Cheney On Bush: Surprised, Why?

This is sure to be a big deal for the Left and some milquetoast, read purely political, Republicans. But I'm with Joyner here. And if you've studied both men a bit, this shouldn't be a big surprise.

But Cheney’s actually quite right here. As I’ve been arguing for months, Bush’s foreign policy returned to the Realist roots he campaigned on over time. Wolfowitz, Feith, and the gang were gone in 2005 and Rumsfeld followed them in late 2006. Gelman:

Bush got moderate religion in a big way right from the start of his second term when he let Rumsfeld go. From there, it was just one concession after another to the Democrats. I always hoped it was the part of his nature that was so spiritually based. But was it about popularity in the end? I don't know as we'll ever be sure of that.

Bush got softer as he went on, grew more friendly towards the Democrats, too. We know what good that did him. They just shoved it back in his face and doubled down wanting more.

Cheney was correct in advocating strength. And now he's looking at the end of his political career. What's the point of holding back now, especially if he believes the cause is just and as important as it is. Like him or not, disagree, or not - I wouldn't believe he's doing anything that he doesn't feel he's required to do based upon his actual views of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Younger and more healthy, I suspect I would have loved to have him as President. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I don't think I am. It's likely that Bush will always have my respect as a good man and Cheney for being a deeply principled man. There's room for me to accept both without too much criticism. But Bush's softer style in his second term just didn't work. And what works in the end is what matters the most.

How much of this is hype, or PR? Can't say. But I would expect an atypical book from the man, as he has always been about what he thinks is right and saying it straight out. He never worked against Bush while they were in office so far as I know. I'm not going to forget, or undervalue that because of any books now.

Obviously, he thinks some things are important and he's going to speak out. That's always been the Dick Cheney that I've observed. Bush did his best and in many ways it was damned good. But in the end Bush was a nice guy. And he may have wanted to go down in History that way.

Comments

[Ad rem]

Bush chose sides with Condi and the State Dept., leaving Cheney and Rumsfeld out in the cold. In the end, he was his father's son. I think Cheney had just decided to do a little "rino" hunting in his remaining years.

[mark l.]

a tad off topic. but since his name is in the above cite,

let me offer a defense of rumsfeld. (I caught lindsey graham trying to scapegoat him last night, and was furious)

two BIG things rummy got right, that history will vindicate.

1)troop levels in afghanistan, less than 25k.
2)troop levels in Iraq, less than 120-150k.

judging by our 'raging success' that afghanistan has come from 68k in country, with more needed, it is clear rummy understood what could and couldn't be done.

likewise in Iraq, had we had a force of 250-400k, the plan of having Iraqis stand up while we stand down, never experiences the pressure that came about by our lower troop level. If we deployed heavy in anbar, aq forces never alienate the sunnis, which eventually drove them to the US forces.

I'm sorry for the suffering that they experienced, but they would have just had to time to organize and keep themselves seperated from the iraqi govt, until we left.

rumsfeld, imho, was a genius and an excellent student of military history.

[Gina]

It was good to read that at least one leader was actually concerned about the idea of terrorists getting nuclear weapons. If only more of them felt that way. . . .

[Ad rem]

Yep........Rummy was the best.....especially miss his press conferences.....

[mark l.]

critics can, and should point to, the auto-pen death letters, which was a travesty.

along with lindsey graham and his scapegoating, I also level that charge at john mccain.

in the same week of the chattanooga writer questioning body armor, which was an issue that should have been swatted down, immedaitely, mcain was bitching about rummy, while simultaneously stalling a committee so that his pet project of a national boxing commission could addressed.

mcain had his priorites, but equipment in iraq qas not one of them.
boxing and rumsfeld were...

the lindsey graham blow-up over rummy the other night just pointed to how cozy their relationship was.

if dems went after graham, i'd cut em a check tomorrow.

