What’s Up With Former Vice-President Dick Cheney?
I’ve been a huge fan of the former VP since I first heard of him during the first Gulf War in the early ’90s.
His steady hand and unwavering professionalism over a tremendous career of public service includes serving in both Richard Nixon’s and Gerald Ford’s White Houses, the House of Representatives, leading the Department of Defense, and of course his excellent service to George W. Bush as Vice President.
Between his duties as SecDef and Vice President, he had an incredible private-sector career serving on the American Enterprise Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations (where he had previously served as director), and of course Chairman and CEO for Halliburton.
Through all of this, the draw to him was twofold: First, he was and has since been a great mind. He is a huge thinker and very methodical in his decisions and advice he’s given as a trusted confidant for three presidents (directly, not to mention his work with Ronald Reagan while Cheney was a congressman). One of the most measured and thoughtful Vice Presidents of our Nation’s history, were it not for the inexplicably unhinged detractors’ fantasies, he’d probably go down in history as the brightest man to ever hold that office. But even Cheney-haters will have to agree that he was by far the most influential and powerful Vice President of the modern era, attributable by his admirers to his wonderful mind, and by his detractors to his devious nature.
Secondly, Cheney also combined two very admirable traits into exactly what you’d want in a confidant. He was equal parts blunt and unassuming. I have no doubt that, when asked, he gave all the great men mentioned above his most honest opinion, and because they came to expect it, they trusted and appreciated it. At the same time, the former Vice-President was never one to pipe-up and just offer his opinion. He was a serene and gentle man, a vast contrast to the caricature his adversaries tried so hard (and, unfortunately on too many occasions, thanks to the media who also had no love for him, were all too able to succeed) to portray of him.
Which is why it is so difficult to see him since he left Washington continue to openly question the current president. In his second interview (tonight and tomorrow night with Sean Hannity) since leaving office, he for as many times takes the opportunity to question and criticize the current president. Aside from the validity* of the criticism (which is as spot-on as Cheney’s words are eloquent on the subject), it is simply not the place, in my opinion, for such a high-ranking former administration member to express these opinions of a sitting president.
In an age not long after former presidents Carter and Clinton had no problem insulting and bad-mouthing (even personally) a sitting president at any opportunity, and personal attacks on individual citizens coming from the press podium of the current administration, it’s nothing new to hear a once-leader of our Nation stoop to the level of a trash-blogger. Granted, Cheney has not come anywhere close to the embarrassing (if Carter, Clinton, or Obama had the capacity to feel such a thing) behavior of these men. I have to say, though, that I had always put Dick Cheney above these two bitter and small men.
As much as I admire and have studied the former Vice President, I do not know why it is he chooses to even humor interviews, and let alone why he would choose to speak in this way when he does. I wish he would take his former bosses’ (both George W. Bush and his father) approach and deny the temptation to criticize President Obama. The words he has for this inexperienced, clearly unqualified, and overly egotistical socialist who now resides in the White House will not go without saying. Believe me, there are plenty of people who enjoy picking apart what will be four years of errors and missteps (Lord, they’ve already started). The former Vice President should retreat to Wyoming with his wife Lynn, enjoy some time with his two year-old granddaughter, write the memoir that I’m dying to read, and please be quiet.
*(Full disclosure for the haters…I haven’t read the entire interview, as it’s not yet been published. My agreement is only with what’s been published so far, so there may be some positions of the former VP with which I disagree. But it’s unlikely)
- Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ
41 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Perhaps, he genuinely cares about his country and is very alarmed at what the new administration is doing.
I’m not saying I agree with what he is doing, or the way he is doing it, but if you are asking, and I think you are, what his motivations are … I think his motives are patriotism.
Comment by V the K — April 20, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - April 20, 2009
I think I agree with V the K. Is it professional to disagree openly with this administration? Probably not, but what this administration is doing playing with national security is unnerving. PC’ing real terrorism and spending so much time accusing Americans of being the real terrorists. I think this administration is going to fall on its face, but I think Cheney is genuinely frightened for the health of this country. I know I am.
Comment by BCnSanDeeahgo — April 20, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - April 20, 2009
Bought Cheney a scotch (back when he was still drinking) and echo your initial sentiments.
But the facts are the sun doesn’t set without this administration heaping undeserved scorn on Bush and Cheney. Should we wait for Dana Milbank to call him on it? Couric? Sultzburger?
