Cheney’s Inappropriate Criticism
It should be no secret to readers of this blog that I am a huge fan of of the immediate past Vice President of the United States. Not only was Richard Cheney The Most Pro-Gay Vice President in U.S. History, but he was also a steady advocate throughout his tenure in the Executive Branch and in Congress of a strong national defense.
Without getting to the substance of his criticisms of the current Administration (which, for the record, I believe to be sound), I believe it entirely inappropriate for a Vice President (or anyone with a prominent position in the previous Administration) so soon after leaving his office to criticize the succeeding Administration. He should take a page from the man who tapped him as his running mate and choose silence when asked to comment on the current Administration.
I believe history would relieve Cheney of the harsh judgment the media has conferred upon him and he will go down as one of the better American Vice Presidents. But, he doesn’t do his legacy any good by criticizing his successors so soon after he left office.
His successor, however, has failed to use Cheney’s criticism to his advantage. The classy thing for Joe Biden to do would be to say something like, “Well, he’s free to criticize us all we like. But, hile he’s enjoying a retirement free from the burdens of office and with a government pension, the president and I have been busy seeing to the security needs of our nation. To cite just one example. . . .”
Instead the incumbent Vice President chose to attack back, faulting Cheney for weakening America. He should have just ignored the criticism and not responded in kind.
That said, Dick Cheney did a great job as Vice President. He needs be patient and wait for passions to cool; in time, his real strengths and successes will again become manifest as he did those of the Gipper. He only delays that day by rushing to criticize his successor.
His criticisms are sound. He just let others articulate them in public.
UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): I respectfully disagree with Dan on this one. Since President Obama has been in full-throated “Bush’s Fault” mode since Jan 20, it is about time someone step up to the plate and stand up for the good decisions that were made by Bush & Cheney. If it has to be Cheney, so be it.
There are too many lily-livered Republicans who forget about principle and are too consumed with politics to do the right thing. Cheney is not one of them, thank God.
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Uh, Dan… maybe – after spending the better part of 35 years in the Legislative or Executive Branch (specializing in foreign policy and military affairs: the ranking Republican who wrote the minority rebuttal to the Iran-Contra report, Defense Sec’y for Desert Storm) – that he thinks Obama-Biden’s foreign policy is FUBAR.
He’s sticking to policy, too, not lobbing ad hominems.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — April 8, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - April 8, 2009
I disagree. One of the traditional roles for the VP during campaigns and administrations is to do the attacking. While it’s traditional for former Presidents to lay low in retirement, I don’t see why that should necessarily apply to the VP or any other member of a former administration. Of course it depends upon what is said, how it is said, and where it is said, but when is not a problem for me.
Comment by Ignatius — April 8, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - April 8, 2009
It USED to be that once out of office, Presidents and Veeps were tactfully and classily silent about the doings of their sucessors.
Then Bill Clinton trashed that rule.
What goes around, comes around.
Comment by DaveP. — April 8, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - April 8, 2009
One of the reasons I found Cheneys criticisms chilling was because the former President and former VP know more about the current threats than almost anyone living. And what do you do if you feel the current administration is indeed weakening our country. If you suspected an attack on Pearl Harbor, do you stay quiet out of politeness? If you had proof positive Jews were being slaughtered by the millions do you stay quiet so as to not rock the allied boat? Cheneys criticisms for me carred MORE weight not less, because he felt compelled to utter them. Probably out of fear and dread for his countrymen. The Bush 43 administration was absolutely horrible at playing politics. Often failing to counterattack when unfairly criticised. So I don’t think politics entered into Cheneys calculus about his remarks at all. It was fear plain and simple. Fear that the Obamaphiles are taking national security for granted.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 8, 2009 @ 5:42 pm - April 8, 2009
#3David P Democrat Jimmy Earl Carter has been just a horrible former President in that regard. In order to raise his standing as the worst President since Van Buren, Jimmy has been busy for 30 years tearing down other Presidents living and dead.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 8, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - April 8, 2009
I disagree. His reputation has nowhere to go, but “up”. And someone has to tell it like it is. Bush is doing Bush’s thing; let Cheney do his.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 8, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - April 8, 2009
I don’t much miss the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party, but back in 1976 Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller had a “same to you, fella” moment when he communicated with just one upwardly directed finger. (I loved Cheney’s warm response to Patrick Leahy, as well.)
