December 31, 2009
Thank you, Mr C.
...But what I can't wrap my head around is that it took the President four days to acknowledge what he termed a "catastrophic" national security failure, but Cheney criticizes the administration's handling of the war on terror and they have a rapid response on the White House blog in a matter of hours? Priorities!
Then again, it took six days to respond to the riots in the streets of Tehran during their election, so four days seems about right for a barely averted domestic catastrophe.
Also, is the White House aware of how small they look when they are so obviously spooked by Cheney's every utterance? Remember when the President rescheduled a press conference earlier this year to deliberately conflict with a pre-planned Cheney speech?
We could really use a steady hand on the tiller while dealing with national security matters, but the White House is still in campaign mode, worried about what a private citizen -- who left office remarkably unpopular! -- thinks of them. ...
Abdulmutallab isn't on the "enemies list."
May 30, 2009
Cheney on the high ground....
Jonah Goldberg: Cheney an Unlikely Beacon for Conservatives....
...It's a lovely thing when the conventional wisdom proves to be so spectacularly wrong. The entire Democratic party, not to mention the media establishment, simply took as a given that suave, charming, effulgent, numinous president Barack Obama would mop the floor with grumpy, truculent, sardonic former vice-president Dick Cheney. And yet, on almost every issue he has championed since he left office, Cheney has won the debate or at least put the White House on the defensive. From the closing of Gitmo and the placement of terrorists in domestic prisons, to the release of the torture memos and the aborted release of prisoner-abuse photos, Cheney holds the higher ground politically, or in the polls, or both.
Many liberals who take it on faith that Cheney represents all that is evil, cruel, and unhip about the Republican party, not to mention carbon-based life forms, are loath to give him even an ounce of credit for his success. That Obama is backpedaling or off-balance on so many fronts, they say, is at best circumstantial evidence that Cheney is having any effect. Well, you know, Thoreau was right: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." The trout in Obama's milk is the trout fisherman from Casper, Wyo.....
There are profound lessons to be learned here. An easy one is that the Bush policies Democrats relentlessly demonized were hardly as extreme, politically or morally, as they alleged. If Bush's anti-terror policies were half as bad as Obama & Co. claimed, the American people and Congress would reject them all wholesale, and Cheney's arguments would sound like the ravings of a madman. That hasn't happened.
But the more important lesson, at least for conservatives and Republicans, is that arguments matter. If personalities and politics alone drove the issues, then of course flannel Cheney would lose against silky Obama. But it turns out that substance is a good counterpunch to style.
"Evil, cruel, and unhip Republican"—hey wait, that's me! Cool. No wonder I like the guy. Thank you, Mr Cheney, for expressing what I feel!
(The picture is of Vice-President Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute's World Forum, in 2004. Originally posted here.)
May 24, 2009
A great American versus an amiable con-man...
I liked this piece by Michael Goodwin, Obama gets schooled on terror: Cheney bests him in speech duel — by sticking to the facts:
NOTE on the caricature below. It's by cartoonist F. T. Rea. (With permission.) I think it's cool—I LIKE tough old white guys who haven't succumbed to lefty nihilism and relativism. Possibly I'm not on quite the same, er, philosophical wavelength as Mr Rea, but hey, great art transcends partisan politics! ;-)
It was a tale of two speeches. One was clear, direct and powerful. Barack Obama gave the other speech.
It would have been heresy to write those words any other time, so commanding has President Obama been with the spoken word. [Not if you prefer honesty and straight talk.] But the real Mission Impossible was to imagine that wheezy old Dick Cheney would be the speaker to best Obama. [Character and honesty trump all. TRUTH trumps all. And real Americans HONOR those who have grown old and wise in the service of their country.]
Yet that happened last week, and I predict it won't be a fluke. From here on out, results will increasingly trump the sensation of Obama's high-toned lectures every time.
Especially if they are as dreary as last Thursday's, which was so disingenuous and self-reverential as to be one of the low moments of his presidency. Besides not being able to clearly lay out his plan for Guantanamo detainees, Obama never mentioned what will happen to others we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan. [Good question!] Perhaps we will take no more prisoners? [We will continue to take prisoners—we're the good guys. But it would be perfectly legal and reasonable to just shoot them—they torture and kill any Americans they capture. Which never bothers the fake-liberals who pretend to "care" about prisoners.]
Meanwhile, the occasion showed that Cheney, the darkest of dark horses, is emerging as a fact checker in exile. With Democrats holding all Washington power, the ex-veep's willingness to challenge Obama's narrative of the war on terror is a poor substitute for an institutional check-and-balance, but it's all we have. [Cheney's always been the same guy. It's only those who believe the lies of our lying press who are surprised by his vigourous defense of our country in time of war.]
What I love about Dick Cheney is that he doesn't buy into the idea that leftists get to set the terms of the debate. That we have to be mealy-mouthed about our patriotism and our determination to destroy terrorist animals. He doesn't CARE if lefty journalists call him a "hate-monger." Bless the man.
In that sense, Cheney's ability to outduel Obama could mark a turning point in the debate on this and other critical issues. His TKO over the President recalls the three most important things in real estate: Location, location, location. The key to Cheney's powerful performance: Facts, facts, facts.