[crosspatch]

Rumsfeld got two things right but troop levels in Iraq wasn't one of them, at least not under the conditions that were allowed to exist right after Baghdad fell. Rumsfeld was right about "transformation" in making of the Army a more modular Brigade Combat Team structure where pieces can be mixed and matched to give the commander the opportunity to configure a force to meet the requirement before him. In the old configuration, a commander had to fight with a more static "division" structure that was preconfigured and harder to change "on the fly". The new configuration is practically designed to be changed on the fly as requirements present themselves. Good move.

Afghanistan: We had a lot of locals that were willing to do much of the fighting against the Taliban. Using SOF as "force multipliers" to make the local forces more effective was a good move. Rumsfeld had the same notion for Iraq but sabotaged himself with moves that alienated much of the potential indigenous security elements. Moves such as the draconian disbanding of the Iraqi Army and a very harsh de-Baathification program meant our forces didn't have anything to multiply. There were no locals to play that role until much later when the Petraeus doctrine came about and the creation of the tribal "awakening" movement. Doing things such as completely changing our interim administration mid-stream with a complete change in people caused more confusion and blew away a window of opportunity we had initially. Rumsfeld shot himself in the foot by not mandating a more structured plan for after Baghdad fell.

He was also quite the control freak and somewhat of a micromanager. Cheney was Rumsfeld's advocate and their relationship went way back to the Ford administration when Cheney was Secretary of the Army under Rumsfeld. At some point it had to become obvious that what the general officers were saying was true and we needed more forces to produce security before any fledgling Iraqi government could be effective and only then could we pull out. Rumsfeld pulled troop levels down too low, too quickly after Baghdad fell. He should have kept the troops moving in for a while to establish general security and then begin pulling them out. I believe it would have been over long ago if the "surge" had immediately followed the fall of Baghdad.

[mark l.]

"Rumsfeld got two things right but troop levels in Iraq wasn't one of them, at least not under the conditions that were allowed to exist right after Baghdad fell."

"from chaos comes order."

like to attribute to nietzche, but really can't be sure...

[thirteen28]

Wait a second ... I thought Cheney was the Sith Lord behind all this, and Bush was just his puppet?

[Ran]

Dan
Reminds me that I voted for Cheney on '04 and Palin in '08.

Cross - "I believe it would have been over long ago if the "surge" had immediately followed the fall of Baghdad." Amen. There was this weird Rovian thing about it - as if they believed that voters would vote Republican in a time of war, and Democrat if that war ended, giving priority to "bread and butter". Worse, the President allowed himself to squish horribly at the same time... "He chose War and got Dishonor", if you catch my drift. I was damned tired of Bush and Rove by '03. Damned tired. And when the Republicans gave us McCain... I knew - KNEW - that McCain was going to vote for TARP.

[mark l.]

"I believe it would have been over long ago if the "surge" had immediately followed the fall of Baghdad."

see, this is where I disagree. the condition for the surge came after the anbar awakening. no support of the sunnis, and the surge does NOT work.

another micro-disaster was the failure to "clear and hold", as we lost easliy 1500 soldeirs retaking ground we had previously held. on macro level though, if we did clear and hold on the first go-around, AQ forces never alienate the sunnis. those soldiers did not die in vain, but the victory had to wait.

in some sense the biden plan was reasonable, because, until the sunnis came to us, the country would have been in grips of a civil war.

the surge was done in coordination with the existing condtions on the ground. a surge post saddam would have been the cooling off period, for a far more organized civil war.

even if petraus came in, and sank the eight ball, he was picking up the table that rumsfeld left him. rummy did oppose the surge, and in that sense, he was incorrect on how long he should have let the pot boil.

[Mr. Sauce]

Like I give a rat's a*s what WaPo, Gawker and Drum think about this man, a true American Patriot. Of course they detest him. Rumsfeld, too.

I'm glad, though, a retired Cheney can still tighten lefty's sphincter. They deserve it for the nonstop bile and slander they've heaped on these two fine men.