Your instincts are coming from a good place, CP, but the Veep slot is historically the party hatchetman. Cheney is in a unique position here as he has no interest in future office. I say: Dick, draw blood.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — April 20, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - April 20, 2009
Your reasoning is not persuasive to me. I’ve listened to all of Cheney’s critiques and have found them considered, salient and necessary. I believe he feels an overriding concern for his country. Perhaps if the media provided even a semblance of balance or vigilance covering leftist power I might agree that Cheney should defer to the strictest sense of tradition. But these are strange and dangerous days, and we have a man in ultimate power whose background (and behavior so far) is full of troubling signs. I think Cheney is correct and brave.
Comment by rrpjr — April 20, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - April 20, 2009
I think MFS has it dead on. A former VP is not the same as a former Pres. Had GWB had another VP, he likely would have been the Rep. candidate in 2008, and even after losing, would have been one of the leading Republican voices – especially considering the near total absence of party leaders from other quarters. Part of me would like to see Mr. Cheney draw blood too, but I also fear his appeal is very limited, and he will repel more than he will attract. Both areguments hav merit.
Comment by Steve — April 20, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - April 20, 2009
Do you really think V.P. Cheney is in need of being heard for the sake of being heard or some vendetta to be fulfilled. No. It’s because he see’s with the rest of American’s the grave danger the O’bama admin is to freedom that we thought none would dare to touch (inside our borders.) I say to the degree O’bama is playing hardball with our liberties, we will play hardball with comment, by the unmasking of O’bama’s socialist, destructive agenda by men like Vice President Dick Cheney who will not stand by silently and with the bully pulpit that he has earned to sound an alarm that our beloved country is under attack!
Comment by mike — April 20, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - April 20, 2009
Cheney isn’t engaging in politics or nasty criticism. He is making rational, well considered arguments. Let him speak.
Comment by KevinQC — April 20, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - April 20, 2009
I want VP Cheney to speak loud and clear. I just heard a clip of VP Cheney on another site regarding the memo release and he is asking that the CIA now release the reports of what those interrogations netted.
As well they should be released because it is only half the story without it.
We all know how liberals like to only tell half truths.
Comment by EDinTampa — April 20, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - April 20, 2009
Obama has put America in danger by declassifying our interrogation techniques.
He is saying those techniques “put America in danger”
Cheney is calling for him to declassify memos Cheney knows exist that prove those techniques worked.
This is an essential debate, and Bush or Cheney are probably the only two people with stature enough to call Obama on his lies whom the media cannot ignore.
That is why he’s doing it.
Comment by American Elephant — April 20, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - April 20, 2009
,…because, of course, it’s just common sense that Democratic presidents get to badmouth and lie about previous administrations to their hearts’ content in an attempt to rewrite history; but any member of a Republican administration had better just shut up for the rest of his life (what First Amendment?) or risk having Nick think poorly of him.
Cheney should’ve shown those darn dirty cheats; he should have just stood there and allowed them to poison his reputation forever. That would’ve shown THEM.
Right?
Comment by DaveP. — April 20, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - April 20, 2009
If he doesn’t, who the hell will?
Actually, there is a DM column wondering why liberals are still so angry, but I doubt he’ll dare to truly criticize the Obamessiah.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 20, 2009 @ 10:05 pm - April 20, 2009
I gotta agree with all the above. Cheney is no doubt frieghtened by this administration. And as everyday goes by…this weekends fun in South America for example, the serious adults in the former administration are afraid for the country. I’ve always wondered why it is ok for Carter and Clinton to act like rougue ex Presidents, freely being critical of a Republican administration, while again Republicans are suppose to fight nice. Hog wash. If is was the future of the Post Office that’s one thing but it’s the security of the nation. Obama whilly nilly cancels missle defense in favor of 700 Billion dollars in pork. Watch for N Korea to mess with Obama, watch for Russia to reassert itself in the breakaway Republics. Obama, the typical liberal leftist thinks his nice words and handshakes makes a difference to nasty dictators around the world. And I include Chavez, Putin in that mix. They will advance their interests now that they see a weak novice in the oval office. Sad for free people around the world. They no longer have a friend as our chief executive.
Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 20, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - April 20, 2009
Cheney’s insight and thoughtful points and discussions are a welcome relief due to the lack of conservative leadership from Washington.
I say let him speak.