Cheney, whose wife jokes that calling him Darth Vader "humanizes" him, coughed his way through a 40-minute defense of the Bush administration's anti-terror strategy. He glossed over huge lapses, such as the flawed intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq, [WRONG. That was the SAME intelligence EVERYBODY had, including Dem leaders in Congress. We learned through the Duelfer Report that Saddam's own generals thought the WMD's were there! Saddam's guys were more honest than our "Democrats," who now claim "Bush lied" for believing exactly what they believed and said in 2002.] but used to great effect the most compelling fact - no successful attacks on America since 9/11...
In a contrast-and-compare sequence, he challenged Obama's approach, including the release of the so-called torture memos and talk of prosecuting Bush officials.
"To the very end of our administration, we kept Al Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems," Cheney said. "We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed." [Amen, brother Richard. And a lot of the credit goes to you.]
For his part, Obama sounded like a put-upon plaintiff arguing a Supreme Court case. The heavy symbolism of his setting, the National Archives in front of an original copy of the Constitution, added to the worrisome impression he is lost in the legal and political weeds. [Not to mention that he's a pygmy compared to that setting.]
Ironically, his criticism that Bush took his eye off the ball to invade Iraq [WRONG of course. Iraq is precisely WHY they haven't attacked us again. It was what the terrorists hate and fear most—democracy and freedom planted right smack-dab in their heart of darkness. If Dems REALLY want peace they should promise that America will do the same thing again if we are attacked. Then we WON'T be attacked.] has a corollary in Obama's fixation on interrogation techniques. He is missing the larger point
[PS: Don't tell anyone, but the real reasons I advised George and Dick and Tony to invade Iraq are here.]
After conceding terrorism presents unique challenges, Obama argued "the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass." [We have no "time-tested institutions" for this new situation. All we have is the template Bush has created—which Obam is, in fact, following closely!]
Whoa Nellie - are the terrorists going to hit us again or not? That's what people want to know, not whether a bunch of lawyers think we're being too tough on them.
Unfortunately, Obama was less than reassuring, saying: "Neither I nor anyone else standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives." [What a PASSIVE thing to say. Compare with JFK promising to "pay any price" to defend freedom. Or Bush promising to "smoke 'em out."]
That's a fact, of course, but it's also a fact that he's been warned his policies will make it more likely we will be hit again. It's a warning he dismisses at America's peril.
I actually think the Mr Cheney's arguments are too narrowly focused, concentrating on just the defense of the USA. The poor folk in various Third World countries are a thousand times more at risk than we are. I'd suggest this as a better context for our debates:
America has, reluctantly, and because no one else will do it, become almost the only "cop on the beat" in the rough gang-ridden neighborhood that is our planet. A neighborhood where one hears screams coming out of buildings at night, and bodies are found on the sidewalks in the morning. This cop sometimes roughs-up suspicious characters, and it may be right to criticize him. BUT, if he fails, then criminal gangs take over, and the little people's sufferings will be extreme.
Therefore, the starting point for criticism is to be in sympathy with the cop and his extremely difficult task. And to be in solidarity with the common citizens who are going to be crushed if hoodlums can take over the streets. One should start by imagining what it must be like to try to preserve the rule of law among vicious criminals. It is hard, dangerous and thankless. And then imagine what it must be like to try to raise an child to be honest and moral in a place where drug-dealers and gangsters strut and kill people, and seem more successful than those who obey the law.
May 21, 2009
We are the Good Guys. That's the politically-incorrect truth...
I recommend former Vice-President Dick Cheney's Speech at the AEI. An antidote to the moral squalor and squashiness of the Obama universe...:
...The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world--for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences--and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for--our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future....
May 18, 2009
Finally... Thank you, Mr Cheney!
Stephen F. Hayes: Cheney's War on the Democrats:
...Cheney is making arguments that the Bush administration largely avoided throughout the second term. Aside from an occasional, defensive speech about its war on terror policies, the Bush White House allowed its opponents to level harsh attacks with little or no response. Only in the final months of the administration did the White House offer a consistent, unapologetic argument that Bush administration policies, however controversial, were responsible for keeping the country safe in the seven years after the 9/11 attacks.
Equally important is that the views of the American public on national security are much closer to Cheney's than Maureen Dowd's. Democrats have made the assumption that because Cheney is personally unpopular, the policies he has advocated are, too. Obama did not become president because voters supported his positions on national security and the war on terror. They don't....
I would make a broader argument, but Dick Cheney is dead right. I'd argue that George W Bush did not just keep the US safe, he made the WORLD a much safer place. Remember, most of the suffering inflicted by al-Qaeda and the Taliban and other terror groups is inflicted on people in the Third World. We are very safe compared with the poor wretches in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
(That's why I despise pacifists. Especially "Christian" pacifists. They always turn someone else's cheek. They say "Jesus said we mustn't oppose evil with force." Then they toddle off to dinner and a safe bed, protected by armed cops and the world's strongest military. The animals know full well that massive slaughter will be inflicted on anyone who threatens them. And their icy little hearts are unmoved when niggers in far places are shredded by suicide bombers. They pass on the other side of the road.)
