV but I personally think the former VP would do well in a starring role on stage as Henry Potter, Grima' Wormtongue, and Montgomery Burns.

I patiently await the release of his memos so we can see for ourselves what he actually said and inferred instead of relying on the man's questionably 'honorable' word.

I didn't/don't like the former SecDef and VP...and am struggling to find anyone beyond the current POTUS' daughters to like in the current administration.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,
It appears as if the stars have all aligned – We are in TOTAL agreement :D
I have NO idea who Grima' Wormtongue / Montgomery Burns are
SnT

Sigaba

10-24-2009, 20:49

FWIW, David Gergen, in an interview for PBS's Frontline, offered some insights on Vice President Cheney. One should note that in this interview, Gergen makes clear his opinion that the tone set in Bush the Younger's White House was set by the president himself. Source is here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/interviews/gergen.html).(Questions are in orange.)<<SNIP>>

In the Nixon administration, at the time you were there, is a young staffer working for Don Rumsfeld named Dick Cheney.

I knew of Dick Cheney in the Nixon administration; our paths crossed. I didn't really know him very well. I got to know Don Rumsfeld better in the Nixon years. After Nixon left office, I left the White House and went to work over at the Treasury Department for Secretary Bill Simon, and Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney recruited me to come back to the Ford White House. Don Rumsfeld was then chief of staff and was in the process of moving over to the Defense Department as defense chief, and Dick Cheney was about to be promoted to chief of staff.

So I went to work for President Ford, reporting to the president through Dick Cheney, his chief of staff. I was one in a group of about a half dozen of sort of Young Turks that Dick helped to assemble to bring order and vitality to the place. I must tell you that I, along with all of my colleagues, was enormously impressed by Dick Cheney at that time. He was a first-rate chief of staff; he was a man of great integrity. President Ford came to rely on him heavily during that time.

Dick Cheney was in his mid-30s then, just coming into his own as an adult and having a substantial amount of power and responsibility and exercising it as carefully as he could. He felt, as did all of us working then, that the presidency was too wrapped up in congressional regulation and laws that hamstrung the capacity of the president to carry out foreign policy. There had been such a reaction -- and it was natural -- to the scandal of Watergate that the Congress passed all sorts of laws to tie up the president, to make sure he couldn't break the bounds of the Constitution again.

But from the White House point of view, those laws -- you felt like you were Gulliver in Lilliput. You had all these strings that were tying you down, and you really couldn't act -- especially the War Powers Act, which really was a questionable assertion of congressional power.

So in effect we had moved from the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon very quickly into what many of us thought was an imperiled presidency under Gerald Ford. OK, some terrible mistakes were made [in the Nixon period], and there were abuses of power. Then along come the legislators and pass all sorts of laws and regulation to make sure that will never happen again. But they also make sure nothing else will ever happen, either.

That was a pivotal moment in the education of Dick Cheney. Many of us felt strongly that the power of the presidency was threatened, that America could not lead in the world and couldn't get much done in Washington unless you had a more effective chief executive. Dick came out of that absolutely committed to the idea of restoring the powers of the presidency.

Now, after that happened, life moved on, and many of us felt that Jimmy Carter, who is a great saint but was not a very effective president, that he continued this imperiled presidency. But when Reagan came along, he, in the very natural order of things and without challenging constitutional boundaries, restored power; it began to flow back into the White House. And I think we saw that power exercised in a variety of ways by his successors, President Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton.

So many of us felt that the powers of the presidency had been restored in the succeeding years after Ford and before Bush Jr. Dick Cheney does not believe that. He is among those who felt the president was still too hamstrung, and he came in bound and determined as vice president to change that. That was part of his personal mission.

What were your thoughts on that day when Dick Cheney stood up to take the oath of office and become vice president?

I felt that Bush made a very wise, sound selection. I kept up with Dick in the intervening years, not closely, but I'd known him when he was in Congress, and I'd known him when he was at Halliburton, and felt this is an experienced person who knows Washington, understands power. Very importantly, he understands the world. He played a crucial role as secretary of defense in the Persian Gulf War. His relationship with the Saudis, with the king in particular and with the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, were very, very important during that time.

What I had not fully appreciated was how much more conservative Dick had become in the intervening years since the Ford period. I hadn't understood that I think he had grown more disillusioned with Congress as a result of serving there. He was in the minority, and that can be a very frustrating position, after all. I've seen a lot of people graduate from Congress who look back with some disdain upon it as an institution. I wouldn't say that was Dick's view, but I would have to say I interpret him as being somewhat disillusioned with Congress as an institution.