Comment by sharprightturn — April 20, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - April 20, 2009
I understand the tradition of former presidents not criticizing their successors, but I don’t necessarily beleive that the same should apply to every high ranking administration official.
Contrast this even with Al Gore’s criticism of the Bush administration screeching at the top of his lungs in a church of all places that Bush betrayed his country. I think Cheney is being very civilized in his vocal disagreements with Obama. People might try to paint him as being angry and bitter, but he’s calmly disagreeing. He’s not shouting and accusing Obama of treason.
In short, this doesn’t bother me.
Comment by jimmy — April 20, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - April 20, 2009
I think the very point that three liberal Presidents can’t shut their mouths, is exactly what make Cheney say “screw it” and cut loose.
Remember Al Gore?
It would be nice if everyone didn’t do this, but the libs have set the tone in the last decade.
Comment by The Rude Dog — April 20, 2009 @ 10:44 pm - April 20, 2009
At this point, he has nothing to lose. He’s not going to hold public office again. Like him or not, he has legitimacy, and is acting in what he believes to be the best interests of the country.
Comment by suburbansky — April 20, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - April 20, 2009
Gaypatriot said: “As much as I admire and have studied the former Vice President, I do not know why it is he chooses to even humor interviews, and let alone why he would choose to speak in this way when he does.”
Because if he didn’t clear the air, if he didn’t get his side of the story out while he had the chance (or Bush’s or Rumsfeld’s or Ashcroft’s for that matter), he might have been making his case in front of a hostile liberal Congress right now or in the near future (probably during election time). He’d be subpenoed, investigated, or worse. Now that he’s politically active and making challenges, any attempt to “investigate” him will look like an attempt to silence him or an attempt at a witch hunt.
That’s only PART of the story.
Whether it be the economy, national security or the petulant fact that they’re going back on their campaign promises, the Democrats will need someone to blame in the years to come . And I don’t mean the mild “blame-game” that always happens with a change of the presidency
That someone will include Cheney.
Gaypatriot, you’re being naive or willfully blind.
It was not simply a matter of tradition or tact that former Presidents and high-ranking officials didn’t criticise their predescessors publicly. Remember that this tradition was bourne out of a system that allowed a peaceful handover of power that was unprescedented in world history. The political opposition was not imprisoned or persecuted as has happened (and still happens) in recent memory.
In this country, former politicians had the guarantee that they would not be made “political enemies” in the true sense of the word. The exception that proved the rule in our history was the Civil War, whose “recriminations” and vengeful “reconstruction” were uniquely merciful compared to the results of other civil wars in world history (although I understand that some of my colleagues will take issue with that).
Much of this, however, changed during the Cold War years, then ratcheted up with the Vietnam War, the impeachment of Nixon, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc etc.
For the liberal establishment, history began with the impeachment of Clinton (I don’t know what excuse Carter has). And in their minds, this gives them (the liberal political class) the “moral authority” to go after conservative politicians out of office (even though Clinton was in office and hence “impeached”). Whether you agree with it or not, this is the prevailing battle-cry in the Left-Wing part of the Democratic Party (the dominant part today). And Obama hails from this majority.
Cheney’s motives are as much about self-preservation as they are about national security (I do not begrudge him for it either). He also, apparently, has a sense of loyalty to the people who committed so-called “crimes” and “torture” or whatever Obama and his ilk want to call it (Cheney was their lead spokesman to President Bush).
Contrary to what you might believe, Obama DID send out feelers to see if it would be legally and politically feasible to indict Bush administration officials. He was stopped only when he made contact with other political operatives in the party (especially Clinton operatives). This happened months before the election and after Obama had “unofficially” secured the primaries.
Whether he was convinced by one argument or another is anybody’s guess.
Did Obama want the same protections that he planned to strip from Bush’s people when he left office? Did he want to protect Democrats whom he needed to pass his domestic agenda but who were in danger of exposure if he went through with his threats? Did he think his plans for special investigations were politically and legally unsound.
Or was he genuinely concerned about the national security implications?
*snort*
The truth is that Cheney and certain officials still in the defense and intelligence community don’t trust Obama to live up to the gentlemen’s agreement not to persecute them given the chance to renege. I think they’re finding him more shallow and easier to predict than they ever dreamed possible, but the fact remains that he once seriously entertained the ambition of going after them.
And besides, it’s not just the man in the Oval Office that you have to watch out for, but his fellow-travelers that you have to predict. It’s a tall order to deal with this crowd if your only assurance is “maybe you’re not a war-criminal”.