That's part of what drove me nuts about the passivity in debate of the Bush Administration. If you are doing something morally wrong, then stop. If you think you are morally in the right, you have the obligation to say so loud and clear. You must be willing to debate. To stand up against false arguments. Bush was wrong to not fight for his ideas in the ring.
January 27, 2009
Stuff that our "news" media decide is not news...
This is old news to those of us who actually care about that great man and his talented family. But those who get their news from those dishonest people called "journalists" or "liberals" will be totally unaware. So I'm doing my tiny bit to spread the word....
...In her book, Now It's My Turn, Mary recounts how her father reacted when she first came out to him: "The first words out of his mouth were exactly the ones I wanted to hear: 'You're my daughter and I love you and I just want you to be happy.'" Later, he would welcome Mary's partner Heather into their family. They sat together at President Bush's first inauguration in 2001, his second in 2005, and even today at President Obama's swearing-in. Heather joined Mary on the stage with the families of the president and vice president when Bush declared victory in 2004. The two women sat together at the White House dinner for Britain's Prince Charles and his wife Camilla. In short, in settings both public as well as private, the conservative vice president treated his younger daughter's female partner just as he treated his older daughter's husband: as a member of the family. Cheney didn't just look out for his daughter. He also looked out for other gay people as well. When one of her friends, a Bush supporter, feared he might be "outed" and lose his job when the then-president announced his support for the FMA, she brought up his concerns with her father who told her to "tell this person that if anyone � I don't care who it is � if anyone gives him any trouble, he is to come see me and I'll take care of it." That conservative Republican was willing to go to bat for a gay person. No vice president in history has done so much for gay people as has Dick Cheney. To be sure, Cheney is the first vice president to have an openly gay child. He treats her as gay activists have long wanted parents to treat their gay children � loving them just as they did before they came out, accepting them as they are, and welcoming their same-sex spouses into their families. And it wasn't just in private where Cheney loved and accepted his daughter. In public, he was more than just the proud father of a lesbian daughter. He also spoke out on gay issues, even disagreeing with the then-president to express his opposition to a constitutional amendment the his running mate supported. Yet, when Cheney left office, encomia were not forthcoming from any gay organization. Searches of the websites of the leading gay organizations (e.g.,Human Rights Campaign, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights) reveal no mention of this historic vice presidency. The leading left-of-center gay bloggers (e.g.,Towleroad, Andrew Sullivan, Pam's House Blend, Joe.My.God, Queerty) were similarly silent. It would have been a lot different if he were a Democrat....
Actually most Republicans are not "homo-phobic." That's just lying propaganda. Those of us who think, for instance, that changing God's sacrament of marriage is a catastrophically bad idea, think that is harmful to gays most of all! Gays are being sold a bill o' goods by lefty activists who want to destroy our civilization. They are just cannon fodder in the assault on the culture, and are the real victims of the campaign to promote so-called gay marriage.
December 22, 2008
"And the answer is: This is my duty"
I've blogged about this before, but the story is bigger than I knew. A "clandestine operation" forsooth! This is what real men do. Christian gentlemen. Duty, always duty. The hollow men of our time, the Eloi--they find excuses to duck their duty to God and country and the world. They pretend to be "pacifists," or seize hungrily upon abu Ghraib (which was a trifle compared to the usual abuses that happen in war) as their out. Their cold empty hearts acknowledge no duty, except to themselves.
Washington Times: For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White House. It has involved thousands of military personnel, private presidential letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or sometimes left the news media in the dark.
Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country.
On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip - with reporters in tow - to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving.
But the size and scope of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's private endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen far exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the effort.
"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."
Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.
"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."
Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according to White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at private sessions during official travel stops, officials said.
The first lady said those private visits, many of which she also attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, but on her as well.
December 16, 2008
Giggle of the morning...
I bet Obam's secretly wishing he could keep someone else from the Bush team...
September 12, 2008
If you are not smart enough to earn a living, become a journalist.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) By Ed Stoddard and Yereth Rosen- Is Sarah Palin a friend or foe of big oil?
As governor of Alaska, she raised taxes on oil companies and clashed with them over a planned pipeline through her state.
But on the fundamental issues of drilling for oil and the environment, her positions look very much like those of the man she seeks to replace: Vice President Dick Cheney...
Personally I consider a comparison with Dick Cheney to be a big compliment. But this really shows desperation by the Media Wing of the DNC.
And stupidity! The world is not divided between "friends and foes of big oil." Oil companies are just businesses, with good points and bad points. The idea that they are reservoirs of mysterious evil, and that any sane person would be "foes" of them is the level of thinking of sociology professors at junior colleges. Or Reuters "journalists." Imagine someone dividing people into friends or foes of "big auto." Pretty stupid, right?
If you are Governor of Alaska, you very much want to have big oil working in your state, but you need to negotiate hard to get the best terms you can. That's what Palin did. She's neither friend nor foe of the oil industry, and I'm sure they don't consider her a friend or a foe. More like a tough but honest business partner. Alaska is in the oil business almost as much as they are. I'd trust any oil company employee over a Reuters hack.