I did not understand he felt the presidency was still an imperiled institution. I thought he sort of agreed with the more mainstream view, that the health of the presidency had been significantly restored in the intervening years.

So, like a number of his former colleagues, I have gone through a lot of asking myself: "Did he change? Did I change? What happened here? Why do we see the world so differently when we once saw it so similarly?"

But I had this experience -- I really came to understand how he felt. I was on CNN one night and argued that the vice president ought to turn over the names of people who would be consulted when helping to formulate the energy recommendations for the president. I thought that was just as a matter of transparency and openness. It was really important to make those things available to the public and to Congress. And I had a call from him the next day, and he really wanted to talk about, "Don't you remember what we went through back in the '70s and how important it is for the executive to have the full power of the Constitution and how hampered we were back then?"

I did remember all that. And he said: "You know, it's really important today. It's really important to what we do now." Without going into all the details of it, it sent home for me a very direct message: He really cares about this. It's deep in his being. It's fundamental to who he is and his perception of how the presidency should operate in conjunction with the Congress. He's a very, very strong believer that the presidency has been cut down too far.

<<SNIP>>

9/11 hits. Can you describe, from what you know or what you've experienced, what that moment was probably like for Dick Cheney and George W. Bush and the foot soldiers over at the Justice Department?

My own interpretation is that they came in, spurred by Dick Cheney, to have an enlarged sense of the presidency, to have a penchant for secrecy, to basically have a view that the Congress, in effect, works for us, not with us; that we're the lead branch, not a co-equal branch.

I think what 9/11 did was reinforce and strengthen every one of those impulses. I'm sympathetic in one fundamental respect, and that is I've had the privilege of working at the White House many times now. We never before in our history had people working in the recesses of the White House who had to run for their lives through the streets of Washington. I can only imagine what impact it had, of their saying: "Never again. We must defend this at all costs. If the Congress doesn't understand this, we do, and we're going to protect the country."

I'm sympathetic with that. A lot of us on the outside who didn't go through it have to understand there's a residue that lives on and on in the people who went through that horrible day.

It's clear it's had a lasting impact on everything else that's happened, whether it's the government's intercepts or surveillance or exerting executive privilege, or treating Congress with contempt on the questions of White House people producing documents or testifying. They started with this view. But I think that day, 9/11, was such a wrenching one that it confirmed everything they might have thought, and it has made them extraordinarily rigid on these questions.

<<SNIP>>

Dozer523

10-24-2009, 22:38

Before you correct thinking gentlemen conduct an auto-da-fé on Mr. Chaney, et al, may I remind you of one unalterable fact --- We had NOT had another terrorist attack on American soil in over 8 years. Do you and your families feel as secure today as you did when Mr. Chaney was in office?.SnT I haven't had a car wreck since just before Sep 01 (not that the Auto Insurance company cares) and I have never been involved in a hunting accident. I can't really give that much credit to the former VP for those. IIRC as I was wandering around the streets and byways fully exposed to who-knew-what, Mr Cheney was "in an undisclosed location". When I looked up into the empty sky I did feel safer cuz of the FAA and the occasional pair of F-16s.
Since 9-11 I also have not gotten a major disease, been hit by a train, or won the lottery. No thanks to Mr Cheney.
But, Mr Cheney did sent me to Afghanistan once and my son to Iraq twice.

The Reaper

10-24-2009, 22:50

Sigaba

10-24-2009, 23:40

That's just the slick professional Historian in you rearing it's head. If Dick does THAT you're set for life! All that checking, footnoting, analyzing and contectualizing it! You'd be set for life -- a regular Scrooge McDuck swimming in grant money! And what an analysis you would provide! We would probably finally understand what the hell went on over that 20 years.I'm still trying to figure out the 'naval renaissance' of the 1980s.:confused:

If I had my druthers, the project I'd like to handle is putting together a comprehensive index for the 51 reels of William Tecumseh Sherman papers. (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress Photoduplication Service, 1976). This index would be the first step towards editing and, eventually, publishing Sherman's papers. (I suppose PDFs would do, but what is wrong with actual books?)

General Sherman's penmanship was less than ideal. I've a strong hunch that there are some documents in those microfilm reels that would radically change our understanding of American history and that grizzled warrior's contributions to it.

