Who should be America's next leader in 2012?

[Willowz]

So, what do you think? I think America needs Dick Cheney and he knows it. We needs him more than we would like to admit it. I mean look at the current situation. The GOP should get their stuff straight and look for a true candidate.

Dick Cheney - 2012

 

[BobG]

The last Vice President to publish his memoirs in a book was Dan Quayle. His goal was to convince people he was a serious politician and not the almost cartoonish character the media portryayed him as.

Dick Cheney's goal is to convince people he's actually a human.

I think he'd be a pretty hard sell as a Presidential candidate.

 

[Willowz]

What's so bad about Cheney? Seems like people like being spoon fed with BS/lies and fantasies.

 

[Pengwuino]

What's so bad about Cheney? Seems like people like being spoon fed with BS/lies and fantasies.

And it worked; damage done. I don't see him as a viable candidate.

 

[Willowz]

And it worked; damage done. I don't see him as a viable candidate.

Why not?

 

[lisab]

Dick Cheney's goal is to convince people he's actually a human.

[irony]
He has http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20docs.html" .
[/irony]

 

[WhoWee]

And it worked; damage done. I don't see him as a viable candidate.

 

[Willowz]

You be hatin Cheney. The guy may be Machiavellian, but he knows what he does.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why not?

He was trashed for 8+ years. There's practically a whole industry of Cheney bashing set up. Regardless of whether or not he would be a good President, he's unelectable.

 

[Willowz]

He was trashed for 8+ years. There's practically a whole industry of Cheney bashing set up. Regardless of whether or not he would be a good President, he's unelectable.

Propaganda, obey.

 

[BobG]

What's so bad about Cheney? Seems like people like being spoon fed with BS/lies and fantasies.

It takes more than spoon feeding people BS, lies, and fantasies to become President. You have to have a decent delivery style, as well. Cheney's delivery was so poor that most people began to see him as an evil villain instead of a rescuing hero.

 

[Willowz]

It takes more than spoon feeding people BS, lies, and fantasies to become President. You have to have a decent delivery style, as well. Cheney's delivery was so poor that most people began to see him as an evil villain instead of a rescuing hero.

He just laid things out as they were. Though, he did appear at times abrasive and gruff. But, he always made sense. More importantly, more-so than other candidates then and now.

 

[Willowz]

What's so "monstrous" about him?

 

[KingNothing]

What's so "monstrous" about him?

I still tend to believe he is a robot.

Dick Cheney for president 2012

 

[Willowz]

If it's comparisons then I think Lex Luthor fits the bill.

Just maybe without the extroversion.

 

[jhae2.718]

He could win, if he took the other candidates hunting.

 

[Char. Limit]

He could win, if he took the other candidates hunting.

This. ^^

 

[ThomasT]

What's so bad about Cheney? Seems like people like being spoon fed with BS/lies and fantasies.

You might be right that some of the stuff said about Cheney was "BS/lies and fantasies". (I don't think he really deserved the 'Darth Cheney' or 'Prince of Darkness' labels. For example, sure, to a certain extent he seemed to milk his government service for personal gain, but there's nothing particularly unusual or necessarily wrong about that. ) But it also might be the case that a lot of it wasn't. (For example, I think it's been pretty well established that he lied, along with Bush and other members of that adminstration, about the reasons for invading Iraq.)

Anyway, I agree with those here who've said that they think Cheney would be a particularly bad candidate. His approval ratings were rather low a couple of years ago. I don't know if any recent polls have been done on this.

Here's a recent article, Remembering Why Americans Loathe Dick Cheney

Then there's the issue of Cheney's health.

Romney would be a much better candidate for the GOP. There seems to be some doubt as to whether, as a practicing Mormon, he would be able to get the 'bible belt' (and particularly the fundamentalist and evangelical) vote. But isn't Mormonism sort of Christian fundamentalist? If I recall correctly, the Mormon program began with God speaking to Joseph Smith and some stuff was written on gold tablets, or something like that. Why wouldn't Christian fundamentalists eat that sort of thing up?

 

[Evo]

He could win, if he took the other candidates hunting.

Helicopter hunting?

 

[Evo]

If I recall correctly, the Mormon program began with God speaking to Joseph Smith and some stuff was written on gold tablets, or something like that. Why wouldn't Christian fundamentalists eat that sort of thing up?

It's amazing that the Mormon church survived after DNA evidence proved that the Book Of Mormon was a fairytale.

 

[Ryumast3r]

It's amazing that the Mormon church survived after DNA evidence proved that the Book Of Mormon was a fairytale.

As a former member of the cult (born in church, and yes, I WILL CALL IT A CULT because that's what it is), I can explain that pretty well.