In fact I personally KNOW they don’t trust these people. They’ve laid (and are laying) the groundwork to thwart Obama’s attempts to go after them and at the same time have prevented him from carrying out the most radical elements of his defense policy agenda. Or do you think Obama left so much of the Bush defense team in place because he truly believed they were the best people for the job?
Please.
For Obama, it was more a political calculation than any deep appreciation of threats from Islamic terrorists (who aren’t even “terrorists” anymore). From what I’m told, the guy doesn”t know a flak vest from a suicide vest.
The Obama administration (and the Clintons) knows that Bush administration officials have vital information that could prove damaging to them. That, BTW, is also an old and not-so-subtle insurance policy for outgoing administrations (part of the reason why they retain SS details).
Shrewd political operatives don’t take actions without understanding and preparing for the political ramifications throughout the lifetime of their policies, even after they’ve left office. There have to be mechanisms in place to ensure that policy’s survival during the inevitable political upheavals. As one of my friends mentioned in an apt anology, it’s similar to what engineers call “cradle-to-grave” project management.
Well, Cheney is a shrewd politician.
So instead of bemoaning his efforts (and success) at ensuring the integrity of our defense mechanisms (which is NOT ensured in the long-term by any stretch of the imagination!), please try to understand that there is more at stake here than about the “moral authority”
Comment by Rykehaven — April 20, 2009 @ 11:40 pm - April 20, 2009
Continual and open criticism of the current president must be done by someone. Thank g-d Cheney is willing to do it. Would you have him stand on stuffy tradition while the USofA is torn asunder by this charlatan in chief? Desperate times call for desperate actions. There is no opposition that has any power. The press is another arm of Obama and the DNC. Someone has got to make waves – guess it’s up to the former VP and the tea partiers.
Comment by Jayne — April 20, 2009 @ 11:57 pm - April 20, 2009
CP, I think times have changed. Given Cheney’s nature and qualities that you cite, given what was done to him, given that somebody-has-to-do-it-and-it-shouldn’t-be-Bush (for several reasons)… I’m OK with it.
Reading your Politico link, it sounds to me like everything Cheney has said on national security and foreign policy is appropriate and even spot-on. Somebody has to tell the lefties what they’re doing to American security.
Cheney isn’t perfect, of course, and I hope he doesn’t presume to hold forth about domestic or financial policy. Cheney famously said “Deficits don’t matter”. First as Ford’s Chief of Staff and later as Bush’s Vice President, Cheney has played a key part in two of the biggest-spending administrations of modern times, and I mean that as a criticism or even as a form of condemnation. But, that aside, I respect and admire his service to America in the Global War on Terror.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 21, 2009 @ 12:06 am - April 21, 2009
I always had and continue to have greatest respect and admiration for VP Cheney. He is a great patriot of this country of ours, highly knowledgeable and extremely intelligent. He speaks his mind very calmly, precisely and
reasonably with great logic. And this is exactly what drives leftist and Obamaniaks crazy. Pres. Obama’s arguments regarding releasing CIA torture memos do not make much sense. Altogether, with his national security policy, Obama is trying to sit on two chairs at once, by releasing memos to pacify the left of his party and by refusing to prosecute CIA operatives to pacify his opponents.
I, for once, would applaud George Bush if he decided to come out from his seclusion and provide some remarks regarding the matters stated above. It is highly ironic that the only time in the last eight plus years that press complimented and praised him was because he refused to answer questions regarding Pres. Obama by saying that ” President Obama deserves my silence”.
President Obama continues to cherfully bash previous President and blame him for absolutely everything. Mark my words, he will continue to blame him all the way to the next elections. If Americans will not wake up and shrug off their ignorance, he will continue to blame Bush until 2016.
Alla
Comment by Alla — April 21, 2009 @ 12:10 am - April 21, 2009
I think Cheney is tired of hundreds of good dedicated people in multiple spots in the Bush Government and military being lied about, smeared and threatened with criminal investigations by the gutless, opportunist Bullshit artists known as Democrats and is standing up for them and calling the bullshit artist on the mat once and for all…in otherwords he’s protecting you and I and a good many people who risked their lives for you and I and the opportunistic bullshit artists known as the coward democrat party.