We are nearing the end of eight years of the Bush Administration. I'll take this moment to say, "Thank you Mr Cheney. You are a patriot and a great public servant, and your life should be an inspiration to all real Americans. And the fact that you have attracted the ankle-biting hatred of the pit-Chihuahua's of the nihilist Left is just confirmation of this."
June 7, 2008
Toldja... "The sensible options for defending them are relatively limited"
From the Washington Post this morning...
IN THE HEAT of the Democratic primary campaign, some on the left were inspired to believe that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) offered a far-reaching transformation of U.S. foreign policy, "the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades," as one particularly breathless article in the American Prospect put it. Yet, when Mr. Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration -- or that of Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That's not a bad thing; rather, it's a demonstration that there is a strong bipartisan consensus about America's vital interests in the Middle East and that the sensible options for defending them are relatively limited....
Do read it all and smile. The re-positioning on Iraq will come soon, depend on it.
President Bush has created the template for fighting the War on Terror, just as Truman set our course for the Cold War. Future presidents will be limited to filling in the details. Even pygmies like Obama. If they are smart, they will just read Random Jottings.
Or, better yet, listen to this deep old file....
March 24, 2008
A less-than-accurate description of the situation in Baghdad...
Michael Goldfarb gives a quote from a book I'm going to be reading soon, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President
...In 2002, the vice president had been briefed on fresh intelligence that members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad had made their way to Iraq and had begun setting up safe houses in Baghdad. Cheney found the report interesting, but odd. He had understood that Egyptian Islamic Jihad had merged with al Qaeda several years earlier. Ayman al Zawahiri, the group’s longtime leader, was now Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy. Cheney wanted to know why the report did not simply conclude that al Qaeda was setting up safe houses in Baghdad.
He returned the report to the CIA with a question: Would it be accurate to substitute “al Qaeda” for every mention of “Egyptian Islamic Jihad?” The answer did not come immediately, but when it did, the CIA finally acknowledged that members of al Qaeda were operating in Baghdad.
To Cheney, the episode was one example of many that demonstrated the unwillingness of some CIA analysts to take an objective look at Iraq and its support for radical Islamic terrorists, al Qaeda in particular. In this case, analysts were so determined to avoid reporting the presence of al Qaeda members in Iraq that they presented Cheney with a less-than-accurate description of the situation in Baghdad...
To me it is one of the most interesting things of our time, the way liberals (and the CIA is very liberal; it's not a place you will find any Republicans) are repelled, as if by some invisible magnetic field, from looking straight at Iraq. They know, and they knew then, back in 2002, that it was the biggest danger to them. That it would unmask them.
They'd been decrying fascism forever, and preening themselves on their anti-Hitler credentials, and then......comes George W Bush who says, "Bully! Let's all go together and overthrow a fascist dictator who makes Adolph Hitler look like a moderate." Ha ha. He got them, the vile phonies.
If President Bush (along with Vice-President Cheney) never accomplished anything else (in fact the list of his accomplishments is a long one) he would be a great president just because he exposed "liberals" and "pacifists" for the nihilists most of them are.
January 1, 2008
One of our gals...
Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard Blog notes the top ten opinion pieces (by page views) of the WaPo for 2007. Who's number one?
Retreat Isn't an Option, By Liz Cheney, January 23, 2007
....We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a "situation to be solved." It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, "Enough is enough." Wishing doesn't make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later....
Liz is Dick and Lynne Cheney's daughter. that's her on the right in the picture. (And who's number two in the WaPo? A guy named Kristol.)
December 21, 2007
We "considered ourselves a vanquished people"
From A Revolutionary Christmas Story, By Lynne Cheney, NYT, December 21, 2004
AS 1776 was drawing to a close, Elkanah Watson, a young man in Massachusetts, expressed what many Americans feared about their war for independence. "We looked upon the contest as near its close," he wrote, "and considered ourselves a vanquished people."Can one possibly imagine the elation that must have been felt by Elkanah Watson, when the news of the victory at Trenton arrived? The deep satisfaction we feel right now at the splendid turnaround in Iraq is nothing compared with how Americans must have felt then.
There was good reason for pessimism. The British had driven Gen. George Washington and his men out of New York and across New Jersey. In early December, with the British on their heels, the Americans had commandeered every boat they could find to escape across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. They were starving, sick and cold. The artist Charles Willson Peale, watching the landing from the Pennsylvania shore, described a soldier dressed "in an old dirty blanket jacket, his beard long and his face so full of sores that he could not clean it." So disfigured was the man, Peale wrote, that at first he did not recognize him as his brother James.
In these desperate circumstances, George Washington made a stunning decision: to go back across the Delaware and launch a surprise attack on the Hessian mercenaries occupying Trenton. On Christmas night, he led 2,400 men, many of them with their feet wrapped in rags because they had no shoes, to a crossing point nine miles upstream from Trenton. As freezing temperatures turned rain to sleet and snow, they began to cross the river.
