Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance

(1)One man's chicken-hawk, is another man's simple patriot. There is a group that thinks we shouldn't be involved in ground wars in Asia. There's others who think we must take some military action when our nation is attacked, otherwise you look pretty much the paper tiger. The attack on September 11th, 2001 was of a level that I supported the ground war.

There are a few problems here...

It's much easier to spill the blood of other actual warriors in the name of personal glory. I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's quote: "Speak softly and carry a big stick"; Not the recklessness we witnessed in both Afghanistan and Iraq in order to smash the "Paper Tiger" caricature. Moreover, to what noble end did our warriors fight, bleed, and die? Our primary objectives changed almost immediately.

What were the facts? Our nation was not attacked by either sovereign nation on 9/11, yet the Bush-Cheney Axis first blamed and attacked a backwards Afghanistan for OBL, and then by inference, Iraq.

Based on the initial information the American public was led to believe, the apprehension of OBL and to "punish" Afghanistan was Mission #1, and elimination of imminent threat of WMD in Iraq was Mission #2. If took six months for GW Bush to tire of searching for OBL, while "WMD" quickly and seamlessly became "Nation Building." Frankly, in neither case was a prolonged Ground War warranted. We were waging unnecessary wars for unwinnable reasons. You and others may well oppose what now appears to have been a waste of sweat, blood, and life -- a dog-fight all for naught; The embarrassing thing is that this would be true in any case -- regardless of whether Bush were still President, or the current Marxist traitor.

As to 0bama's push to feminize and hog-tie the military with absurd suicidal RoE policies, it is of course true; But I'm afraid the seeds of these same policies had begun under GW Bush. That said, of course 0bama's goal is and has always been to embarrass America. We have embarrassed ourselves by allowing him to become President, then re-elected.

(2) I have mixed thoughts on the Military Industrial Complex. Our suppliers make lots of money. They don't always do the best job, or provide the best tools for your men. We do need them. I think they could be managed better. There are going to be advocates on their behalf....Cheney made a lot of money working for Haliburton. I believe it was in the neighborhood of $20 million per year. On the one hand we want capable people in the White House, and on the other we get upset if they make too much money because they are so qualified. I happen to think Cheney had the most gravitas of any vice president we've ever had...

"Gravitas," yes. Arrogance? Yes. Respect for the Constitution, life, and fighting a righteous war out of genuine security and concern for America? No.

Moreover, I'd rather MY son not be used as a pawn for keeping the military sharp just because he volunteered to "keep America safe." Btw, do you remember seeing those shrink-wrapped palettes of cash just sitting around in Iraq? Inevitably, Iraq soon became an expensive sloppy op with a muddled objective. I had a major problem with a sitting VP profiteering on this war. That is a direct conflict of interest. Had it been Biden instead of Cheney on the board of a defense contractor, how would you feel? I can tell you I'd be outraged.

(3)Cheney hasn't just started doing things I haven't liked. I thought the idea to allow Islamic Clerics to officiate at the 09/11 memorials was absolutely unforgivable...Somewhere along the line, these clueless bastard missed the part about terrorism, and sensitivity to families. They also got so confused, they thought decent hard working U. S. Citizens (grandmas included) were the ones who needed to be rousted at the airports.

Yes, sure, Cheney played into the open border situation too. It's devistating what has happened to our nation at the hands of the Left in both parties.

Isn't that just it? The Devil is in the details with Cheney.

(4)Part of the Patriot Act is being gamed against us. They ramroded through new super-powers, and those powers are being used on citizens, NOT TERRORISTS. It's infuriating. We shouldn't have to wonder who is listening in on our converstations. They can put saran wrap on it and call it anything they want, it's still a s--t sandwich for U. S. Citizens.

I'm not so sure all of the past several years of obtrusiveness in the name of "liberty and security" hasn't been by design. Afterall, the Patriot Act was written while Bubba Klinton was still President. And IF that is the case, Bush and Cheney bear some responsibility. As Ricky used to say to Lucy," You've got some 'splain' to do!" Except all we've heard from either is SUPPORT of 0bama's NSA.

(5) I'm not a big fan of the CFR, but I don't get as worked up over them as others do. It used to be folks were really upset that Kissinger was a puppet of the "Blank" family. (insert family name here, I'm drawing a blank at the moment)....