Comment by Sunflower — April 21, 2009 @ 12:32 am - April 21, 2009
I think the very point that three liberal Presidents can’t shut their mouths, is exactly what make Cheney say “screw it†and cut loose.
Sick and tired of them moving their lips – AKA lying about people.
Democrats have only themselves to blame for this intelligence embarrassment about to be unleashed upon them. They loved the leaks that hurt Bush, they will NOT like the onslaught about to break open on congressional dems, big time.
Comment by Sunflower — April 21, 2009 @ 12:35 am - April 21, 2009
Gawd, if Dick Cheney is scared, we must be in trouble!
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — April 21, 2009 @ 7:13 am - April 21, 2009
Have always admired Cheney’s support of his family. . .
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,†when asked about his stand on gay marriage.
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,†Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
updated 7:51 a.m. PT, Wed., Aug 25, 2004 AP
Comment by rusty — April 21, 2009 @ 8:20 am - April 21, 2009
I agree with almost all of the above in that somebody with “gravitas” better start speaking up about Obamapology and the direction he is taken this country. And who better than Dick Cheney? I hope the liberal press doesn’t push him back into “his cave.” Say it long, say it loud, say it proud!!!! Linda S.
Comment by Linda Strickland — April 21, 2009 @ 9:07 am - April 21, 2009
Thinking back to Eisenhower, except for Agnew and Quayle, every Vice-President has run for President. Nixon lost, then made it. Bush 41 made it. All the others lost and lost their voice as a result.
Dick Cheney holds the unique position of “elder statesman.” He was thoroughly tarred and feathered by the left when he was in office. Now he has no reason to sit by and see his work further denigrated by the Obama administration.
If he wants to “set the record straight” and catch the Obama operators in their lies about the Bush Administration, I do not see that as a sign of disrespect. It is the Obama operators who are being disrespectful.
Bush is comfortable letting historians figure out his record. Clinton, on the other hand, circles the globe fabricating and embroidering the “history” of the Clinton Era. There is no reason for Bush or Cheney to get in a spitting contest over who got the allies mad at us. That is all playground bluster anyway. But no President or Vice-President should sit by and have his factual record lied about.
Comment by heliotrope — April 21, 2009 @ 9:47 am - April 21, 2009
Well, CP, looks like you have 25 “yeas” in favor of letting Cheney express himself (me included), and zero “nays.”
And it appears that our former Veep hasn’t lost his power of intimidation, since no little-letter-people have dared to come on this thread and argue the contrary.
All I can say to the proud patriots above is “DITTO.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 21, 2009 @ 10:26 am - April 21, 2009
Should we be criticizing those who ask Cheney for his honest assessment? If he really is “equal parts blunt and unassuming”, why are folks surprised, i.e. “What’s up with former…”? Is he to simply respond “No comment” to every question to satisfy decorum? I think if we go back in history and revisit all the statements of our vice presidents, we’d find they likely have lots of interesting things to say about other administrations. Perhaps our 24-hour news cycle and ubiquitous microphones have exaggerated everyone’s statements, including Cheney’s. But I think demanding he uphold a standard of silence is historically fallacious and for those on the right, undesirable.
Comment by Ignatius — April 21, 2009 @ 10:39 am - April 21, 2009
All Hail to Casper High School… Pretty much agree with 1-26, GP…
Comment by toes — April 21, 2009 @ 2:16 pm - April 21, 2009
Cheney hasn’t even begun to expose this usurper. I can’t wait for the day when he really lets loose on this cabal in DC. Let’s get some Tobasco in our conservative chili already. Dems have so much more than this coming.
Comment by Leftnomore — April 21, 2009 @ 2:17 pm - April 21, 2009
…maybe Dick will actually run for President? Be still my (pacemaker) heart!!
Comment by Leftnomore — April 21, 2009 @ 2:19 pm - April 21, 2009
I really miss Cheney and his clarity, was one of the few adults in charge.
Comment by Pamela — April 21, 2009 @ 2:27 pm - April 21, 2009
I have no problem with former VP Cheney commenting on the present incumbent. We´ve gone into 90 days of the Obama presidency; he and Biden can´t seem to resist having their digs at Bush/Cheney. I have yet to hear them take any responsibilty for the conditions which have failed to respond to their policies. Obama´s apologies always puts blame on the Bush Administration. It is appropriate to have somebody to respond to the attacks from the current occupant of the WH. The left never criticized Carter for speaking against Reagan and the Bushes. His comments about GWB´s foreign policies were especially vitriolic. Bill Clinton even took pot shots at the Bush Administration. I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Comment by Roberto — April 21, 2009 @ 3:11 pm - April 21, 2009
#1 : Cheney shouldn’t have do to this because someone else in the party should be carrying this flag. Because no on in the party that has sufficient clout is willing to risk an unforced error in light of the 2012 race (like Jindal) and because the ones who have been speaking up have gotten no support from the rest of the party structure (Palin, Perry), it falls on the guy with nothing to lose to step up.