Ever wonder why General Sherman vehemently argued that he sought to avoid politics at all costs in his correspondence with Senator John Sherman (his brother) as well as in his memoirs ? Was it because, as the conventional view holds, that politics and politicians offended his personal dignity and professional sensibilities or was it because after the Civil War, Sherman tried to shape military policy via back channel correspondence and negotiations with legislators in Washington, D.C., got frustrated by the process, and then became increasingly scornful of Gilded Age politics?

Which brings us back to Vice President Cheney. If General Sherman's published correspondence and memoirs can shape our understanding of various aspects of American history and politics to this day, who knows what a well crafted memoir could achieve today, especially if Mr. Cheney has in mind documents that, once released under FOIA, will bear him out?

dennisw

10-25-2009, 00:54

In reviewing the content of this thread, one important issue appears to be woefully absent. Are the Vice President’s critical points related to the current administration valid? Instead of answering this question, we have degenerated into a discussion of why we don’t like Dick Cheney. We’re offered the comments of a General who seems to be democrat talking head. Additionally, we’re offered what appears to be in my reading a prospective critique of what VP Cheney will do. This is worse than being guilty until proved innocent. This is guilty before the crime is even committed. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bradford_berenson

Some would wish Cheney not to comment currently as he is a polarizing element possibly thwarting an honest the debate on the GWOT. I would contend that Cheney is the only one who is publicly taking the President to task. If not he, who? Additionally, I do not believe the Obama administration wants an honest debate. I do not believe honesty is a word they respect or honor. What they want is for all critics to go away, and they will use any means at their disposal to make this happen. Obama speaks of transparency, but his background, his motives and plans are anything, but transparent.

We’ve cast aspersions on Cheney’s time with Halliburton. We’ve laid all the woes of any tactical failure in Afghanistan at Cheney’s feet. However, Douglas J. Feith was the under secretary of defense during these dark days, and a fanatic about taking notes. In his book, War and Decision he mentions that the Security Council advising the President during his first term on issues of national security etc. was made up of the following:
• President George Bush
• Vice President Dick Cheney
• Secretary of State Colin Powell
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Two other official are designated by law as adviser to the National Security Council(NSC):

• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, until October 1, 2001 when he was replaced by General Richard B. Myers)
• CIA Director(George Tenet).

Other regular attendees at NSC were
• National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice
• Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill
• White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
• White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales

Mr. Feith goes on to say that these principal attendees were allowed to bring along one subordinate each, known as “plus one.” (At first Wolfowitz served as Rumsfeld’s “plus one” but after I became Under Secretary the task increasingly became mine.”

Even though Mr. Feith attended most of these meetings, he sites Dick Cheney only twice related to the war in Afghanistan (pages 98 & 105).

Pg. 98 and the preceding pages discuss the overview of the Northern Alliance entering Kabul and whether or not they would be able to sustain their campaign during the winter. “It became clear that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers, and Pace all shared my belief that we should try to accelerate the fight in Afghanistan, not settle back for a slow winter….Vice President Cheney joined Rumsfeld and Myers in supporting a push to achieve results before winter.”

Pg. 105 “In his comments at interagency meetings, Vice President Cheney had made clear that he shared this sense of urgency about getting decisive results before winter. But neither Powell nor Tenet did, so we decided to explain it in our strategy paper:
• An early defeat of Taliban/Al Qaida will make it more difficult for them to conduct additional terrorist operations
• Making an example of the Taliban increases our leverage on other state supporters of terrorism.
• There will undoubtedly be intense diplomatic activity once winter slows down military operations. That diplomacy should operate against a background of U.S. success.
• Success will build U.S. public confidence for action in other theaters.
• Early success will maintain the support of key coalition members; protracted fighting may achieve the opposite.

Pg. 62. President Bush often connected with Rumsfeld –or bumped up against him- on the level of ideas and strategy; the same was true of Cheney and often of Rice.

If Cheney was the mastermind behind the Afghanistan strategy, why wouldn’t Mr. Feith lay the blame at his feet? According to him, Cheney and Bush often disagreed, but Bush made the final decisions.

After Rumsfeld heard General Tommy Frank’s plan for attacking the Taliban and Al Qaida, he was disappointed. Pg. 63 “This was not Frank’s fault, he observed (speaking of Rumsfeld), because CENTCOM was operating with “three key limitations”:
1. Requirement to initiate military strikes within a short time.
2. Focus on al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
3. Pitiful lack of intelligence as to potential al-Qaida or Taliban targets.

