Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 10 February 2010

The Unbearable But Continuing Ghastliness of Dick Cheney

Friday, 8th May 2009

Dick Cheney is quite a piece of work. I confess that back in 2000 I thought Bush did well in choosing Cheney to be his Vice-President. After all, the neophyte President-to-be could use some sage advice from a Washington veteran. And, yes, I enjoyed seeing Cheney cuff Joe Lieberman during their Vice-Presidential debate. That sanctimonious prig from Connecticut deserved it. But there are limits and it is remarkable that much of the conservative movement thinks it wise to seek advice from a man who left office with an approval rating of 13%.

Still, these things are what they are. But that's little excuse for Cheney's brazen, chutzpah-crammed performance on a North Dakota radio show today. Perhaps it should not surprise, but the dishonesty, mendacity and hypocrisy on display are, in their own way, impressive even by Washington's elevated standards.

To begin with, Cheney disputes the notion that Arlen Specter's defection is bad news for the GOP. Au contraire, it might be bad news for Democrats!

You know, we’d gone through the exercise here right after we got elected in 2000, and controlled the Senate just by virtue of my ability to cast a tie vote. It was 50-50, and then my vote gave us control of the Senate. They worked hard to switch Jeffords then — and they did — they promised him a committee chairmanship and so he went over to the other side and changed control of the Congress. I always had the feeling though that people looked at that and didn’t really like it. One of the things I thought it did was to build support for the Republican side in the next election in ’02, and we had an extraordinary outcome there where the Administration actually gained seats in the Senate in an off-year election (which almost never happens). So there are often times lasting consequences from these kinds of switches…and they’re not always positive from the side that receives the individual doing the switching.

Gee, did something happen between Jeffords' defection and the 2002 mid-terms? Something that might have changed the playing field entirely and given, quite understandably, a major boost to the incumbent party?

Next question: should the GOP find some new tunes to play? No!

I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas ... what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and Constitutional principles. You know, when you add all those things up the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most us aren’t. Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren’t eager to have someone come along and say, “Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.”

But few people are suggesting that the GOP be a wishy-washy facsimile of the Democratic party. All the reformers want are new conservative solutions to new problems, not this notion that all problems are the same as the old ones and can be solved by pretending it's 1980 all over again.

I watch what he is doing, especially in the National Security area which is sort of my first interest. This whole question of detainees and interrogation of detainees and the Terrorist Surveillance Program and so forth, closing Guantanamo…I don’t think the vast majority of Americans support what he wants to do. I think in fact most Americans are pleased — when they think about it — that we were able to go nearly eight years without another major attack on the United States. They think we handled that pretty well.

Here Cheney has a point: many Americans, perhaps even most, do, when they think about it, approve of the way the Bush administration handled the "interrogation of detainees". That, however, ought to be a badge of shame, not honour. And who are the Americans disappointed by the fact that the United States has not been attacked since 9/11? Perhaps Mr Cheney should name some names.

I think the situation is that if anybody (who obviously has to have clearances) takes a look at the record, they’ll find that we had significant success as a result of these policies. One way to nail that down is that there are two documents in particular that I personally have read and know about that are still classified in that National Archives. I’d ask that they be de-classified, I made that request over a month ago on March 31st. What those documents show is the success, especially of the interrogation program in terms of what it produced by way of intelligence that let us track down members of Al-Qaeda and disrupt their plans and plots to strike the United States. It’s all there in black and white. It is work that was done by the Central Intelligence Agency after several years of experience with these programs. It demonstrates conclusively the worth of those programs. As I say, I’ve asked the Administration to de-classify them and so far they have not.

Here too, one must agree with Mr Cheney. Let's put these documents into the public domain. Nonetheless, one must admire the chitzpah of the most secretive Vice-President in the history of the Republic complaining that documents are being kept secret by the new administration. Cheney's default presumption, remember, was that documents should be classified.

As for allegations of torture? Mr Cheney protests too much. Or, rather, he protests in unwittingly revealing fashion:

We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy ... with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we’d gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances.

If waterboarding isn't torture then you don't need to be "very careful", nor do you need consider it as a last resort. The alleged safeguards and procedures Cheney boasts of unwittingly reveal the true nature of these "enhanced techniques".

Finally, here's a good joke:

As somebody who’s got a conservative record as I do, and for example worked in the wage price control program back in the '70s, and not exactly a fan of expanding the size and role of government in our society...

OK then! Square that with your record in office! Hint: it can't be done.

Remember that this man was only two heartbeats from the Presidency.