Cheney has always been willing to step up when there is an unpleasant job that has be done by someone.
#2: It isn’t an attack. It is a counter-attack. The current administration can’t operate on any level but “not Bush”. If this administration is going to start every day in that light, then the “is Bush” side needs to be heard.
#3: These are things that have to be said by someone. If Cheney really was evil and unprofessional, he would sit quietly as Obama ran the country off the cliff. He can’t abide that, and therefore has to at least say, “hey, there’s a cliff there — that’s why we didnt’ go that way before.”
Comment by Phelps — April 21, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - April 21, 2009
CP – several points that are not in your analysis
1 – Cheney is a former VPOTUS, not the former President. As such he still has a place in the game of ideas, and while he was extremely influential in forming policy, final decisions were and always are with the President. Therefore it’s not the same as when a former President makes comments on the current administration.
2 – The Obama administration, with releasing of memos, I beleive sought out to again attempt to further discredit the former administration. If the Obama administration does not want scrutiny from previous administrations, they shouldn’t go out of their way to insult and make look bad, past administrations.
I think that the former VP should give sound and measured analysis of the issues facing to the arena of ideas. I would even encourage him (or his wife for that matter) to further his career, such as the next Governor or Senator or even resume his congressional seat, when one of those seats are available.
Comment by HCN — April 21, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - April 21, 2009
It has always been a great concern of mine that no one ever forcefully stated the facts on how the Clinton era allowed 9/11 to happen. The Bush administration would not play the blame game. They had too much class, honor, integrity blah, blah. And they were genuinely too busy focusing on preventing the next attack. If we return to those policies (which we clearly are) I believe Americans will again die by the thousands in terrorist attacks.
This is serious stuff. I believe Chaney is a very serious man and a true patriot. I say more power to him, I hope his health holds ups.
Comment by bertie — April 21, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - April 21, 2009
CP — Sorry my friend, I have to agree with the consensus here.
If not, Cheney — who?
If not now, — when?
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 21, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - April 21, 2009
One of the most measured and thoughtful Vice Presidents of our Nation’s history, were it not for the inexplicably unhinged detractors’ fantasies, he’d probably go down in history as the brightest man to ever hold that office.
So it’s all the liberals’ fault, huh? Gee, you’d think that if someone was truly amazing, no amount of ‘unhinged detractors’ could make a significant dent in that person’s reputation. Also, wouldn’t such an amazing man leave in his wake a record of unimpeachable accomplishment? I don’t see one of those anywhere…
Poor, victimized Dick Cheney. Poor, victimized Republicans. These liberals are just being so unfair, aren’t they?
Comment by Levi — April 22, 2009 @ 3:40 am - April 22, 2009
….Poor Harry Truman….poor Abraham Lincoln
oh wait, the idiot masses were wrong then too.
Levi, you lash yourself to popular opinion as if it proves something. You only illustrate your own ignorance in doing so.
Hitler was a popular guy in Germany. Hugo Chavez is popular in Venezuela. Bell bottoms and velour were popular in the 70’s.
Cheney will be remembered as a great vice president, but perhaps not until some of his unhinged detractors kick the bucket and some more objective minds are responsible for evaluating him.
Comment by American Elephant — April 22, 2009 @ 9:02 am - April 22, 2009
AE, that’s history.
One of my history teachers said that History ends about 30 years ago, at a minimum. anything after that is too recent to be viewed objectively.
Levi’s hatred of anything that doesn’t fit in his worldview blinds him to the past. Indeed, compare VP Cheney’s interviews with Levi’s spittle soaked tirades, and you see what I mean.
Comment by The Livewire — April 22, 2009 @ 10:40 am - April 22, 2009
[...] many of you know, I took pretty direct objection to the former Vice President’s tone, and even his choice to speak out at all since leaving [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Warming (back) Up to Cheney — May 21, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - May 21, 2009