Kissinger IS a puppet :-) The problem with the CFR: Its goal and mission is clearly NOT in the best interest of nationalism and US Sovereignty, but in the interest of global interests. It runs anathema to US interests. Thus when you add up the ledger, it place both Cheney and the CFR in the red -- Trojan Horse enemies of America, US sovereignty, AND the Constitution. Meanwhile, 0bama represents the other side of the same Statist mask that hopes to bury the USA.

How exactly do you outlaw a religion? I take it you’re not what we would call a strict constitutionalist.

History and reading the Koran should clarify once and for all that a Death Cult is not only anathema to the US Constitution, but its adherents enemies of We The People as well as the US Constitution.

And why pretend conversion by the sword as a solemn Muslim duty doesn't exist? Our very survival depends on noting the obvious. Are you at all familiar with Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours?

If Cheney (who I once admired) was so concerned with keeping us safe why did he not secure our freakin’ border?

That's the conundrum for anyone whose intellectual honesty and logic kicks in.

Oh please. I support the U.S. Constitution. And proposing the outlawing of a religion is anathema to the Constitution.

Your solution to a group who supposedly wants to destroy the constitution is to... well... destroy the constitution. A pity your logical train of thought isn’t picking up on that.

(1)One man's chicken-hawk, is another man's simple patriot. There is a group that thinks we shouldn't be involved in ground wars in Asia. There's others who think we must take some military action when our nation is attacked, otherwise you look pretty much the paper tiger. The attack on September 11th, 2001 was of a level that I supported the ground war.

There are a few problems here... Okay, let's go...

It's much easier to spill the blood of other actual warriors in the name of personal glory. I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's quote: "Speak softly and carry a big stick"; Not the recklessness we witnessed in both Afghanistan and Iraq in order to smash the "Paper Tiger" caricature. Moreover, to what noble end did our warriors fight, bleed, and die? Our primary objectives changed almost immediately.

Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with your questions. I detect that we see it differently, but I don't think you're way off base with your emphasis. We shouldn't send our troops off to die or be injuried needlessly. We shouldn't be reckless when we send our troops into harms way. I'm not convinced Hussein was a paper tiger. I do think he had needed to go for over a decade. His day finally came. Our primary objectives did change. I doubt these are the first wars where they did. What were our initial objectives in WWI and WWII? As a matter of fact, it was to stay out of them. That didn't work.

I would submit today, we don't avoid wars we think are going to have to be fought eventually anyway. What should the response to 09/11/2001 have been?

Should we have blustered and backed off? Did that work in the acts of terrorism perpetrated under Clinton? Did the fact that were weren't conducting hostile actions in 2001, spare us attack by terrorists? No. It seems to me we were obligated to respond.

Some folks think we should have gone after a different nation, because it's nationals played more heavily in the terrorism on our soil. That's a rather rational observation, but I think there is a case to be made for not hitting that nation hard too. Is there more to be gained by going after two other known terrorist groups, and allowing the leadership of the other nation to take care of it's own? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I remain unconvinced that removal of that nation's leadership would have created a more stable reliable Middle-East partner in the aftermath of such an eventuality.

I personally thought going after Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban was the way to go. My only problem with going after the Taliban, was that Obama inherited the operation and immediately sought to undercut our ability to win there.

Hussein had been blustering, breaking no-fly zones, and offering rewards to terrorists. He bragged about being an enemy of the U. S. Prior to the war, nobody believed Husseing didn't have WMDs. Even the U. N. was certain he did, because he wouldn't cooperate with their inspectors. That's a pretty big admission for them.

What were the facts? Our nation was not attacked by either sovereign nation on 9/11, yet the Bush-Cheney Axis first blamed and attacked a backwards Afghanistan for OBL, and then by inference, Iraq.

Well, it seems to me Osam Bin Laden's network was integral to the Afghanistan region. I'm not sure why you seem to disagree. I believe he moved back and forth from Afghanistan to Pakistan when he desired to. He was probably holed up in Pakistan for years, but I don't think that was his only field of operation.