The task was harder than any of them had imagined. Men had to break through ice to get into the boats and then fend off chunks of floating ice once they were in the river. Getting cannons across - each weighed nearly a ton - was especially difficult. Downstream, two other groups that Washington had ordered to cross the Delaware failed in their mission. But Washington and his men persevered, until finally, at 4 o'clock in the morning, they were across and ready to march to Trenton.
They had planned to approach Trenton before dawn, but the difficulty of the crossing had delayed them, and it was daylight when they encountered the first Hessians. Still, the surprise worked, and in two hours, with few losses of their own, they captured nearly 900 of the enemy. "This is a glorious day for our country," Washington declared... [There's more.]
Thank you Lynne Cheney for this one! And we should be very grateful that, even in these last decadent days of America, we have public servants like the Cheney family...
April 24, 2007
The Vice President's remarks today at Congress...
VPOTUS: I usually avoid press comment when i'm up here, but I felt so strongly about what senator Reid said in the last couple of days that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made. I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading. Senator Reid has taken many positions on iraq. He has threatened that if the president vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to defund iraq operations altogether. Yet only last november, Senator Reid said there would be no cut-off of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding with conditions, and then a cut-off of funding. Three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.
Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently he didn't know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn't have real substantive meetings with the president. Yet immediately following last week's meeting at the White House, he said it was a good exchange. Everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq, end quote. What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it's a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interest of our country, not on the interest of their political party. Thank you.
Good. Stick it to them, Mr Vice President, they richly deserve it.
February 22, 2007
Too silly to answer, but...
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy." [well, it does.]
Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism [As usual, he never mentioned patriotism. But if the shoe fits...] and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy. [he's just being open.]
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said. [why the hell not?]
The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq. [And that plan is different from what al Qaeda wanted....how? Any of you chomskies want to fill me in?]
"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit." [that's what al Qaeda wants. That's what the Dems want. They are allies. Naughty naughty Dick Cheney, telling the truth so bluntly..]
November 24, 2006
This guy is sick. And I bet there will be no rush by his fellow chomskyoids to criticize him...
I give thanks O Lord for Dick Cheney's Heart, that brave organ which has done its darn-tootin' best on four separate occasions to do what we can only dream about.
O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor...(Link thanks to Dr Helen)
The Vice President is a great American and a great public servant, and is worth 10,000 of the nihilist ankle-biters who hate him so much! Long may he live.
Troops at Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar gather around
Vice President Dick Cheney for pictures and handshakes March 17, 2002.
White House photo by David Bohrer
October 28, 2006
The End of the World As We Know It? (Jane Smiley, October 28, 2006, HuffingtonPost.com)
You gotta check it out, this piece ties the leftist package up perfectly. The world is about to end due to Global Warming, and the Iraq Campaign was only about Dick Cheney stealing Iraq's oil, which is contributing to Global Warming. It all fits!
The thoughts one can think here are many, but what grabs me is that Climate Change is the perfect excuse! A Perfect Storm of excuses for feeling superior while ignoring the actual problems and sufferings in the world today. Well, "ignoring" is too weak a word. Assuming a position of God-like superiority is more like it.
Ten-thousand-a-week slaughtered in Darfur? Don't bother me with trivialities, man, can't you see I'm Visualizing-Lower-Carbon-Emissions? And anyway it's all just an excuse to steal more oil. And if those little people live, they will just burden the planet, and die anyway when the oceans rise.
Most important of all, it's an excuse to not adjust to change. To keep one's world-view firmly anchored in 1973. That's hard to do, even with the help of NPR and the NYT, since the predictions assumed to be true back when the Baby-Boomers were young have all failed. And the predictions that conservatives were making back then have mostly come true. (I won't list them; I've been blogging these things for almost 5 years now)
But no matter, Global Warming trumps everything! If billions are going to die soon, how silly it is to try to save millions now. If free enterprise and Globalization are lifting billions of people out of poverty (and statism has utterly failed to do the same) who cares? Those tiresome brown-skinned people would be better off poor. And happier of course. And more picturesque, for when us sensitive Western Liberals take a jumbo jet to their picturesque squalid countries for picturesque low-emissions adventure treks (wearing the latest in picturesque adventure garments) so we can feel spiritually superior to pudgy people on cruise ships or casinos...
And the very cream of the jest is that Global Warming trumps Global Warming! One even gets to be superior to the messy nitty-gritty political and engineering maneuvers and compromises needed to actually reduce carbon emissions. That the US is doing better at reducing carbon than Kyoto-pompous Canada is not important. It's the symbolism that counts, not nasty reality. That the best practical solution to carbon emissions is to invest massively in nuclear power is beneath notice—Only utopian solutions need apply. Ones that involve white middle-class Western leftists being put in charge of everybody else, and, much more important, being allowed to keep their world-picture intact...
(Thanks to Orrin Judd, whose comment is also good: "What's especially quaint about the anti-human Left is that they appear not to grasp that their belief that human engineering will cause some kind of catastrophic global warming is identical to their belief that they could human engineer a Marxist utopia.")
