Dick Cheney Spoke, and said to “small government Conservatives” Go F### yourselves. Dick Cheney coming back to defend the latest “We want a strong executive” move of the White House has put to words what has been behind multiple actions of this administration, especially those that cause serious harm to the Administration: “Executive Branch trumps all.” (Ap with the skinny)
“I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them,” he said.
Dick… Dick… Dick.
Lets first of all talk about the fact you interpret the powers of office at a 90* angle from your predecessors you are the #2 guy for a party that believes to much government power is a –bad- thing. These folks have done more to humble the President’s agenda then kissing up to weak kneed senators who buckle later has.
“Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the ’70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area,” Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of “the legitimate authority of the presidency.”
Dick…Dick…Dick Nixon was the last time the Paleocon –If you can call Nixon that- (I need to kick myself for using that term) Agenda has one. Ike would be more at home in the Rockefeller wing and Dick Nixon was picked for in 68 because he was between the “Right” and “Left”. Conservatism… the party’s right wing has been the horse that brung the party to the Dance since the 80s and why because Dick Nixon screwed up. Barry Goldwater held the torch and burned down the den of inequity of Dick Nixon and handed it off to Reagan to take the more serious values of the Republican Party into perpetuity and helped to Change the Democratic Party (look at Bill Clinton).
But Dick has a thesis, and I think I want to address that some.
“You know, it’s not an accident that we haven’t been hit in four years,” Cheney said. “I think there’s a temptation for people to sit around and say, ‘Well, gee that was just a one-of affair, they didn’t really mean it.’ ”
“The bottom line is we’ve been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that,” he said.
Before I go into this a bit…. I need some full disclosure and acceptance of Humility on my part.
I do not have access to daily national security and intelligence briefs. What I am going to say is based off my reading of news and various books on the subjects of; International terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Islamism, and a smattering of economic theory.
No attacks means we’ve stopped the attacks doesn’t work with logic. Every one who has looked at Al-Qaeda and its organizational model from the folks who’ve gotten arrested and the patterns of those who have gone out to do attacks that not every Al-Qaeda’s cell is set to do a real attack that kills real Americans. While those at the bottom of the pyramid may not know this those at the top do. They do fake attacks and plan fake attacks to confuse their enemy and some times to plant sources of false intelligence. These dummy attacks are often designed to judge the reaction of the US and other national government’s response.
Now…sorry for any Aussie, Brit, or other national out there who might be offended the next two statements is going to be highly US-Centered and say this country has a great deal of importance. Dick and I would agree with that.
Every Attack directed at “US” targets has been bigger, better, and different. Every attack has been designed to slap the face of the US government in new and different ways.
They did the following; helping with the attack on the US Marines in Somalia, attacking the World Trade center in not only a conventional way, but in a way not that different from what happened in Oklahoma City, Attacking US embassies in a more militaristic fashion, attacking a US Military vessel, then weaponizing Passenger planes to do what they failed to do with the World Trade Center attack. Each successful attack has been not only different, but moving up the chain. Each target becoming bigger and more symbolic.
And also the US has a lot better targets available on the War on Terror. Not just the US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all points in Dar Al Islam but in other more significant ways. The strike in Spain turned a major ally into a major opposing force, which lead to the strike in Great Britain. Strikes have also been made against Australian targets outside of Australia as well seeking to do the same thing. When these other targets are easier to strike at, and have more impact then a “more of the same” attack in the US they will do so. Especially when that attack will cost less in vital resources then a strike in the heart of the US.
When Al-Qaeda tries to attack again it will be an order of magnitude different then previous attacks, and it will be something no one has imagined. That is their M.O in striking at the US. There is nothing in the publicly available evidence to suggest Al-Qaeda is different then this which challenges Dick’s big assertion. And without the threat of daily death from Al-Qaeda Dick’s logic for vastly expanded executive powers fails utteryly.
Sorry Dick, but the President should have fired you in 04 and put Rice into your job. Or heck, Even Powell would have worked.
Dick just isn’t an effective point man anymore.