Did the U. S. actually attack Afghanistan? Didn't we attack terrorist operations inside Afghanistan? I may be wrong on this. If so, set me straight. At some point the leadership changed, at least I believe it did. Were we involved in that, or am I confusing the Pakistan leadership's change? Bush/Cheney Axis? :^)

Based on the initial information the American public was led to believe, the apprehension of OBL and to "punish" Afghanistan was Mission #1, and elimination of imminent threat of WMD in Iraq was Mission #2. If took six months for GW Bush to tire of searching for OBL, while "WMD" quickly and seamlessly became "Nation Building." Frankly, in neither case was a prolonged Ground War warranted. We were waging unnecessary wars for unwinnable reasons. You and others may well oppose what now appears to have been a waste of sweat, blood, and life -- a dog-fight all for naught; The embarrassing thing is that this would be true in any case -- regardless of whether Bush were still President, or the current Marxist traitor.

I believe the initial goal was to deal with Laden and take out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. As Laden proved to be more elusive, the U. S. de-emphasized Laden. It was a means of eliminating the down-side of not capturing him as soon as we would have liked. I don't think Bush tired of looking for him. I believe he had his men in the background turning over every rock they could to find him. Any comments by Bush to the contrary, I dismiss out of hand. The was pure propaganda IMO.

As a strategist, do you honestly think we should have left Hussein in power, or simply left after taking him out so the vaccum left would be filled by what could become the strongest enemy of our nation? I think we handled it about right, except for the delay in implementing the right policies. That took way too long. I do give Bush credit for shaking up operations and getting things on track. I criticize Bush plenty around these parts, so I'm not going to carry water for him if I think he's wrong. With regard to these war efforts, I support him.

As for your comment that this couldn't have been run better by Bush over Obama, look what happened in Iraq vs Afghanistan. Iraq isn't perfect, but it's a damn site better than it was under Hussein. We have decent relations there. We had none before the war. There is a modicum of stability.

As to 0bama's push to feminize and hog-tie the military with absurd suicidal RoE policies, it is of course true; But I'm afraid the seeds of these same policies had begun under GW Bush. That said, of course 0bama's goal is and has always been to embarrass America. We have embarrassed ourselves by allowing him to become President, then re-elected.

I am much more comfortable with this version of what has taken place than the one you made just prior above.

(2) I have mixed thoughts on the Military Industrial Complex. Our suppliers make lots of money. They don't always do the best job, or provide the best tools for your men. We do ne ed them. I think they could be managed better. There are going to be advocates on their behalf....Cheney made a lot of money working for Haliburton. I believe it was in the neighborhood of $20 million per year. On the one hand we want capable people in the White House, and on the other we get upset if they make too much money because they are so qualified. I happen to think Cheney had the most gravitas of any vice president we've ever had...

"Gravitas," yes. Arrogance? Yes. Respect for the Constitution, life, and fighting a righteous war out of genuine security and concern for America? No.

I disagree with that. I am not of a mind to allow an attack on the U. S. like 09/11/01, and not take strong decisive action. It's simply impossible to claim that there was no terrorist presence in Iraq. We spent the better part of three years taking out terrorists. Many came from outside the nation, but many came from inside it too. In time things leveled out, and a semblence of peaceful routine came out of it. Even if you wish to make the claim that peace didn't come out of it, we were able to eliminate tens of thousands of hot-head terrorist types along the way. It was like drawing bugs to a light on a warm summer evening. And when they came out, we zapped them. All good.I'm not going to make the case that everyone who re-upped in Iraq wanted to do so. Over and over and over again I see men who were darned proud of their efforts and achievements in Iraq. IMO< That really isn't reflected in your comments that take Bush/Cheney to task for putting our men in harms way. These guys thought we were making headway. They didn't want to leave before the job was done. By the end in Iraq, they thought their job pretty much was done. That's good enough for me.

Moreover, I'd rather MY son not be used as a pawn for keeping the military sharp just because he volunteered to "keep America safe." Btw, do you remember seeing those shrink-wrapped palettes of cash just sitting around in Iraq? Inevitably, Iraq soon became an expensive sloppy op with a muddled objective. I had a major problem with a sitting VP profiteering on this war. That is a direct conflict of interest. Had it been Biden instead of Cheney on the board of a defense contractor, how would you feel? I can tell you I'd be outraged.