Mr. Sauce---a formerly anonymous commenter

[tim maguire]

IMO, Rumsfeld was the right man for the invasion, but the wrong man for the nation building that came next. He didn't want to get into that, but with the speed of collapse of the Iraqi government, it was necessary for us to step up our involvement in a way that he refused to do. It seems clear to me that the success of the surge vindicates the decision to remove Rumsfeld.

As for Bush, he was the right man to fight terrorism, but the wrong man for much else that goes into being president. His refusal to defend his program from its many detractors did him, the Republicans and conservatism serious harm. If I had to choose one or the other, then I choose Bush, but if that choice was necessary, then it's our loss.

After the Bush years, Republicans had no choice but to run a RINO like McCain. It wasn't enough and probably would not have been enough even if he hadn't run a disasterous campaign, but I still think he was the Republican's best bet. Bush created the conditions for Obama.

[Ad rem]

Bush was pro-immigration. That was the nail in the coffin for me.

[anon]

I agree that Rumsfeld was right about retooling the military to be able to more quickly respond to events that weren't full scale wars with fewer troops.

But, the Iraq plan was a disaster from the beginning. If they had stuck with the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force when conducting a war who knows how things would have turned out?

[Ran]

"no support of the Sunnis, and the surge does NOT work."

Mark, sure... but were the Sunnis not waiting to see the Yanks actually seize control and act like victors? The "awakening" - would this not have happened much sooner? Anyway, I hear your take on it.

[mark l.]

"Bush was pro-immigration."
cough...john mccain...cough...lindsey graham-nesty...cough...

"but were the Sunnis not waiting to see the Yanks actually seize control and act like victors?"

absolutely, it was a component, but watching their tribal members/leaders getting their heads cut off, certainly 'helped', as well. we had nothing in common until aq showed up. i won't say it was all part of the plan, but winds of war and luck are intangibles, as well.

[Ad rem]

Bush, McCain, Graham......all run with the same herd. Interesting to hear McCain now singing Palin's praises. Wondering if he's reading the tea leaves? Do they drink a lot of tea in Arizona?

[syn]

"the condition for the surge came after the anbar awakening. no support of the sunnis, and the surge does NOT work."

I have to agree with this assessment. I am under the belief that more troops in Iraq under the rules of engagement established prior to Gen Petreaus formulation the COIN plan would have meant MORE deaths of American soldiers.

Prior to Petreaus COIN plan the troops were basically cleaning out the bad guys then leaving the area for the bad guys to retake.

Petreaus spent 2003-2004 in Iraq then returned to the States and begin to formulate the plan 2004-2005 after which was then implemented.

One further point, the 'surge' of troops was really not a 'surge' of more troops, the number of troops were about the same number of troops when Iraq was initially entered.

What was the effective and successful turning point in Iraq was changing the rules of engagement rather than a 'surge' of more troops.

[syn]

"the Iraq plan was a disaster from the beginning. If they had stuck with the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force when conducting a war who knows how things would have turned out?"

Recall however, that at the very last minute Turkey reneged on their promise to allow troops to enter Iraq from the north, therefore the Powell doctrine of using overwhelming force plan was null and void by circumstance beyond our control.

An entire battalion was unable to be inserted thus entirely changing the plan and altering any intended outcome.

[WestWright]

Good discussion on VP Cheney and Rummie, both great leaders and Americans. Screw the loony left, they don't know nothin'! I wonder if the 4th Armored Division coming from Turkey and securing Western Iraq early on would not have made a difference in the roll out of Al Queda, especially with the Syria border wide open. Also the hands off Syrian interference as well as harboring was a big mistake.