February 15, 2006
The Nihilist in Golf Pants gives us:
Top 11 Reasons for the 24 Hour Delay in Reporting Dick Cheney’s Hunting Accident
11. It took a while for The Wolf to arrange the cleanup
10. Thought Federal law mandating 24 hour cool down period for firearms was for AFTER they were fired.
9. Didn’t want to be distracted by a lot of questions until after the Men’s 20km biathalon
8. Cheney wanted to make sure he hadn't taken Whittington out of season.
7. Didn’t want the press to immediately declare the hunting trip a quagmire
6. Mistakenly thought that the Nihilist in Golf Pants wouldn’t be able to come up with a top 11 list on a Sunday
5. Wanted to arrange a couple more hunting trips before the word got out
4. Had a tough time tying Whittington to the hood to bring him into town
3. Ted Kennedy always saying that you should wait 24 hours before reporting an accident
2. Had to debrief the Halliburton board first
1. Needed time to falsify intelligence showing that Whittington had WMDs
Maybe he was just psyching himslf up for the duel with Lawrence O'Donnell. Principals will each drink three bottles of Dos Equis, then fire birdshot from 28-gauge guns at 30 paces...
PowerLine posts a note from an experienced hunter. I've done a little shooting myself (dove and rabbits, more decades ago than I want to admit) and it sounds about right.
I can't believe the way our "press" is disgracing itself. Take a bunch of Blue-State girlie-men, add a massive case of BDS, and we get hissy-fits so ludicrous I'm embarrassed to live in the same country with them.
I'll be happy to go hunting with Dick Cheney, if he wants to invite me...
Update: I e-mailed Karl about this, and he said it was all just a stunt. (Don't tell anyone.) Apparently the 391 hunters in the country who still vote Democrat are a torment to his perfectionist soul. Reason has failed with them, so he told Dick to do something outrageous. (The VP rejected, as dishonorable, the suggestion that he pepper a reporter.)
December 18, 2005
Here's a little more detail on Dick Cheney's visit to Iraq. (Thanks to Glenn.) But what's odd to me is that this is a story by the Canadian Press, aggregated by something called Newstex, and now aggregated again by Pajamas Media. I'm supposedly signed up as part of PJ Media, but I'm darned if I can figure out the point of this...
Now I have an idea. PJ Media should take various much-discussed articles and display them with multiple layers of Fisking!. Click once and you see the article displayed interlinear comments by one or two top bloggers. Click again to see the piece larded with additional comments by others. Click again and the comments themselves will be interlaced with anti-comments and refutations... Perhaps the comments should be color-coded, with, say, conservatives in red text, liberals in blue, libertarians in white...
I didn't learn much from the piece, but here's a good example of snark:
...Cheney flew around the Baghdad area in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters with guns mounted on the sides. He flew along the airport road that has been the site of many insurgent attacks and passed over the courthouse where Saddam's Hussein's trial is being held.
He saw rows of housing for soldiers at Camp Victory fortified by concrete walls. Smoke from the trash fires burning throughout the occupied city drifted up toward his chopper....
November 16, 2005
"Throwing their own words back at them"
..... What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we're going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory."
-- Vice President Cheney
From remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala
April 29, 2005
I've become fascinated by the way the "Bush lied about WMD's" argument is being hear more and more. You would expect "less and less," since the thing is done, and sensible people should be dealing with where we are now.
But dealing with "where we are now" is just what America-hating lefties can't touch. It's becoming ever clearer that where we are now is in the midst of a success of world-changing scope. In fact, perhaps it should be a general principal. Call it "Weidner's Law:" Anybody still harping on "Bush lied about WMD's" is tacitly admitting that the Iraq Campaign has been a huge success.
This is from a frenzied anti-Bolton column in the WaPo by Richard Cohen, comparing Bolton with Dick Cheney:
...But taking the nation to war for false reasons is not a minor blip. It is an unpardonable feat of hubris for which, on a daily basis, Americans die in Iraq. American voters, though, have been oddly forgiving (see the last election), and the Bush administration has neither apologized nor fired anyone for getting things so very, very wrong. The conclusion is inescapable: This was not a war for the wrong reason; this was a war for any reason...(Thanks to Bill Quick)
Well, gee, maybe Americans are "oddly forgiving" because they are now seeing just how very very right Bush was. Or even that (a point fatuous liberal brains probably can't even process) when your country is attacked, then you need to fight. And we need leaders who are willing to fight. And that it's better to fight a poorly chosen battle than none at all.
Myself, I think it flatters Bolton to compare him with Cheney. And if he's even one tenth the man Dick Cheney is, and if his efforts are even one tenth as successful as the Iraq Campaign has been, then Bolton will be in the books as one of the best of his time...
September 1, 2004
a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad...
From Vice-President Dick Cheney's speech, a bit I liked
...On this night, as we celebrate the opportunities that America offers, I am filled with gratitude to a nation that has been good to me, and I remember the people who set me on my way in life. My grandfather noted that the day I was born was also the birthday of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And so he told my parents they should send President Roosevelt an announcement of my birth. Now my grandfather didn't have a chance to go to high school. For many years he worked as a cook on the Union Pacific Railroad, and he and my grandmother lived in a railroad car. But the modesty of his circumstances didn't stop him from thinking that President Roosevelt should know about my arrival. My grandfather believed deeply in the promise of America, and had the highest hopes for his family. And I don't think it would surprise him much that a grandchild of his stands before you tonight as Vice President of the United States....