To some extent every kid in the service has been involved in some operations that are dangerous, but may not be expressly keeping our nation safe. It's a periferal operation, and sometimes kids get killed. That doesn't mean it wasn't in protection of our nation overall. You shouldn't look at it as if your kid is being exposed to danger for no good reason.

Extending our presence "over there" is a valid exercise. Our men that served in Germany, South Korea, and other places weren't necessarily protecting the United States at the time, but they were serving the interests of our nation by discouraging conflicts from starting that could have flared into new regional or global conflicts.

Cheney was given a $33.7 million dollar package when he quit to run with Bush on the Republican ticket. Cheney sold $30 million of that stock because a stink came of it.There's something going on here that bothers me. When Biden dumps on the military and our corporate agents involved in our war opperations we get pissed off because we don't think he understands what's at stake, or even the players involved. Along come someone on our own team that does, and guess what, that's a crime too. It's borders the absurd the dislike of Cheney.

I can understand the Left coming down on this like they do, but our side? Sorry, but there are some guys on the right who have bought off lock stock and barrel on the Leftist dogma regarding Cheney. I'm not going to do it.

(3)Cheney hasn't just started doing things I haven't liked. I thought the idea to allow Islamic Clerics to officiate at the 09/11 memorials was absolutely unforgivable...Somewhere along the line, these clueless bastard missed the part about terrorism, and sensitivity to families. They also got so confused, they thought decent hard working U. S. Citizens (grandmas included) were the ones who needed to be rousted at the airports.

Yes, sure, Cheney played into the open border situation too. It's devistating what has happened to our nation at the hands of the Left in both parties.

Isn't that just it? The Devil is in the details with Cheney.

I agree with that. There's no gray area here. Our laws should have been enforced, and the Bush/Cheney administration didn't follow their Constitutional Oath.

(4)Part of the Patriot Act is being gamed against us. They ramroded through new super-powers, and those powers are being used on citizens, NOT TERRORISTS. It's infuriating. We shouldn't have to wonder who is listening in on our converstations. They can put saran wrap on it and call it anything they want, it's still a s--t sandwich for U. S. Citizens.

I'm not so sure all of the past several years of obtrusiveness in the name of "liberty and security" hasn't been by design. Afterall, the Patriot Act was written while Bubba Klinton was still President. And IF that is the case, Bush and Cheney bear some responsibility. As Ricky used to say to Lucy," You've got some 'splain' to do!" Except all we've heard from either is SUPPORT of 0bama's NSA.

I agree with that. I don't think the Patriot Act was a good idea. I don't like what is going on in our airports. IMO, we should cut back almost all of that. Profile people, do whatever you have to do. Get folks who are threats out of this nation. Then let our citizens go about their business without the East German tactics. Bush and Cheney played into the hands of civil rights abridgers IMO.

(5) I'm not a big fan of the CFR, but I don't get as worked up over them as others do. It used to be folks were really upset that Kissinger was a puppet of the "Blank" family. (insert family name here, I'm drawing a blank at the moment)....

Kissinger IS a puppet :-) The problem with the CFR: Its goal and mission is clearly NOT in the best interest of nationalism and US Sovereignty, but in the interest of global interests. It runs anathema to US interests. Thus when you add up the ledger, it place both Cheney and the CFR in the red -- Trojan Horse enemies of America, US sovereignty, AND the Constitution. Meanwhile, 0bama represents the other side of the same Statist mask that hopes to bury the USA.

I'm not sure I'd term it Obama on the other side of the same statist mask hoping to take the U. S. down. That guy wants an Islamic run United States. As bad as I think the globalists are, I think an Islamic state is worse.

I think you have grounds to give me some grief over my response in this area. I am extremely anti-globalist, and it's fair to point out that the CFR, Bilderbergers and others are certainly globalist concerns. So I shouldn't have said I am not as concerned with these entities as I used to be.

I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of my innermost thoughts on them, and I shouldn't have said that.

Nationalism can be good. If we return to our values as a nation, our nation is the solid rock the world relies on. That cannot happen under globalism. So I shun globalism and cling to loyalty to the United States. I will oppose a North American Union with my dying breath.

Thanks for the comments.