[JadedByPolitics]

Loved Rumsfeld and respect Cheney more than Bush. I agree that Bush in the end took the weasels way out either for popularity or because he was that awful "compassionate" conservative. It really doesn't matter why he washed out but he ruined the GOP because he refused to defend himself. I will not remember him in the future fondly though I believe history will record a success in both Iraq and Afghanistan with regards to crushing the Taliban.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Yes, Bush was a nice guy. He was firm after 9-11 and I will always remember that. Laura was one of the most Gracious first Lady's we have ever have also.
I never had anything against Cheney. He is and was then a very very experienced man. He knew the ropes.
Rummy is and was a good man, too, in my opinion. He ended up being the fall guy because of all the people against the war. That is a shame, as he was so funny and had a great personality when he gave press conferences. He never got mad or lost his temper.
Conservatives are just too damn nice.
I have always heard you have to fight fire with fire if you are going to get results. I think we are beginning to see that a lot now at a lot of these town hall meetings. I hope the thugs don't scare them into not going the meetings anymore, however. That is what they want.
GO GET EM GUYS AND GIRLS. STAND UP TO THE THUGS AND FIGHT FOR AMERICA !
Read Mark Levin's book. Then you will get a better idea of what is going on. I did. It was a good read.
I only hope that some nut case does not turn anything into someone getting killed. That is my only concern. If something like that happens it will be playing into Obama and companies hands. He would love to declare Martial Law...don't ya know.
GOD BLESS AMERICA !

[mark l.]

my biggest "what if" would have the be whether the UN contigent doesn't get blown up...

we might have seen 200k+ international forces.

my theory is that had that occurred, iraq would fracture as different countries would play favorites, in an effort to get oil leases.

so the violence in iraq would have been quelled, with constant border skimishes among the three factions, and eventually the country splits, with the shia joining southern iraq to iran.

looking at the lessons of kosovo, with the french supporting milosevic, after the invasion, leads me to believe that meddling, especially with oil at stake, would have been massive.

the un food for oil program? all the players would just get cozier with the corruption and the world would have picked the iraqis clean, with an international force overseeing the looting.

[Any]

It's hard for me to picture having more respect for people than I have for Cheney and Bush, greatly admire Rumsfeld too. If they have a differences in opinions, even severe ones, so what? That's life. They both stood tough in the face of outrageous slander and through dark times. No crying in dinners (HRC), or "man, can't I just eat my waffles" moments for them. Toward the end, when it would have increased Bush's popularity to announce even a distant date for with drawing from Iraq, he refused, he didn't want to give even the slightest hope for an enemy that might hunker down. I disagree with some of his policies, but many of the deals he made with dems helped keep the war funded.

With good intentions, no doubt, we often just sit on the sidelines and comment with the benefit of hindsight. God bless em all.

[tally]

I tend to think it's all a bunch of hype, or PR. I agree with Any, I respect all three of them. Of course they had differences, but they all acted like professionals. Romney stayed a little too long and Cheney is just Cheney. In Bush's defense, he had a Democrat congress the last two years and NO help from other Republicans. All three were great Americans and I thank them for their service.

[mark l.]

"NO help from other Republicans"...
amen.

we had hardcore fiscal conservatives in the party, and they got frozen out of leadership spots, from 02-06.

even if they win in 2010, they'll be frozen out again. forget contract with america...i have my own contract with the gop. unless you can guarantee actual fiscal conservatives will get the leadership posts, i will not support you in 2010.

obama and the dems are doing an exquisite job in destroying every ounce of credibility within the democrat party, and to replace them with the fruads of the gop is just not something I will support.

[Ad rem]

"even if they win in 2010, they'll be frozen out again. forget contract with america...i have my own contract with the gop. unless you can guarantee actual fiscal conservatives will get the leadership posts, i will not support you in 2010."

I'll second that emotion!

[norton]

Between he and G. Dub, Cheney would have made the better president of the two.

I've read much lately about the figurative lynching of Miguel Estrada by the immoral left. A real president would have taken that fight to the American people, and won. I can see Cheney taking on that challenge.

[Nellie]

Do I remember Rummy fondly? Yes, every time I hear someone ask and answer their own questions, just like Rumsfeld taught them to do in his press conferences.
Do I think Cheney will slam Bush? I rather think that he will slam the tar out of the media for their role in undermining the administration, the war, and more. I hope he's drawing them in with the hope of juicy Bush-bashing, only to unload on them at close range. But if he was disappointed in Bush the last few years, well, he's far from alone.