VP Cheney Remarks on Obama

[dennisw]

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...dford_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]

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?

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

[Dad]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Richard

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Dad

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?

[Surf n Turf]

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]

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/274...ssible-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/commentisf...liban-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...100502241.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'?

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

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.

...yours truly included!

Y'all be safe!
Randy

[The Reaper]

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

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?

Richard

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Pete

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."

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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.