Pg. 64 Rumsfeld main criticism of Frank’s plan was that any effort aimed chiefly at hitting terrorist targets in Afghanistan, “will not likely produce impressive results.” One reason was that U.S. officials lacked extensive intelligence about Afghanistan – and we doubted the reliability of what we did have.

Maybe Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) should have shared his intelligence on Afghanistan with the Secretary of Defense as the woeful lack of intelligence seems to be a common theme throughout the initial meetings held by the NSC.

Pg.70 “In later years, Bush’s political opponents criticized him for undermining American civil liberties by using unusual means to fight terrorist enemies for example, detaining U.S. and non U.S. unlawful combatants in U.S. military prisons and conducting domestic surveillance of communications with suspected al Qaida members. I personally worked on some aspects of these issues-and I saw the President and his advisers wrestling in good faith with hard questions of how to protect our civil liberties to the greatest extent possible, while defending our country from the new threat it faced.”

Doesn't sound like mean nasty folks trying to circumvent our laws.

Is it possible that we have succumbed to the Democratic Party’s propaganda? Have they averted our attention away from the real culprits? Donald Feith was in the room. He has meticulously documented what took place.

I repeat, are Mr. Cheney’s criticisms of the current administrative efforts substantively wrong?

Richard

10-25-2009, 05:56

I repeat, are Mr. Cheney’s criticisms of the current administrative efforts substantively wrong?

And yet again we return to this seemingly simple question:

Is Obama “dithering” as Cheney says, or acting in a thorough manner as the White House says?:confused:

As always, we'll have to wait to see what the answer to this question might or might not be - and I would certainly concede that after his lengthy personal involvement with our Afghanistan policy, Mr Cheney should be quite adept at recognizing such 'dithering' when he sees it - but I'd still like to see the former VPs seven years worth of memos, notes, e-mails, staff directives, journals, and such - as well as their interpolation by his peers - on this matter. However, since Mr Cheney remains a fervent advocate of Executive secrecy and against declassification of such materials (or even allowing access to them by NARA as required by law) which certainly obfuscates the issue, this may take awhile.

Meanwhile, it's the eternal mating season for Polecatus Washingtonium and Novus Interventus...and thus continues the overt political posturing by both major parties in their efforts to gain our trust and unyielding 24/7 media coverage of the same circus acts being performed by the same clowns under a new ringmaster. ;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Dad

10-25-2009, 06:37

SnT in response to your question. It has been documented by numerous sources that Halliburton did business with Iran when Cheney was CEO, in violation of embargos in place. Cheney himself admitted they did business with Iran, arguing it was legal because it was through a foreign subsidiary. Technically it was legal. However, it was proven,at least to my satisfaction, the foreign subsidiary was nothing but a mail drop in the Cayman Islands solely designed to circumvent the law. IMHO, I found the actions bordering on treasonous. It should also be noted that Cheney's leadership damn near bankrupt Halliburton. Even so, Cheney continued to collect $6,000,000 per year in deferred salary from Halliburton for years after becoming VP.(maybe still does) And Halliburton continued to receive "no bid" government contracts for every war and hurricane that came around. God help the poor SOB who challenged any of their bills.

Dad

10-25-2009, 07:03

Is the government in Afghanistan as corrupt as it is portrayed? More importantly, is it becoming increasingly unpopular? I would think the second question is the more important since I am pretty sure corruption is not uncommon in that part of the world. Is the current government one we can count on in its' present form or does it need to undertake some reforms to be be a reliable partner? If certain reforms are necessary, and the Karzai government does not wish to impose them, it would seem the best lever we would have would be the allocation of resources to them? Is it possible McChrystal's plan is being used as a carrot to encourage needed reform? Show us your commitment to reform and we show our commitment with more troops? Would it be foolish to commit more troops before we had a commitment for reform from Karzai? Is it possible the President is playing this right and when Karzai gives us what we feel is necessary, we give him what he wants? Or, is any idea of reform "pie in the sky" bs?
Thank you

Gypsy

10-25-2009, 07:31

And yet again we return to this seemingly simple question:

Is Obama “dithering” as Cheney says, or acting in a thorough manner as the White House says?:confused:

Good question. Let's review. The General asked for more troops at the end of August. It is the end of October. During that period of time, the President hasn't met with the General (his head "man on the ground") for any length of time unless you want to call that 20 minute session on AF One a substantive meeting. Meanwhile the war goes on, and the Joes are seemingly left hanging.