UPDATE: God, re-reading this makes me feel bad. Not because I want to recant anything here but because there's too much shooting of fish in the barrel about it. And even when said fish need to be shot there's no point trying to be terribly happy about such an easy kill. And, yeah, it's also perhaps a little intemperate. I dunno.

Filed under: Cheney (14 more articles) , GOP (153 more articles) , Torture (37 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (31)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

May 8th, 2009 2:50am Report this comment

-- We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy ... with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we’d gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances.

Waterboarding was so effective KSM had to be waterboarded 183 times in one month. Let's hear it for Government efficiency.

porkbelly

May 8th, 2009 3:38am Report this comment

Interesting that Cheney's quotes seem to show him in rather better light than the comments suggest...exactly what is so "brazen" about them? Specter is being looked upon with great (and well-warranted) suspicion by his new party (NYT story). Cheney stands for the core principles of the Republican Party - shock! horror! "But few people are suggesting that the GOP be a wishy-washy facsimile of the Democratic party" - why yes they are - Frum, Brooks, and yes - Massie. You admit that Cheney and Bush did defend the United States from another terrorist attack - you just wish they hadn't been so dashed beastly to those miserable chaps, don't you know. Sorry - it's a war, not a cricket match. "You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

David

May 8th, 2009 7:25am Report this comment

"our commitment to the Constitution and Constitutional principles."

So committed that many of them want to amend it to protect themselves from "The Gays"....

I guess that commitment only goes so far.

Conservative Cabbie

May 8th, 2009 10:12am Report this comment

David

"I guess that commitment only goes so far."

No, it means that they want to use constitutionally legal methods to amend the constitution. There are provisions within the constitution to be amended so it is perfectly reasonable to do it.

It is a much more legitimate way of doing things than finding something Thomas Jefferson once said and using that as cover for banning school prayer, which does not appear in the constitution at all.

Conservative Cabbie

May 8th, 2009 12:23pm Report this comment

"one must admire the chitzpah of the most secretive Vice-President in the history of the Republic complaining that documents are being kept secret by the new administration."

I'm sure he wanted all the documents kept secret. The point he was making was that if you're are going to release the documents about torture, it's only fair to the American public to release those documents that demonstrate how successful those methods were.

Or do you think it right and proper that a new administration releases documents that damn a previous admin. without providing a necessary balance. That's hardly transparent government is it?

Sergey

May 8th, 2009 1:17pm Report this comment

What is really amazing is the moral outrage of Alex contrasting with actual content of quotes he cited which show not a bit of reason for this outrage. May be, Alex idea of morality has nothing in common with what most normal people consider moral?

Don CeSar

May 8th, 2009 2:19pm Report this comment

"So committed that many of them want to amend it to protect themselves from "The Gays"...."

If "many" includes Cheney, then you know for a fact that he (Cheney) wants to protect himself from his lesbian daughter, Mary?!

K.L. Scott, Texas

May 8th, 2009 7:46pm Report this comment

I'm a Democrat and I remember thinking that Bush would be tolerable because of Cheney's presence, doh! But I wanted to comment on the sad fact that, according to the polls, a majority of my countrymen support the idea of torture. I have to believe it's largely a function of a willful ignorance (encouraged by our media) of the sheer brutality involved. I think the attitude will change after the inevitable investigations force us to confront what was done in our names. We have blinded before by our own sense of "exceptionalism" and it seems almost mandatory that politicians encourage it. Was it Churchill who said we always do the right thing, after we've tried everything else? If we manage it again, perhaps the right-wings charge that liberals, "blame America first" will finally lose its power. first,"

Sasha

May 8th, 2009 9:47pm Report this comment

I confess that back in 2000 I thought Bush did well in choosing Cheney to be his Vice-President.
Not quite. You might remember that the head of Bush's VP selection committee was . . . Dick Cheney.
That is: Dick Cheney literally picked himself to be Vice President.

Hayward Maberley

May 9th, 2009 8:02am Report this comment

He witll always be "Five Deferemnt Dick" to me. A serial draft evader like The Faux Texan, both of whom considered that they had better things to do during the Viet Nam Farrago, no matter how much they regarded it, in the rear view mirror as a "noble cause"

NJ

May 9th, 2009 8:10am Report this comment

ndm - "Waterboarding was so effective KSM had to be waterboarded 183 times in one month." For the record, KSM was waterboarded FIVE times - not 183 times. The number 183 refers to the physical act of pouring water on his face - not sessions or separate interrogations. The anti-Bush press has (typically) did a disgraceful job in stating these simple facts & prefers Andrew Sullivan-like hysteria. (BTW, I oppose waterboarding on principle before I'm accused of being an apologist for the evil 'neocon-fascist junta')

ah

May 9th, 2009 10:11am Report this comment

My personal favourite is the one in which he effectively says that his administration did its job because America was only successfully attacked once.