http://www.ooze.com/finger/html/random_famous.html
Comment by heliotrope — April 8, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - April 8, 2009
#7 – Right on, helio.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 8, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - April 8, 2009
Dan, I’m in disagreement with your characterization of Cheney’s conduct as not doing his legacy any good. I also share your admiration for Cheney –who, I think, was the very best Veep any Prez has ever had.
We’re in the 21st C -there is no longer a need for former officials to sit on the porch, rock quietly while in private thought and first write those memoirs before venturing into the public arena. That worked in the mid-20th C because America had slower, more prolonged news cycles. The then-appropos spirit was: give the guy a chance… even though Eisenhower might take issue with Kennedy’s honorable conduct on that score… or the ungentlemanly brutes in the Georgia Mafia in Carter’s smokehouse with the Ford folks.
I think Cheney is right to level the weapon, take aim, fire off a few shots -especially given all the backward shots this current crop of WH hacks are taking. In this time & age, being silent more than 3-4 news cycles is an eternity… just ask Newt or Carville or Gergen or Noonan.
Nope, I wish Bush or Cheney would do a longer, in-depth series of “candid” conversations with someone at Fox or an Indie. Lay it out. Be fair and honest. Straighten up a record that has gotten horribly out of whack lately. Name names.
And do it with the knowledge that they can NOT count on the current actors to act as gentleman or good stewards of the public square –level the weapon, take aim, fire damn it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 8, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - April 8, 2009
I don’t think either Bush or Cheney are thinking of their legacy. They are thinking of the good of the country. They choose to approach their retirement years differently – so be it.
With all the trashing of people on the right from every direction, there is nothing they can say worse about Cheney then they already have said.
Let him have his say, MSM will never sing his praises and we won’t be around to see what history has to say in any event.
Comment by Leah — April 8, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - April 8, 2009
What a great idea. Six hours of Cheney interviews over 3 nights with Britt Hume as the questioner. No ground goes uncovered. Hume asks followups. Cheney has his say. And he doesn’t need to constantly defend, just explain. Most of the Bush policies and decisions save spending, are right for the country. ,
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 8, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - April 8, 2009
Dan,
You seem to have the rule wrong. It is not that former presidents dont criticize sitting presidents, it is that former Republican administrations are not to criticize Democrats. Former Democrats get to criticize whoever they want, where ever they want, when ever they want.
Clinton criticized Bush, Gore criticized Bush, Albreit criticized Bush. Carter criticized Bush, Mondale criticized Bush, Brzezinski criticized Bush.
All while at war. Sometimes overseas.
There also used to be a rule that you were to unite behind the president in times of war, and there was a rule that politics stopped at the waters edge.
ALL of which have been trashed by Democrats to garner public support behind their policies — despite their policies being morally wrong.
Since bad policy is being furthered by Democrats breaking these rules and Republicans adhering to them, I’d say its time for the rules to change.
Comment by American Elephant — April 8, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - April 8, 2009
While Il Douche is running around Europe apologizing and telling everyone how much America sucks (his main campaign theme), somebody in higher positions, former or otherwise, need to point out the fraud that he is.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 9, 2009 @ 2:26 am - April 9, 2009
American Elephant, fair point. I just think we should be better than the Democrats. Please note the operative clause in my 2nd ¶, “so soon after leaving his office.”