Yes, he's dithering IMO. Frankly I do not believe the current president is doing anything other than trying, once again, to vote "present".

Dozer523

10-25-2009, 09:19

Is the government in Afghanistan as corrupt as it is portrayed? IMHO Who besides the US cares? More importantly, is it becoming increasingly unpopular? To whom? To Us? Sure seems that way and I wonder why. Karzi has always been "our guy" and there wasn't anyone running against him that would have been more acceptable. Acceptable to us or the Afghans. I would think the second question is the more important since I am pretty sure corruption is not uncommon in that part of the world. Exactly, Business as usual. What was significant was that people were invited to vote, not that their votes might be parlayed on the open market. Is the current government one we can count on in its' present form or does it need to undertake some reforms to be be a reliable partner? Well, he does seem to do what we ask of him even when what we expect may not be what he (HMFIC) thinks is best for his country. Say. . . talking to the Taliban, going the South African Peace and Reconciliation route. Or complaining when over zealous US Marines shoot up every car coming toward them as they drive away from an alleged attack in Jalalabad -- I KNOW I know . . . I just can't seem to let that one go!
If certain reforms are necessary, According to us and the Karzai government does not wish to impose them, it would seem the best lever we would have would be the allocation of resources to them? We seem to have tried that for the past 8 years to what end? Maybe we ought to try to accommodate his plan for Afghanistan. After all he has to live there after we leave. Is it possible McChrystal's plan is being used as a carrot to encourage needed reform? Show us your commitment to reform and we show our commitment with more troops? I certainly hope not. That sounds just a little too Soviet to me. I can't help think the current plan is very much like what the Soviets did. They came in claiming to help. Aside, Did you know that we bought the Afghan military 24 Hind-D helicopters from Uzbekistan? Can anyone think of any vehicle that inspires more fear and loathing for an Afghan then a Hind? Would it be foolish to commit more troops before we had a commitment for reform from Karzai? Yeah, about as nutty as providing Hinds. And maybe foolish since it isn't really what the Afghans think they need or want. And maybe insane since it is the same strategy the Soviets used -- remember how well that worked out. Is it possible the President is playing this right and when Karzai gives us what we feel is necessary, we give him what he wants? What he wants is US gone, what we want is US gone. How well is a 'waiting game" going to accomplish those goals? Or, is any idea of reform "pie in the sky" bs? I don't know if it's BS, but I wonder if imposing 235 YO US values on a 2,350 YO Afghanistan is.
Thank you
Excellent questions Dad, can we play catch now?:cool:

Surf n Turf

10-25-2009, 10:01

Dozer523,
Excellent post, and your main point (I think) about imposing a central government in a country that for millennia has rejected the concept is spot on.
I wonder if we haven’t lost track of the mission in Afghanistan, which I understand was to hunt down and kill Al Quida (and by extension those that support them). We can get into another thread discussing McChrystal's COIN plan and if, and when, it would accomplish our mission.
Your point about Karzai is also correct –“he has to live there after we leave”
In any case, delay in protecting our current force in the AO is unacceptable. If your “hand picked” commander on the ground says he needs additional troops it’s time to fish, or cut bait. Doing nothing is “dithering”.
SnT

Richard

10-25-2009, 10:20

Some issues weighing on the situation in Afghanistan.

We've increased our troop presence in Afghanistan for each of the last three years - to include >17k so far this year.

In January, the SecDef made clear the following:

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee asks Secretary Gates about “the speed of our force drawdown in Iraq and our force increase in Afghanistan.”

Gates says that “should the president make the final decision to deploy additional brigades to Afghanistan,” two combat brigades could arrive “probably by late spring,” and potentially “a third by mid-summer.” But infrastructure to “support and sustain” a force that size would probably not allow additional troop increases in 2009. So three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan would have to be all for this year, if President Obama makes the decision to send more troops, and regardless of how fast a troop drawdown in Iraq proceeds.

http://washingtonindependent.com/27479/gates-only-three-additional-combat-brigades-possible-in-2009

According to a former member of the Afghan Parliament:

In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament.

<snip>

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.

For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/25/afghanistan-occupation-taliban-warlords

GEN McChrystal's analysis:

COMISAF's Initial Assessment
30 Aug 2009

<snip>

Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) requires a new strategy that is credible to, and sustainable by, the Afghans. This new strategy must also be properly resourced and executed through an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign that earns the support of the Afghan people and provides them with a secure environment.