They were in charge. They failed to stop 9/11, they failed to find the guys who did it, and to divert attention from that in advance of the election they started an unrelated war they didn't need to fight and in the process killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden. Not that he would understand combat, having chickened out of the draft on four occasions himself.

I've been trying to work out how many guys there are left on earth who are personally responsible for as many deaths as Cheney and Bush. The big boys of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc) are long gone, so there can't be too many people left with the blood of hundreds of thousands on their hands. Maybe a couple of senior Rwandans - any other suggestions?

ndm

May 9th, 2009 11:03am Report this comment

-- For the record, KSM was waterboarded FIVE times - not 183 times. The number 183 refers to the physical act of pouring water on his face - not sessions or separate interrogations. The anti-Bush press has (typically) did a disgraceful job in stating these simple facts & prefers Andrew Sullivan-like hysteria. (BTW, I oppose waterboarding on principle before I'm accused of being an apologist for the evil 'neocon-fascist junta')

The May 30, 2005 Memorandum from Steven Bradbury Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Justice Department to John A. Rizzo Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency states on page 37:

-- Although the CIA program authorizes waterboard use only in narrow circumstances (to date, the CIA has used the waterboard on only three detainees), where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application. See id at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period. See August 19... Letter at 1-2. The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah, IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id at 91.

It is indeed a very fair reading to describe the OLC description of "used the waterboard ... 183 times" to mean KSM was waterboarded 183 times. It is certainly neither disgraceful nor hysterical to do so. On the other hand, it is totally ludicrous to use the known facts to claim KSM was waterboarded only five times. He may perhaps have been waterboarded on only five days - in the unlikely event of the CIA adhering to the OLCs criminal befouling of the laws banning torture - but he was, according to the OLC, waterboarded 183 times.

THX1138

May 9th, 2009 11:03am Report this comment

Ah- And their cynical denial of man-made climate change and refusal to do anything about it when we had the chance will kill millions more over the next decades. To quote Bob Dylan

"Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul"

Conservative Cabbie

May 9th, 2009 11:16am Report this comment

"hey failed to stop 9/11, they failed to find the guys who did it,"

Well I'm sure they picked through the rubble of the Twin Towers to see if they could find them.

NJ

May 9th, 2009 11:53am Report this comment

I'm sorry, ndm, but you are simply wrong here. And I think it is quite right to call the media reporting of this issue hysterical & disgraceful (especially some loud bloggers, like the one I mentuioned before).
http://tinyurl.com/d3e8ps

Conservative Cabbie

May 9th, 2009 1:53pm Report this comment

That blogger you mentioned is hardly known for his rational calm approach to issues. How the left yell about Limbaugh but then rely on Sullivan as a bona fide source never ceases to amaze me.

ndm

May 9th, 2009 8:02pm Report this comment

-- How the left yell about Limbaugh but then rely on Sullivan as a bona fide source never ceases to amaze me.

Let's see now. Rush Limbaugh is a loud-mouthed rightist radio host. Andrew Sullivan is the former editor of TNR, blogged for Time magazine and now is the anchoring blogger at The Atlantic - a highly respected center-right magazine. Andrew Sullivan is simply a vastly more credible source than Rush Limbaugh. And the right will be stuck in the wilderness until it recognizes that.

ndm

May 9th, 2009 8:13pm Report this comment

If Jimmy were to kick John 183 times during five good kickings he would STILL have kicked John 183 times regardless that they took place over five sessions of a good kicking. Similarly, when the CIA "used the waterboard ... 183 times" on KSM they waterboarded him 183 times during five sessions. It is wanton stupidity to claim otherwise.

Of course, if you rely on the opinion of a Fox News corresponent wanton stupidity is probably a fair and balanced description. I relied instead on documentation of an OLC allocution to torture.

In his 100th-day press conference President Obama explicitly declared waterboarding to be torture.

-- What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices. I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

-- So this is a decision that I am very comfortable with. And I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on a unscrupulous enemy.

Obama didn't hedge with any rightist fudge about 183 waterboards but ONLY five sessions. Waterboarding is torture.

NJ

May 10th, 2009 5:35am Report this comment

ndm – What a pitiful response. So on being shown to be completely wrong on the facts, you use an absurd kicking analogy, attack Fox News, & quote an irrelevant Obama press conference. It must be difficult to admit to being wrong.