August 16, 2004
"It's hot, it's sexy and it's out of print..."
The Fruitloops like to say that President Bush is just a puppet manipulated by Dick Cheney. Yeah, sure, that's right. But what they don't know is the the Vice President is himself a puppet, with strings pulled by the redoubtable Lynne Cheney! Just kidding, but she's quite a woman, as everyone on the Rive Droit knows. This bit is from a town hall meeting where she and her husband are answering questions.
...MRS. CHENEY: No, I think your analysis is exactly right. The argument I would pose to those people, though, who are threatened by the idea of change -- the question I would pose is, should any child be forced to stay in a failing school? And the answer is no. No child should have to stay in a failing school.[you have to read on to get to the sexy part]
And one of the things that No Child Left Behind does is if a school doesn't improve, the school can't improve, then kids have an opportunity -- parents have an opportunity to send their children to a higher achieving public school.that little engine of improvement. Good line. And I was just Googling a bit, and found out that Lynne Cheney wrote a hot and feminist novel published in 1981:
Dick and I supported private choice for a long time. Because we haven't been able to make public policy out of it, a number of people support programs that do provide kids who don't have a lot of resources the opportunity to attend a private school. I also -- just one other idea, the people you talk to who are opposing the idea of choice, I would suggest this scenario, really, that it doesn't threaten the public schools when a child leaves to go to another school, it provides that school an impetus to improve, a reason to improve. What we know about life is that businesses get better when there's competition. We know about life that all sorts of projects get better if there's some competition -- and that when there's only the status quo, there's not that little engine of improvement. So I would argue that choice really gives our public schools the kind of motive to improve that's really valuable. So it's a terrific idea. The President has gone some way forward in No Child Left Behind by making public school choice possible...
But then there's another book, written by another well-known political figure, and it's a doozy. Throughout its pages are fornication (the heroine with her late sister's husband), incest (half-brother knocks up half-sister), adultery (the heroine, with her first husband's friend), contraception (by the wed and the unwed) and lesbian couplings (the heroine's sister and an older woman). And incidentally, lynchings, dogicide, cattle theft and robber-baronism.The writer I'm quoting thinks it's a big laugh that a Republican woman should have written such a book--a skeleton in her closet he seems to think it. Actually it's the lefty clichés that are a joke; feminism was originally about women being strong independent achievers, which is Lynne (and her daughters) then and now. The embarrassment is how leftists have changed the meaning of the word to mean "stuffed-shirt women's auxiliary of the Democrat Party."
The book was published 23 years ago, before the author's husband became one of the nation's most influential politicians, and before the author became a Valkyrie in the culture wars. And the author is ... aha, you thought I was going to say Hillary Clinton, didn't you?
It's Lynne Cheney, wife of the Republican vice president. The book is a frontier novel of the 19th century called "Sisters." It's hot, it's sexy and it's out of print.
I could find only 11 copies in all of the nation's public libraries, mostly in red states: four in Wyoming, Cheney's home state, and one each in North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Kansas, Virginia and Kern County, Calif.
On the Internet, the original 1981 $2.50 Signet paperback has an asking price of $2,999.95 to $25,000, the latter more than the cost of a first edition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."...[link]
Actually, far from being considered an embarrassment, Cheney's novel has a page at Whitehouse.org. I wonder if they are hoping the Dems will attack her for it? That would be funny. Apparently one side-effect of the despicable and dishonest attacks on President Bush's Air Guard service is that a lot of people found out that he had been a fighter pilot, and liked him all the better...
Update: I GOOFED! Arkadiy Belousov notes in a comment that Whitehouse.org is a parody site. Stupid of me, Whitehouse.gov is the White House site. Thanks for the tip, Akadiy.
August 13, 2004
As sobering as can be...
Radio host (and blogger) Hugh Hewitt has an interview with Vice President Cheney. It's worth reading. I also liked the points Hugh hits in this summing up:
The Vice President is blunt, and some of the answers, especially as to the possibility of al Qaeda having access to nukes, are as sobering as can be. Note that he doesn't hesitate to call a shrine sensitive, but also mocks the idea that a war can be. This strikes me as exactly the right answer: tactics can be measured --the withdrawal from Fallujah in the spring, the care with which the Imam Ali Shrine is handled-- but the overall war cannot be made smooth. It is a terrible thing, and takes a terrible toll. There's no getting around it in the world in which most of us live, though Kerry seems to dream of a far off place where the UN, led by the French and the Germans, can help us conduct a war without any hard spots or terrible losses. Kerry's many ambiguities and his promises of greater sensitivity work well on The West Wing, perhaps, but not in a real war with real terrorists looking for real nukes and other deadly WMD.