To execute the strategy, we must grow and improve the effectiveness of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and elevate the importance of governance. We must also prioritize resources to those areas where the population is threatened, gain the initiative from the insurgency, and signal unwavering commitment to see it through to success. Finally, we must define the nature of the fight, clearly understand the impacts and importance of time, and change our operational culture.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502241.html

It's a complex and messy situation - both internally and externally - for which I and so many others more knowledgable of the situation than me certainly have no absolute answers. Thus far, from what I've read and heard, nobody (except the former VP) seems to be clear either on the 'urgency' of GEN McChrystal's proposals and whether or not the Administration's actions are - in fact - 'dithering.'

So...would one call the former administration's and NATO's not acting on then COMISAF GEN McKiernan's request for more troops for over 8 months 'acting in a thorough manner' or 'dithering'? :confused:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

rltipton

10-25-2009, 10:23

For those who make intelligent posts on these subjects, thank you for your insight. I can appreciate many points of view even if I do not agree with them, simply because they are explained well or backed up with facts. These dialogues are good for all of us, especially at a time when our government and their media mouthpieces want the information flow to be unidirectional.

On the other hand, there is a lot of crap in this thread with a lot of points of view and opinions that are just that: crap. They really contribute nothing other than someone wanting to hear themselves blabber about their own opinions about the subject. Posts, based on crap that was 'heard' or 'read' or 'imagined,' cooked up or 'felt' by the posters, not based on any personal experience at all...it's just crap and it pisses me off to have to read through it to get to intelligently written, well thought out and executed, fact-based, contributory posts.

God bless our 1st Amendment...but it appears to me there are many who would benefit from more reading and much less typing. :munchin

...yours truly included!

Y'all be safe!
Randy

The Reaper

10-25-2009, 10:32

It occurs to me that based upon events this far, you will have a lot more success gaining access to Bush and Cheney's records than you will Obama's.

Need we recount the litany of missing documentation from his brief and less than distinguished career prior to becoming a U.S. Senator?

IMHO, VP Cheney's comments are worth hearing based on his experience at a senior decision-making level during eight years of the GWOT. Admittedly, his remarks will refelct a partisan viewpoint and must be considered as such.

Unless you feel that Obama's positions and decisions are beyond scrutiny.

TR

kgoerz

10-25-2009, 13:54

I liked Chaney, and thought he did his best to keep America safe and GWB conservative, as much as he could.

Anyone here who has never had someone move into their line of fire has not yet hunted enough. Most of us have, on occasion, been lucky. Not an apologist, but sometimes, shit happens. I didn't see any Ted Kennedy type cover-up or excuses. The media sure covered it thoroughly.

IMHO, given the non-stop attacks on the Bush administration since his election, and the complaints from the current administration since their campaign started, someone needs to stand up and call a spade a spade. I see no issues with the former VP doing it.

TR

I Concur. GW, Rumsfeld and Chaney were exactly what we needed for the times. America has a History of electing the right people for the times. We also have a history of electing people who have to remind us of our past mistakes. I truly believe, all though not perfect. The GW team were the best people to have in charge for the 911 attacks.

kgoerz

10-25-2009, 14:02

IMO, all the more reason to remain silent. Had Vice President Chaney left Washington, D. C. as a less polarizing figure, maybe his speaking out would advance the debate over GWOT. Yet, as he (along with Rumsfeld) worked so hard to stifle debate within Bush the Younger's administration, I don't see how he can establish a sufficient level of political and intellectual credibility to get his opponents to listen.

What I especially want is for Mr. Cheney to take us from his days as secretary of defense to his vice presidency and make the case for his increasingly hard line towards Iraq. MOO, there's a bit of a disconnect in the public eye (including my own) in how Mr. Cheney went from being a pragmatic policy advocate who emphasized the need of getting war fighters the tools they needed under Bush the Elder to the fire eater he was as vice president and is today.

His hard line towards Iraq???? It's called War. It was genius. It was to get our Military established in a Muslim Country populated and bordered by Muslim extremist. In order to kill them. Plain and simple.
The ones that weren't already there, arrived shortly afterwords. In order to be killed by our Military. Killing thousands of Muslim extremist in Iraq is a victory many will never understand.