First, it is “wanton stupidity” to continue to claim he was waterboarded 183 times – when, again, the figure refers to pours not sessions. It would be like claiming Christopher Hitchens was waterboarded a dozen or so times, when, in point of fact, he only went through it twice. You can’t just change or inflate facts because it fits in with your distaste for Bush & co. Their behaviour is already disgraceful enough, without exaggeration.

And to attack the source (Fox News) because it easily debunked the irresponsible claims of the mainstream media, Andrew Sullivan, yourself & the rest of the fools who peddled this distortion, is utterly pathetic. If you actually read the story – not attack the evils of Fox – then you would clearly see that those who corrected the story were those well-known Bush apologists & pro-torture advocates THE RED CROSS (neocons? Fox dupes?).

And I don’t disagree with a word from the Obama press conference you quoted. (Yawn)

“Waterboarding is Torture” (Agreed…Yawn)
I have already stated that I oppose waterboarding ON PRINCIPLE, so posting some hope-n-change transcript isn’t really relevant to the facts on the KSM story (which I was correcting in the first place).

It is not a “rightist fudge” to correct the facts on these waterboarding sessions. Play the ball, not the man – or just admit you were wrong to repeat a MSM lie.

Conservative Cabbie

May 10th, 2009 10:51am Report this comment

ndm

"Andrew Sullivan is simply a vastly more credible source than Rush Limbaugh."

Both pander to political prejudices, both smear people they don't like politically and personally, both nurture hostility towards people who don't share their views and neither are particularly careful about their factchecking. Andrew Sullivan may be an intelligent schmuck, but that doesn't make him any less the schmuck.

HarvestMoon52

May 10th, 2009 5:36pm Report this comment

I don't think you people have any idea of what torture is. Waterboarding is NOT torture, which, by the way, Bush & the Congress STOPPED using back in 2003 - 6 years ago! And the TRUTH is that all of Congress knew about it and DID NOT OBJECT to it. Under the SERE Program, Navy Seals & other branches of the military voluntarily subject themselves to these exact same "enhanced interrogation techniques." Yes,
they are "harsh" and for obvious reasons. In reality, these techniques were only used on 3 known terrorist leaders, and ONLY as a last resort, which "successfully" resulted in obtaining critical information, which actually SAVED thousands of American civilian lives.
Also, these terrorists were NOT protected under the Geneva Convention, NOR are they entitled to the same rights as American citizens. They are TERRORISTS that murdered innocent children and ordinary citizens in our country for no reason other than ignorance & hatred! They do not wear military uniforms. They do not represent any country. But, nevertheless, they DECLARED WAR on US.
Everyone should understand by now that MEDIA news in the US is often biased & inaccurate. This accounts for why no one is buying newspapers, such as the NYTimes, Boston Globe, etc. Why would the Gov't want to bail out or buy out the NYTimes or any newspaper? It's not "truthful" or "accurate" or "unbiased" any longer - it's not even journalism! The NEWS is suppose to REPORT FACTS - WE, the readers, are capable of forming our own OPINIONS!
As for Cheney, you don't have to like him, but he has every RIGHT to speak out and bring out the truth & the facts as he knows them, in justifiable defense of the previous administration of which he was a part of. The media has distorted the truth and the Obama Administration has only "selectively" RELEASED a few memos & refuses to declassify the rest of the memos pertaining to the interrogations & without them the truth is incomplete. Why is Cheney speaking out? I suspect out of decency & fairness to the people he worked with everyday for 8 years! The current administration is "manipulative" & adebt at using "smear tactics" to destroy people for ANY GAINFUL REASON. This should NOT be tolerated! Shouldn't we respect his right to address the issue publicly. The point is to move FORWARD. Our country is in serious disarray while, unfortunately, Obama is still in "campaign mode."
Obama should be setting an example for his administration, showing by ACTIONS that NO ONE is against the law, not even the President of the United States. (Bad "choices" have been illustrated by Mr.Obama - CHOICES that DO NOT REFLECT the values of the American People, Decomcrats and Republicans alike.)
If you truly want a BETTER America, then show it by ACTIONS - not just WORDS!

THX1138

May 10th, 2009 10:46pm Report this comment

First Cheney said “we don’t torture” now he says “it worked”. I don't believe either statement!