The Veep was easy on the Christmas-in-Cambodia back-flip, as I expected he would be. But not on the central issue of the campaign: fitness to be the commander-in-chief in a war. And I especially liked his assessment of the spread of Moore's Disease throughout the Democratic Party: It reflects a fundamental weakness of the leadership there that Moore cannot be quarantined and denounced as a marginal nutcase.
John Edwards must be preparing to shine in his big debate date with the VP as we speak. Edwards will certainly be better spoken --note all the "wells" throughout the transcript, and I left out many "ahs" here and there for transcribing ease-- and thus Edwards is a prohibitive favorite to "win" the debate, if Americans are looking for smooth-talk. If they are looking for leaders to wage and win war, well then, it might turn out differently.
July 18, 2004
More unintended consequences...
Update to previous post: I found this article on the Cheney family snarky but interesting. It's very telling; the NewsWeekies obviously don't care for the Cheney's, but can't find anything solidly bad to say to say about them. (Just as they write puff-pieces about Edwards, but can't find anything solid to praise him for.) They have to admit there is no evidence of any wrongdoing vis a vis the Halliburton Corporation.
More unintended consequences, at least for me. Newsweek calls the Cheney family stuff like: intense, prickly, insular, dangerous to cross.... Hey, I think I like these people! I'd like to get to know them better!
'The Family,' left to right: Lynne,
Dick, Mary and Liz
photo: David Hume Kennerly
[Thanks for the link to Betsy Newmark, who notes: One of the authors is Evan Thomas, who said openly last week that the media wanted Kerry to win and would publish glowing reports about Edwards and Kerry. To back that up, Newsweek had a sickening kissup piece about how wonderful John Edwards is last week. I guess this article on Dick Cheney is their effort at balance: praise Edwards, bash Cheney. ]
The mystical moment when change began...
It's a funny thing, the unintended consequences of things we do. For example, the postmodernist crowd has been harping on how dreadful Vice-President Cheney is. To listen to them, he's the second-coming of Grendel.
But the effect on me (and suspect many others) has been the opposite of what they hoped for. I've been inspired to find out more about him. And the more I find out, the more I like him, and the more impressed I am. (Thanks, guys!) He's been an important conservative figure since the Ford Administration, but I hardly knew it. The things I'm learning are not secrets, but not well-known either. Dick Cheney's the very model of a loyal team player, and so has never pushed himself into the limelight. He's never leaked his views to the press, or sought publicity.
So whaddya think, maybe the Cheney-haters are going to be the ones who save Cheney from undeserved obscurity! Ha ha.
I recommend this article, The Conservative Case for Cheney, by Stephen Moore & Jeffrey Bell:
...In virtually every one of this remarkable succession of roles, Cheney has been on the right flank of his milieu. As Ford's deputy chief of staff, he was listening to obscure supply-siders like USC professor Arthur Laffer and was one of a minority of Ford advisers who fruitlessly pushed tax-rate reduction. (When Laffer drew his famous curve on the dinner napkin, Cheney, along with chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld, was the audience.) In the House leadership of the 1980s, Cheney was the most relentless and best-informed advocate of the Reagan military buildup that helped win the Cold War. Under Bush I, he was the only member of the administration's top policy team who quietly disagreed with the decision to end the ground war after 100 hours and thus leave Saddam Hussein in power...Leaving Saddam in power was a catastrophe. I'm utterly thrilled to learn that Cheney was opposed.
But it's the mention of Arthur Laffer that really makes my head spin. When great movements begin, it is a very human thing to embody those beginnings in a story, a myth. The dinner at the Washington Hotel restaurant, with Laffer drawing the Laffer Curve on a dinner napkin is one such. Not that it didn't happen, but somehow it has become "mythical," has become an oft-repeated tale (one that's rather variable and Rashomon-like), "the beginning," the mystical moment when change began. The first knights gathering at the Round Table.
I've read the story a number of times, yet Cheney wasn't in my memory as being present. Maybe he wasn't, perhaps he's been "painted in," like a knight who missed the Quest for the Grail, but is portrayed anyway. But probably I just forgot, because Dick Cheney seemed to me to be a minor figure, and Jude Wanniski and Rumsfeld are so colorful. But he wasn't a minor figure. He was there at the beginning, and he's still fighting the good fight.
The collectivists are correct to hate him. Not because their goofy conspiracy theories are true, but because Dick Cheney has worked openly (though not noisily) for decades as a leader in the battle to prevent their socialist kudzu from choking out all other life forms...
July 13, 2004
Sounds about right to me...
Jay Bryant thinks Dick Cheney may be the best VP in US history. Of course that's not a high bar to leap, traditionally the Veep doesn't do anything...
...Cheney is the only Vice President ever accused of being too influential. The paranoid caricatures paint him as a Svengali, manipulating President and nation in the interests of – what, Halliburton? I have observed Dick Cheney since his days in Congress; he is one of the most responsible and capable leaders I can think of. He was in government decades before he went to work for Halliburton and any suggestion that he would put that or any other private interest ahead of his country is a canard both absurd and malicious.
Dick Cheney has elevated the Vice Presidency to an unprecedented level of importance and influence. Because of this, his enemies have attacked him with unprecedented vituperation, his very competence grist for their mills of hatred....