Richard

10-26-2009, 08:05

It was to get our Military established in a Muslim Country populated and bordered by Muslim extremist. In order to kill them. Plain and simple.

Do you have a source for that being the reasoning behind OIF? :confused:

Richard

ZonieDiver

10-26-2009, 10:45

Does that apply to today's Americans?

Been 8 years, plenty of time for the average Joe to step forward and raise his hand.

Short answer - Yes! (And that includes a lot of posters here whose attitude seems to be "if I can get into SF, I'll serve. If not, the USA can pound sand."

rltipton

10-26-2009, 13:10

I liked Cheney, and thought he did his best to keep America safe and GWB conservative, as much as he could.

Anyone here who has never had someone move into their line of fire has not yet hunted enough. Most of us have, on occasion, been lucky. Not an apologist, but sometimes, shit happens. I didn't see any Ted Kennedy type cover-up or excuses. The media sure covered it thoroughly.

IMHO, given the non-stop attacks on the Bush administration since his election, and the complaints from the current administration since their campaign started, someone needs to stand up and call a spade a spade. I see no issues with the former VP doing it.

TR

Anyone who has ever hunted dove on Camp MacKall on opening weekend knows how it gets when there are birds flying everywhere and there are 40 hunters out there slaying birds left and right. It gets nuts and you get shot, period. It stings and it starts a lot of fights, but it happens every year. You try to get away from anyone you can, you yell "low bird" if you see someone about to flag your way, you do what you can, but the bottom line is you wear eye protection because you are going to get stung. No blood, no foul.

Anyone who formed an opinion of Cheney based upon the dove hunt thing...well shame on you. Go hunt birds. I wasn't there when Dick supposedly shot the guy, but like you said, TR, s**t happens. There is little doubt we did not hear the whole story anyway!

As you pointed out also, Cheney and Bush withstood a DAILY barrage of crap from the left from day one. They were accused of ridiculous things like being part of a 9-11 conspiracy and whatever the left could cook up. So much of it was straight up lies. There were many times when I wondered why they never spoke up about certain issues that the left insisted were great big issues worth hanging the whole GW administration over. My guess is they realized that it did not matter what they did, it was going to be wrong in the eyes of the demoncrats and they would get beat up over it anyway, regardless which side of the fence they stood on so they just conducted business and kept their mouths shut. Who the hell can blame them?

It is perfectly appropriate for Cheney to speak out right now and 10 years from now, whether or not he holds any particular office or not. If Carter and slick Willie C. can run around influencing US foreign policy, why can't the former Sec Def and VP speak out and call a spade a spade? He certainly did more good for our country than that idiot peanut farmer and the former impeached *cough* president...

Really though, it will never be ok for Cheney to speak out because he is a Republican and his viewpoints are counter to those in power. That's modern political correctness for ya.

I would like to see some specifics on Cheney's ties to Haliburton. If he does have money invested with them who cares really? Dick does not do the contract work at any level, never did. Furthermore, when did Haliburton NOT have the government contracts for ALL of that shit anyway? There are some companies that can compete in some areas, but none that can do what they can as a package deal. If Bill Clinton had money invested in Haliburton you wouldn't even hear a peep about it.

So I ask, who has done the no horseshit research and found where Dick directly benefitted financially because of either his position under Bush I or Bush II and his interests in Haliburton? I haven't ever seen it in print or heard anyone produce any facts, just accusations with no facts to back it up. because of that I would assume that it was more slander and libel cooked up by the left to tarnish the view of the right. Certainly if there was any wrongdoing he would be in prison by now considering the scrutiny he underwent for the last 8 years. Shame on anyone who believed any part of that Haliburton stuff.

I was in Afghanistan saw the battle early on and was there to begin construction on one of the most recent firebases. I can tell you Cheney had no direct part in any big change in operations Afghanistan. None whatsoever.I can tell you what did and the day it all changed...the day we went from winning that war to gradually losing it little by little, which has caused us to be where we are today. It's the day our mission statement changed from "Kill, destroy, capture..." to having "...deny and disrupt..." added in there. It changed everything about the way we all operated over there. That wasn't Dick's doing. It was the accomplishment of conventional force commanders on the ground with no prior combat experience outside of JRTC/NTC *cough*. Same d***h**ds who screwed up COUNTLESS missions trying to "kill, destroy, capture..." My guess is they added in "Deny and disrupt" because that's all they could accomplish within their leadership capabilities with any given chance of success. I digress...It goes deeper than that, but that began the spiral. It is a qualifiable, quantifiable fact.