1) You're born into the culture of the church, and its practices so they don't seem all too weird (nor do its beliefs, since we all grow up more or less believing what the society around us believes since we learn from them from birth)

2) Some of those practices include consistently ignoring science in order to promote "faith"

3) They high discourage reading "Anti-Mormon" materials, or materials that aren't "faith promoting" which is a wide list of things from scientific journals (when it suites them) to pornographic material, or even just some random blog (and this post would probably be included in that list... I'm not exactly "faith-promoting").

4) Even if you don't believe you go through mental "gymnastics" because many people will ostracize you if you "come out of the closet" so to speak.

5) If you do believe, well, the mental gymnastics go even further than just lying to the world, it includes lying to yourself. Using any good feeling as a message from God, even convincing yourself that you can pray about the health of someone and *KNOW* that they'll be ok, even if they are dying of cancer and the doctors give them about 1 minute to live.

The list goes on, but I will say they follow every bit of cultish behavior (which ends up keeping you in the church), even if they are good at hiding it - things like the secret handshakes, secret words, stupid rituals that aren't just normal religious ones (they go wayyy deep), and various psychological abuses that can have many long-term effects on a person, especially if they were in said church for more than just a couple years (though some experience them after just one year or less).


That said, if a person is able to put their religion behind them when they go into office (which what I've seen of Hunstman he can do - even drinking alcohol as an ambassador to China, though I don't know as much about Romney), then it works out.


Sorry to de-rail a bit, back to Dick.


The reasons everyone stated above are all good reasons, especially the intelligence issues, the torture, the shooting people whilst hunting (takes the cake, really), lying to the country on many occasions where the people should have been told the truth (as opposed to the times where secrecy is actually needed), etc.

 

[CAC1001]

(For example, I think it's been pretty well established that he lied, along with Bush and other members of that adminstration, about the reasons for invading Iraq.)

Howso? Rather than lies, I'd more call it having the wrong intelligence.

 

[BobG]

Howso? Rather than lies, I'd more call it having the wrong intelligence.

Not out and out lies, but it would be more accurate to call it selective acceptance of intelligence. When the Senate finally got around to doing Phase 2 of its assessment of http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html )

The only comments lacking any substantiation at all were comments linking Iraq in an active relationship with Al-Qaida, comments claiming Hussein was ready to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, comments about underground WMD facilities, and optimistic predictions for a peaceful post-invasion transition in power.

In fairness, the comments about what would happen post-invasion didn't require classified intelligence to doubt their veracity. One only had to look at Iraq's demographics and history.

A point worth noting in that people learn from history and that learning results in changes in historical trends. Between the end of World War II and 2001, there were over 120 civil wars and only 6 were resolved via peaceful power sharing - except 3 of those could only be considered peacefully resolved because of the definitions used (peace for at least 5 years). In three of those, a new civil war started around 10 years after the first was resolved through peaceful power sharing. The thing to note is that, even accounting for the limitations in the definitions, 5 of those were resolved in 1990 or later.

The old history isn't a given (although it certainly is almost a given in Afghanistan, where there are so many ethnic groups that any lasting peace seems impossible).

But any rational person would have seen a peaceful formation of a government in post-war Iraq as facing some seriously long odds.

 

[ThomasT]

Howso? Rather than lies, I'd more call it having the wrong intelligence.

They were selling the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, which they had to know wasn't true. To that end, ie., to facilitate public acceptance of an invasion and occupation of Iraq, a propaganda campaign supported by the US corporate media effectively dispensed deceitful statements about what was known at the time wrt the true state of affairs, and statements meant to foster emotional apprehension (stuff like, we don't want to find the "smoking gun" evidence "in the form of a mushroom cloud") as opposed to factual and logical apprehension of the true state of affairs.

There were several good reasons (depending on how one views things) for the US to invade and occupy Iraq. None of which had to do with Iraq being an imminent threat to the US vis weapons of mass destruction. The problem was that it's sort of against international law to go about preemptively invading sovereign nations. Also, they would need congress to allocate the money for the operation.

Regarding international law, they just sort of circumvented it. As for congressional approval, much of it happened behind closed doors where the votes of like-thinking congress members were affirmed and fence-sitting congress members were recruited. But it all depended on getting the approval of the American public, without which most of the fence-sitters and even some of the like-thinkers might have voted no.

You can call it what you want. But I call it a campaign of lies. Whether it should be interpreted as being beneficial, wrt certain criteria, to US interests is debatable.

 

[BobG]

As for congressional approval, much of it happened behind closed doors where the votes of like-thinking congress members were affirmed and fence-sitting congress members were recruited. But it all depended on getting the approval of the American public, without which most of the fence-sitters and even some of the like-thinkers might have voted no.