I just think he should wait a certain period of time before speaking out. Gore showed a lot of class in 2001 by all but hiding in an undisclosed location after Bush took office. I don’t think he made a public appearance, at least one where he offered any political commentary until the summer.
There’s just something about criticism when the new team hasn’t yet got their sea legs, so to speak. If it weren’t so late, I might be better and more clearly able to articulate this point.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 9, 2009 @ 3:35 am - April 9, 2009
Say Dan, which is more inappropriate, Cheney’s criticism or Robert Gibbs’ snide reaction?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 9, 2009 @ 4:26 am - April 9, 2009
I have far more respect for someone who speaks his mind on a topic than I do for someone who runs around mouthing whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear him say. In that regard I am glad Cheney has seen fit to say what he feels, from his view, is happening with the new administration, especially when he views the unfolding events as being harmful to the welfare of this country.
If you saw a poisonous snake slither into your neighbor’s back yard I think it would be morally reprehensible not to say and do something about it. The former VP is merely voicing his opinion that the current administration is allowing this country to be open to danger, either from stupidity, ineptness or on purpose. I am glad Cheney has the courage to speak up and I see nothing wrong with his timing.
Comment by Not Always Right — April 9, 2009 @ 4:31 am - April 9, 2009
I understand your point Dan, and I agree that that America was better before Democrats trashed all of those traditions.
But they have been trashed.
I have zero doubt that Obama will continue the practice when he is an ex.
All that comes from Republicans adhering to traditions to which Democrats don’t is that we handicap ourselves. The result is that Democrats define the issues to more Americans and more people around the world and those people never hear the Republican message.
One need only look to the 2006 and 2008 cycles, to see how well that strategy works.
Also, it would be truly lovely if there were Republicans who were taking Cheney’s message to the people, but unfortunately they aren’t. For two years Republicans have been cowering in fear, afraid to defend themselves and most certainly unwilling to defend Bush and Cheney.
And as far as the media is concerned, the Republican message is, “republicans are to blame for everything, we are angry, hateful, mean and you have every reason to hate us”. If you are a Republican politician, and you can’t be used to make Republicans look bad, the media has no interest in you. We actually do have some conservative politicians who can make our case, and compellingly so, but wouldn’t you just know it! the media coincidentally has to wash its collective hair that day, if you know what I mean.
Cheney at least has the stature that they can’t ignore him. Which is well more than half the battle right now.
Comment by American Elephant — April 9, 2009 @ 5:30 am - April 9, 2009
Filtered.
Comment by American Elephant — April 9, 2009 @ 5:32 am - April 9, 2009
The problem with that is that the new team is trying to fundamentally, permanently change the nation both domestically and from a foreign policy standpoint, at the same time you suggest Cheney should be withholding criticism. Sure, he could wait, but Obama sure as hell wont, and neither will our enemies.
Comment by American Elephant — April 9, 2009 @ 5:36 am - April 9, 2009
Dan,
Bruce and several threaderators here have it right… Cheney isn’t out of bounds or uncivil (not your word) or tacky (again, not your word) by speaking out about the wholesale effort of the Obama WH to rework history on “torture”, the “War on Terror”, Camp Delta, the correct emphasis on natl security, the proper balance of American policy interests when it comes to kow-towing to foreign leaders and the internl press… or even whether or not there is a real threat to the West in the rise of radical muslims in the world.
There is zero need to have puppets or alter-ego talking heads doing the bidding of some Cheney-in-hiding. Thank God someone is speaking out from the last Administration –nearly everyone else is running for the big contract, the big job or has fallen off the radar screen like disaffected former colleagues.
