Democratic Pundit(1): "Why won't he leave?"Democratic Pundit(2): "Yeah, why won't you leave?"
Democratic Pundit(1): "Can't we buy him a one-way ticket back to Jackson, Wyo.?"
Democratic Pundit(2): "Yeah, send him back to Jackson!"
Democratic Pundit(1): "He's living in the past... Party of the Past! Party of the Past! Party of the Past!"
Democratic Pundit(2): "What he said! What he said! What he said!"
Former Vice-Pres Dick Cheney has been making the rounds defending the former administration and it's anti-terror policies holding that nothing illegal was done. However, his voice of defense hasn't went without much heated criticism by the majority on the Hill. In a Fox News article published May 12th, 2009 Cheney defends his defense of their administration and the policies they set in place to protect Americans from further terrorism.
The Democrats decry his voice stating that Cheney is further establishing the party's label of being a "Party of the Past, giving no room for up and coming Republicans to redefine the party." Like the Dems are so worried and concerned over the image of the GOP, right?
W. has taken the "high road" of retiring presidents in doing just that... retire. Much like the retirement of former president Clinton. Remember his retirement? Oh, wait he didn't retire. He spoke his mind as well often criticizing the Bush administration and then in last year's election, campaigning to be First-Man.
Cheney is a thorn in the current administrations side. He's not just rolling over and allowing them to slam the policies of the former administration. As with the current administration, they love to cry, "We inherited this problem," while sticking it to W. all the while creating much buzz in trying members of the former administration for war crimes. The Dems quickly forget that there was a Democratic congress for the last two years of the Bush Administration. Where's their responsibility in the matters of the day? And, isn't this the party of Change... changing the way politics have been done for the past forever? There has been more partisan division in the last 100 days then in all of the last 8 years.
Cheney needs to be a defending voice of the administration to which he belonged so as long as the Dems want to take their cheap shots at that administration. I hope Cheney continues to use his voice to defend an administration that was key in the 7+ years of relative peace we've experienced since September 11th, 2001 taking the fight off our shores onto the shores of the terrorist regimes and governments. The current administration is surely putting us on a fast track to Terrorville.
Nice post Jeremy. I agree on some points, disagree on others...though you would probably expect this to be the case. (thought I'd comment so you know I'm keeping up with your blog :) The safety of our country is one of the few areas that I think Republicans have some moral authority (with the huge exception being the invasion into Iraq and some provisions of the Patriot Act). However, Cheney's major talking point over the last few months has been specifically the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation tactics" (aka torture) used with detainees. Much of these practices developed and used in the military, and now CIA (since 9/11), actually originated with research done by psychologists during WWII. A central figure in this program of research was Henry Murray. He was actually a clinical psychologist at Harvard…turned quasi industrial/organizational psychologist (like me) during the war effort. He was recruited by the army to help (with many many others) create placement assessments for officers and drafted personnel. Later, the OSS (office of strategic services…precursor to the CIA) recruited Murray to develop torture techniques…mind control techniques…memory erasing procedures…stuff you read in comic books. Much of Murray’s research is still classified by the feds even though this stuff took place over 50-60 years ago. Anyways, the stuff we do know he did is fairly jacked up…several of his experiments were even done on undergraduates at Harvard (pretty sure they didn’t know what they were signing up for). There is even a good story about several experiments that a certain Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber) took part in, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteMy general understanding of the research conducted by Murray and others since that time…and even today’s military psychologists (of which I know a few), is that the beneficial effects of these “enhanced interrogation tactics” is largely speculative. The research really doesn’t support their use in terms of information gathering (which is what Cheney is suggesting)…now if you want to jack someone up, then they work fine :) Now the Obama administration doesn’t have it completely right either….gitmo seems to me to be incredibly useful although I don’t agree with keeping these people detained indefinitely…either you have evidence of their involvement or not, they should be put before a military court. But I don’t think Cheney has a winning argument with the use of torture. I think there are other...better arguments that he could win, but deep down I think he fears a congressional investigation into the use of torture which is why he is on the offensive with that specific topic.
I would also suggest that W. is hanging low to give Obama a honeymoon period…this is fairly typical of past presidents, but they all eventually break their silence (like Clinton as you suggest). Give Bush time and he’ll let everyone know what he thinks, it just might take a year or two. However, it is also typical that the VP is the point person to be a voice of dissent with the current administration (assuming they don’t agree). To this I think Cheney is just playing a normal role…nothing out of the ordinary. Lastly, we did have 7 years of peace under the Bush/Cheney administration, but we also had the largest attack on American soil under the same administration. They weren’t taken completely by surprise and their response to the attack, while admirable (again with the exception of Iraq), could have possibly been avoided had everyone including the Clinton administration taken the threat posed by Bin Laden more seriously.
Sorry my comment is longer than your post, but I find Murray a fascinating, albeit creepy, historical figure.
@Ryan: Thanks for following my blog... so, you're the one! :) I appreciate your comments and look forward to seeing what you have to say in the future. Thanks again!
ReplyDeleteI think the es-VP has every right to speak up and I applaude him-the dems should heed.
ReplyDelete