With approval rating at 13% the American people have seen right through the man to the "Ghastliness of Dick Cheney"

No you haven't been too intemperate, put them both in that barrel and shoot at them all day long, they deserve it

ndm

May 11th, 2009 2:13am Report this comment

HarvestMoon52 writes: "I don't think you people have any idea of what torture is. Waterboarding is NOT torture"

Unfortunately for HarvestMoon52, the President of the United States has said that he, like pretty much every right-minded person in America, beleives waterboarding to be torture.

HarvestMoon52 continues with the following gibberish: Obama should be setting an example for his administration, showing by ACTIONS that NO ONE is against the law, not even the President of the United States. (Bad "choices" have been illustrated by Mr.Obama - CHOICES that DO NOT REFLECT the values of the American People, Decomcrats and Republicans alike.)
If you truly want a BETTER America, then show it by ACTIONS - not just WORDS!

President Obama needs to show that no American is ABOVE the law - regardless of position or rank in State. He needs to ensure that those responsible for torture during the Bush Administration are held criminally accountable for their heinous crimes.

Fred54

May 11th, 2009 3:30am Report this comment

Cheney only became VP after some fancy legal footwork to re-establish his Wyoming residency prior to the 00 election. Don't forget, he was pres. of Haliburton in Houston in the 90's, and voted in Texas. The Constitution requires that the president and vice president be elected from different states.

Graham

May 11th, 2009 3:28pm Report this comment

It'll be a lot cheaper keeping Dick Cheney in a federal prison than paying Secret Service agents to protect him 24/7 wherever he goes.

HarvestMoon52

May 11th, 2009 5:36pm Report this comment

ndm: Mr. Obama needs to concentrate on his "own administration" - And CLEAN his own HOUSE! We wanted CHANGE - translation: Get CORRUPTION out of Washington and START serving the PEOPLE! What did we get? Self-serving "Chicago-style" politicians, who don't give a damn about "the law." They can manipulate them for their own personal gain - Seriously, there are strong MIXED MESSAGES here: "Do as we SAY, NOT AS we DO." (Nancy Pelosi is showing signs of "stress" these days and so is Hillary Clinton. Just part of the price one pays for GREED?)

Trish

May 11th, 2009 8:44pm Report this comment

With whatever respect is due to you, Mr. Massie, your self-righteous judgment of VP Cheney is just one more example of the effete elitist snobbery to which we average folks have grown wearily accustomed. Mr. Cheney is a true and honest statesman, gentleman, and patriot. He has more intelligence, experience, and knowledge in his little finger than do all the crazed Obama-devotees in the media both on your side of the Atlantic and ours. Regrettably, I believe we will live to see events that corroborate every warning the Vice President has issued. When that time comes, I do so hope you will be as gracious in recanting your judgment of this fine man as you have been harsh towards him in your disrespectful rant.

Hayward Maberley

May 12th, 2009 2:14am Report this comment

Trish et al.
Mr Cheney, aka Five Deferment Dick, was a serial draft evader. When asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
How interesting that both he and that other seial draft evader The Faux Texan would say, looking in the rear view mirror, that they regarded the Viet Nam Farrago as a "noble cause" but obviously not noble enough to put their bodies where their mouths were. No the poor, black and hispanic were shipped out to that "noble cause"
Just as happened and still occuring with the Afghan Imbroglio and the Iraqi Fiasco.
I can imagine no time when anyone will ever have to aplogise to Five Deferment Dick. Perhaps when he apologises to the US public and the rest of the world for his mendacity.
He is still spouting the Big Lies concerning the Iraq Fiasco viz. Iraqi involvment in the events of 11 September, he is being more than mendacious concerning torture and its "effective results"
His connections through Halliburton with Big Oil and the House of Saud make one wonder just "cui bono"
Finally are you aware that over his four years as Secretary of Defense, Cheney downsized the military and his budgets showed negative real growth, despite pressures to acquire weapon systems advocated by Congress. The Department of Defense's total obligational authority in current dollars declined from $291 billion to $270 billion. Total military personnel strength decreased by 19 percent, from about 2.2 million in 1989 to about 1.8 million in 1993.
That of course allowed for a lot of outsourcing to Halliburton, KBR and other contractors.
The man is a charlatan.

Donaldd

May 12th, 2009 3:26pm Report this comment

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, retroactive to 9-11-2001, gives the President the ability to say what is or is not torture!

Bush said on numerous occasions his methods are not torture.

That, by U.S. law, is TRUE!

We can thank John McCain for that.

Hayward Maberley

May 13th, 2009 3:51am Report this comment

Donaldd,
The whole sad, sick thing is summed up thus "“'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Dubya Through the Looking Glass?

Post comment