I agree with all except this. The Senate debate on the issue was very public, the opinion of the American public was very well known, but the vote was driven by fear more than any rational thought process. And the fear belonged to the politicians - the fear that their vote could come back to bite them when (or perhaps if) the US military rolled triumpantly into Baghdad in days and the American public forgot all about technicalities such as international law, etc.

According to public opinion polls, Americans supported an invasion only as part of a UN effort (or as part of some other multi-national coalition; something that showed world consensus).

For Senators, at least (since having only 100 members means they get to talk a lot more), the statements they made about what they were doing were in complete opposition to the text of the resolution they were voting on. It was obvious they were trying to ensure they'd have it both ways. The invasion succeeds - they voted for it. The invasion is a disaster - they opposed it (just look at the statements they made; not the vote they made).

The biggest vote many Senators would ever make in their life and they chose political cowardice. And then when the invasion didn't turn out so well, they turned around and claimed they were lied to. Just look at their statements! They obviously thought they were voting for something else besides what happened!

This gives a reasonably short summary - http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/WeekOfShame.pdf . Perusing the Congressional record for those dates gives a more thorough accounting (except you have to sort through all of the other mundane things the Senate does to read the debate about the authorizing military force).

 

[CAC1001]

They were selling the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, which they had to know wasn't true.

Why would they have had to know that wasn't true? President Bush later said one of the most frustrating things was when the WMDs were not found. I would think they very much thought Iraq constituted a serious threat.

There were several good reasons (depending on how one views things) for the US to invade and occupy Iraq. None of which had to do with Iraq being an imminent threat to the US vis weapons of mass destruction. The problem was that it's sort of against international law to go about preemptively invading sovereign nations. Also, they would need congress to allocate the money for the operation.

They didn't pre-emptively invade it though. Iraq had already violated the Gulf War cease-fire thousands of times prior to the invasion by shooting at American aircraft.

 

[ThomasT]

Why would they have had to know that wasn't true?

Because that's what the intelligence indicated. Of course one might have said at that time that any Middle Eastern Arab-Muslim state represents a potential, even imminent, threat to the US in some sense. But there was no known physical condition that indicated that Iraq posed an imminent massive violent threat to the US and therefore needed to be invaded and occupied for that reason.

President Bush later said one of the most frustrating things was when the WMDs were not found.

Yes, I'm sure that Bush, and Cheney, found that frustrating.

I would think they very much thought Iraq constituted a serious threat.

Insofar as any threat can be called a serious threat, Iraq was a serious threat to the US. Several countries might be perceived as being threats to the US. But the threats, whether real or just imaginary, aren't of imminent violence and don't warrant invading and occupying those countries.

They didn't pre-emptively invade it though. Iraq had already violated the Gulf War cease-fire thousands of times prior to the invasion by shooting at American aircraft.

American aircraft flying over Iraq in Iraqi airspace.

It was a preemptive invasion, part of the reason for which, it's conjectured, was to set a precedent for that sort of thing, though I'm not so sure I believe that (and Gates was certainly against large US troop commitments in distant lands).

Anyway, as I mentioned, there were reasons (other than that Iraq was an imminent threat) to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether those reasons might be considered justification for the invasion and occupation depends on one's position wrt a few issues.

However, Cheney, and the Bush administration, sold the threat of imminent massive violence as the reason for invasion, because that's the sort of reason that makes it 'morally' acceptable to strike first. Ironically, the only real threat of imminent massive violence was that posed by the US.

 

[CAC1001]

American aircraft flying over Iraq in Iraqi airspace.

That was part of the cease-fire agreement. The U.S., UK, and France were to enforce No Fly Zones over Northern and Southern Iraq. This was to protect the Kurds and Shiite Muslims from Hussein.

It was a preemptive invasion, part of the reason for which, it's conjectured, was to set a precedent for that sort of thing, though I'm not so sure I believe that (and Gates was certainly against large US troop commitments in distant lands).

Anyway, as I mentioned, there were reasons (other than that Iraq was an imminent threat) to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether those reasons might be considered justification for the invasion and occupation depends on one's position wrt a few issues.

However, Cheney, and the Bush administration, sold the threat of imminent massive violence as the reason for invasion, because that's the sort of reason that makes it 'morally' acceptable to strike first. Ironically, the only real threat of imminent massive violence was that posed by the US.

They sold it based on the other aspects as well (although WMDs was a part of it), but the media also focused a lot on the WMDs issue.

The last time a nation was allowed by the international community to violate a cease-fire agreement (at least from what I understand) was Adolf Hitler, who then started World War II. Part of the thinking was it would have sent a very wrong message if Hussein had been permitted to continue violating the cease-fire (although I don't know if that constituted an all-out invasion). My understanding also was that Resolution 1441 gave the U.S. the authority to take military action against Hussein.

 

[ThomasT]

I agree with all except this. ...

Ok. Thanks for your informative posts and helpful links.