By the way, I’d also recommend you take some time to rethink your assessment of Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, too. Listen to her politico-entertainment show with the volume modulated, not off… she was off the charts scorching hot on Cheney last night… without the humor but smiling her best bar smile while pilloring a great American and public servant in Dick Cheney.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 9, 2009 @ 7:22 am - April 9, 2009
A couple things…
Gore didn’t have to criticize the incoming Bush administration because everyone and I mean everyone else, in the Democrat party was doing it. Illegitimate, selected not elected, yada yada. Finally last night Dana Perino former press sec was making some rounds awkwardly trying to support the Bush admin. So Cheney isn’t alone anymore. There’s no doubt these former administration officials want to still be invited to Georgetown parties so they aren’t giving full throated defense of Bush 43. I loved the new nickname for Robert Gibbs “Mrs Doubtfire”…have you seen such a high forehead, conehead came to mind. Same with Geirhner to tell you the truth. If aliens are amongst us…look to Geithner and Gibbs….coneheads. And I agree with MMatt about Maddow…snarkey, mean, and falling ratings.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 9, 2009 @ 8:54 am - April 9, 2009
Dan,
Let’s grant that Cheney should observe some kind of decorum.
Then factor in mounting foreign affairs challenges (Iran, DRNK), Obama’s misleading rhetoric in Europe (cf. Prager’s criticism), and Cheney’s lame-duck heart.
I’d say he’s doing what he can with the time left to him.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — April 9, 2009 @ 9:50 am - April 9, 2009
His successor, however, has failed to use Cheney’s criticism to his advantage. The classy thing for Joe Biden to do would be to say something like, “Well, he’s free to criticize us all we like. But, hile he’s enjoying a retirement free from the burdens of office and with a government pension, the president and I have been busy seeing to the security needs of our nation. To cite just one example. . . .â€
Instead the incumbent Vice President chose to attack back, faulting Cheney for weakening America. He should have just ignored the criticism and not responded in kind.
I watched Biden answer those questions about Cheney, and the very first thing he said was something along the lines of ‘he’s free to criticize us.’ And as for your advice that a Democrat should stand around ‘ignoring the criticism’ of a Republican — I mean come on. It’s the same with conservatives encouraging Democrats to leave Rush alone and stop responding to him, you just want politics to be one-sided.
I’d want it to be one-sided too if I got things as wrong as you guys have.
Comment by Levi — April 9, 2009 @ 10:37 am - April 9, 2009
Levi calling any of us one sided? Let’s queue up a couple Levi’s greatest hits.
I’ve seen the facts you cite, I just ignore them
The people can’t ammend their own constitution, because some parts are too important to be trusted to anyone but judges
Levi calling anyone one sided is funny, he’s so one sided, we ought to call him Mobius Strip
Comment by The Livewire — April 9, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - April 9, 2009
Dan, I have to agree with Bruce! I love Dick Cheney–he was a serious adult who knew what kind of evil forces we were battling against. The current administration is completely clueless and recklessly naive. I find it prescient that Cheney made these remarks before President O’Prompter went to Europe and ceded away American sovereignty and security while mea culpaing to various and sundry Euroweenies and Islamic despots. We are definitely less safe with the cuts in our military budget, the endless apologies, the denial of American exceptionalism, the “leading the world” in nuclear disarmament, the refusal to call acts of terrorism what they are, and the capitulation of all things that made this country safe.
Comment by runningrn — April 9, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - April 9, 2009
Wow! He really said that? Amazing.
Its no wonder liberals believe we are “imposing democracy” on Iraq. They are living proof that not all people do want to be free. A small, frightening segment of society wants to be controlled and told what to do.
Comment by American Elephant — April 10, 2009 @ 2:29 am - April 10, 2009
[...] from Dan: Geez, Nick, have you been reading my mind? I too have criticized the former Vice President, but, after reading excerpts of the speech, started to wonder today as I drove to the Reagan [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Warming (back) Up to Cheney — May 22, 2009 @ 12:57 am - May 22, 2009
[...] began to reconsider my own past criticism of his post-Bush Administration outspokenness. It seems he was only defending himself (and that [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Does Dick Cheney Owe it All to Lynne? — May 22, 2009 @ 3:08 am - May 22, 2009