Seems the Washington press think there are ONLY a handful of people – a select few -who can have answers, solutions or opinions about anything…and they call upon these people time and again to tell the rest of US:
- HOW things should be done
- WHY things should be done
- WHERE things should be done and
- WHEN things should be done.
One of these KNOWLEDGEABLE people is former Vice President Dick Cheney.
I think Cheney is really a Kardashian. Except instead of see-through tops, he wears see-through ideology! I mean, he’s as hungry and eager for the spotlight as any Kardashian – and he will do or say ANYTHING to get in the limelight. Here is one EGOmaniac who will NOT go away quietly – or EVER!
Say what you will about George W. Bush or the elder Bush, they’ve gone away quietly. I admire their graciousness in this regard. Cheney will die – and minutes after his burial – he will be staggering up and down the Washington Mall, chains dragging, looking for some reporter to take a statement. Like we really want to know WHAT hell is like!
Does Dick (darn, his momma named him well) Cheney have nobody, no-one in his circle who can suggest he shuts up! I mean he’s NO Colin Powell. Now here’s a republican I can tolerate…that most people will tolerate. Cheney, good god! (as in Cheney thinks he’s a god). I personally don’t think he deserves a capital G…
So the Veep Wonder was on TV (ABC – 6/22/2014) AGAIN, talking about Iraq. Cheney is criticizing the President for Obama’s stance on Iraq. Host, JONATHAN KARL asked Cheney what HE would do about Iraq and he said, quote:
“I’d recognize that Iraq is not the whole problem. We’ve got a much bigger problem than just the current crisis in Iraq.
The Rand Corporation was out within the last week with a report that showed that there’s been a 58 percent increase in the number of groups like al Qaeda, Salafi jihadists. And it stretches from West Africa all across North Africa, East Africa, through the Middle East, all the way around to Indonesia, a doubling of the number of terrorists out there.
The first thing we have to do is recognize we’ve got a hell of a problem and it’s not just in Iraq. I worry about Pakistan. Just a couple of weeks ago in Pakistan, the Taliban, the same group that we just released five of the leaders from Guantanamo, the Taliban raided Karachi Airport.
Why do I care about that?
Well, Pakistan is unique in that it has a significant inventory of nuclear weapons. We have evidence that the man who built the Pakistani program, AQ Khan, offered up recently and that was that the North Koreans have bribed Pakistani officials for sophisticated technology for enriching uranium and that the North Koreans now have some two — 2,000 centrifuges operating to enrich uranium.
We had North Korea try to provide Syria with a nuclear reactor.
The — the difficulty, the spread of the terrorist organizations is not recognized by the administration. The proliferation of nuclear capability and the possibility that it could fall into the hands of terrorists is not really being addressed at all.
And I appreciate the problems we’ve got in Iraq right now…
…But what I think we need is a broad strategy that lets us address this whole range of issues. And that involves reversing a number of the policies of…the Obama administration.
Host, JONATHAN KARL asked Cheney AGAIN:But let me — let me ask you specifically on Iraq, because that — that’s the crisis confronting us right at this moment.
Would you in — would you take war — you know, air strikes against ISIS? (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria…OR…Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
CHENEY: Well, I — what we should have done in Iraq was…
KARL: No, no, what would you do now?
CHENEY: — leave behind a force — well, what I would do now, John, is, among other things, be realistic about the nature of the threat. When we’re arguing over 300 advisers when the request had been for 20,000 in order to do the job right, I’m not sure we’ve really addressed the problem.
I would definitely be helping the resistance up in Syria, in ISIS’ backyard, with training and weapons and so forth, in order to be able to do a more effective job on that end of the party.
But I think at this point, there are no good, easy answers in Iraq. And, again, I think it’s very important to emphasize that the problem we’re faced with is a much broader one, that we need to — an administration to recognize the fact that we’ve got this huge problem, quit peddling the notion that they — they got core al Qaeda and therefore there’s no problem out there…They’ve got to rebuild trust and relationship with our friends in the region…It’s very important to take a broad gauge approach to it.
Let’s break down Cheney’s answer – because it is way too simple for liberals to understand unless one DECONSTRUCTS his wisdom. So Cheney would:
- Have left a force behind. How long for – ask him! Ask him too about his TENSE. What would you do NOW, as in the PRESENT…but then Cheney CAN’T differentiate between past and present – which is why he still thinks HE is running the country!
- Be realistic about the nature of the threat. The White House thinks ISIS is a game with a pretend Egyptian invasion.
- Instead of arguing over 300 advisers (when the request had been for 20,000 in order to do the job right), let’s just wait until Mr. Cheney IS sure, then perhaps we’ll know if he wants to send 300, 33-hundred or 23-thousand to ADDRESS the problem.
- HE would definitely be helping the resistance up in Syria with training and weapons and so forth. Bravo Mr. Cheney. Now that’s decisive. Training – OK. Weapons – OK. So forth? Is that wriggle room, Mr. Cheney, for things like No-Bid Contracts for your cronies and companies you make lots of money from? Like Halliburton perhaps?
- He admits there are NO good, easy answers in Iraq. You don’t say!
- He wants the administration to recognize that we’ve got this huge problem. Did you know that we’ve got a huge problem in Iraq? Do you think perhaps we should TELL the White House about this big problem in Iraq?
- Cheney would quit peddling the notion that the U.S. got core al Qaeda and therefore there’s no problem out there. Would THAT be before or after he said (about Iraq): “And I think they’re in the — in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency”… OR “Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region”.
Cheney just did not realize to WHOM those benefits would go. Surely these benefits are NOT going to American taxpayers or the soldiers who return with PTSD or their families or to the U.S. economy or to the millions of refugees fleeing their homes in Iraq and Syria. Or does last throes mean to him: just beginning to arise?
If the U.S. bombs ISIL, America comes across as anti-Sunni — and if America moves too openly against Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, the unsatisfactory Nuri al-Maliki, then it is seen as anti-Shiite. WHICH side does Cheney want us to support? On which side does he see America coming out a winner? When he looks through HIS looking glass, where does it foretell a VICTORY? I suppose it would be whichever one can ensure his interests in Halliburton keep bearing juicy oil dividends?
Now I know Cheney is wrong, always thought he was wrong (and maybe you thought so too) but when his very OWN republican colleague – and a likely front-runner for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016 (Rand Paul) says:
“Many of those clamoring for military action now are the same people who made every false assumption imaginable about the cost, challenge and purpose of the Iraq War. They have been wrong for so long, why should we listen to him — listen to them again?”
…don’t you think it is time, BEYOND time, for Dick Kardashian, spotlight hogger, limelight chaser and attentionaholic – to get the hint. Pssst: Cheney! How much clearer can Paul get? Pack up! Go away! Shut up! IRRELEVANT!!!
Photos: Google Images, Reuters and others.