It also gave room for some asshats at all levels of command to somehow think we can coexist in some way with the Taliban. Now even this moron VP and big Hillary C. are saying we are going to work with the Taliban when they don't truly know who the f***ing Taliban are. I do and I'll tell you there aint no co-existing with them, period.

No, if you think Cheney had any direct impact on the war in Afghanistan you are incorrect unless you say that he was the champion of the open checkbook policy for SOF and thus helped a lot more of us come home safely and aided us in sending a shitload of fresh booger-eaters to Allah. For that you can correctly place blame squarely upon Mr. Cheney.

None should form their opinions of Dick Cheney based on anything other than what they research for themselves, or know personally to be true. Judge him by what you know, by what he does and says, not by what the MSM has to say. If anything is evident with the current situation in this country...our media is all shit. Don't believe ANY of it.

I had a chance to work for him for a short period of time and my opinion of Dick Cheney is as high as I could give almost anyone. He is a good man and he loves this country as much as any of us. It is unfortunate that he served at a time when the media was so biased against his party and policies.

Richard

10-26-2009, 17:20

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us. It wad frae money a blunder free us, And foolish notion.

- Robert Burns

Richard's $.02 :munchin

rltipton

10-26-2009, 20:39

For the record I have never personally stung anyone when bird hunting, though I have been stung more than once and threatened to whip more than one ass for it.

Yeah I hunted birds with fools on Ft Bragg and they shot the hell out of each other and most of them were in SF or the 82nd...go figure. If I am a fool because the best day to hunt birds on Camp MacKall is opening day and I like to fill my freezer at the risk of being stung...well you can PM me if you want to know my reply to that.

Nobody said it is ok. Maybe you missed the quietly hidden undertone of the whole damn post...the part of not believing everything you hear from the mainstream media because they are full of shit and have been full of shit and they hated Dick. Read it again? Do you know ALL of the facts about it? Were you there? What was the source of the facts you KNOW to be completely and unquestionably true about the whole incident? I didn't think so.

Richard

10-26-2009, 20:54

...but it appears to me there are many who would benefit from more reading and much less typing.

"Those who quote themselves are egotistical, narcissistic, redundant, arrogant, conceited bastards." {self-cited by author}

Some noteworthy 'do as I say' advice for all of us to heed.

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

dennisw

10-27-2009, 00:59

I agree that Dick and George and Donnie were the best options we had, but that doesn't satisfy what I expected of them. One of these three men I have personal dealings with and don't need a f..ing memoir to make a sound, lifelong judgment of his character.

Obvious you have us at a disadvantage. You have personal intimate knowledge, but for your own reasons, choose not to enlighten us. However, I respect that.

At the same time, I believe many of us are suffering. Suffering from having good and honorable intentions misconstrued by those who do not seek the truth. Suffering from watching people who lack goodness and substance attempting to turn our special America into something ordinary and base as a sacrifice to their own vanity of arrogance. Willing to risk the idea of America on notions or concepts which are contrary to what has made us special. Contrary to everything we know to be true which has been reinforced by a lifetime of observation. Contrary to what made us a beacon to the world.

Many on this board, if not most, have served in the military. Some during times of peace, others in time of war, but the one common thread that binds us all is that we were willing to put our lives on the line to serve this great nation. I believe it angers us to see it led by those who were not willing to make the same sacrifice, yet from their from their positions of power and safety take it in direction which is ripe with failure.

Many on this board have suffered severe personal losses in an attempt to protect our way of life. Have loss close friends whose worth seems to be more then the thousands they see each day. To have someone tell them and us that this spirit for which we've strived, bled and died needs to be changed, just doesn't settle.

It will and has created an anger. We want to shout, "just tell the truth", but are voices only travel as far as a the nearest compatriot or friend.

I feel this anger and I think I see it in the words of others. I don't believe it is directed towards others on this board, as most of us have more in common than not. However, it is disconcerting to see the words of liberals echoed in the voices of our brothers. This anger is not personal, it's just a general feeling of dismay. It's truly not about bird hunting. In fact, I would wager that Rangertab1 and rltipton would be pretty good hunting buddies if the opportunity arose. They might even let me tag along if I committed to bringing the beer. :D No, it's more like a feeling of paranoia. You know that feeling of paranoia that creeps in; like hearing a friend say he kind of likes the Jonas Brothers. It turns our World upside down.