Oh please. I support the U.S. Constitution. And proposing the outlawing of a religion is anathema to the Constitution.

Your solution to a group who supposedly wants to destroy the constitution is to... well... destroy the constitution. A pity your logical train of thought isn’t picking up on that.

You're not fooling anyone here. The vast majority of muslims currently in the USA came here from somewhere else. If they became naturalized citizens, they were required to take an oath similar to the following:

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

If they did not become naturalized citizens, they came to the USA on some sort of visa, and some rules of behavior apply. If they don't like the way our government is structured, they can just leave or be sent away.

In neither case are they granted the right to subvert the US Constitution or our system of laws and justice.

Such intent at subversion by immigrants amounts to illegal infiltration, or invasion, and our Constitution and laws do have provisions for repelling or ejecting such groups, although our current laws pertaining to such are not being enforced.

For US citizens who join such a subversive group, there are separate laws that pertain to their actions.

Enforcing the US Constitional provisions for repelling invasions, or enforcing our existing laws, does not destroy the US Constitution.

Nothing that I’m aware of unless having an opinion different from the herd is a disease.

?

I choose none of the above.

One man's chicken-hawk, is another man's simple patriot. There is a group that thinks we shouldn't be involved in ground wars in Asia. There's others who think we must take some military action when our nation is attacked, otherwise you look pretty much the paper tiger. The attack on September 11th, 2001 was of a level that I supported the ground war. I didn't care for how it was executed in the early years, but they did turn things around in due course in Iraq, and I think that was about as much as we could hope for.

Since Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, I don't follow your logic as to why the terrorist attacks warranted a ground war and 10 year occupation of Iraq. The bottom line is, "shock and awe" wouldn't have worked in Afghanistan on account of the terrain. The Bush administration needed to show the people that it was doing something, so Iraq became a convenient scapegoat. They basically banked on the fact that the general public doesn't understand the differences between Shia and Sunni, between secular despots and Islamists, and so forth.

I don't believe Cheney advocated for a ground war based on his idea that his old buddies would make lots of money if there were one. Others may disagree.

I think this is just a case of your cutting slack for somebody because he happens to have an "R" rather than a "D" next to his name. If a Democratic VP had such close ties with a military contractor that got filthy rich from a war of dubious value, would you think the same?

Cheney hasn't just started doing things I haven't liked. I thought the idea to allow Islamic Clerics to officiate at the 09/11 memorials was absolutely unforgivable.

Bush and his people have always had close business and political connections with the House of Saud. Hence the Muslim clerics at the memorial, hence the smarmy "Islam is a religion of peace speech" by Bush. Remember those photos of Bush holding hands with the Saudi King? People were rightly outraged to see Obama bow before the Saudi royals, but Bush's actions were just as despicable. Ironically, in terms of culpability for 9/11, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more plausible target than Iraq!

As for post 9/11 immigration, Bush/Cheney were basically on the same page of the issue as Democrats from the get-go (as unfortunately are otherwise promising Republicans like Rand Paul).

Part of the Patriot Act is being gamed against us. They ramroded through new super-powers, and those powers are being used on citizens, NOT TERRORISTS. It's infuriating. We shouldn't have to wonder who is listening in on our converstations. They can put saran wrap on it and call it anything they want, it's still a s--t sandwich for U. S. Citizens.

Once again, why is it that conservatives are only beginning to be outraged by the Patriot Act and its implications when it's under a Democrat's watch? It was a bad idea under a GOP President, and it's a bad idea now.

The bottom line is, Cheney and the Bush administration represent the worst of what the GOP had to offer. "Compassionate conservatism" was simply statist leftism light, with some patriotic rhetoric thrown in as red meat to keep the peanut gallery happy. It was a rotten mix in 2000, and we've been served the same rotten package in every Presidential election as a fake "alternative" to the Democrats' policies.

Nothing makes me happier than to see people start to realize that liberalism and statism is the enemy even when it comes wrapped in a Republican package. People are waking up to the fact that "compassionate conservatism" was just good old fashioned cronyism and statism sugar-coated with some patriotic rhetoric.

Rand Paul and his ilk have a lot of faults, but he represents the grassroots Republicans that reject the faux conservatism of the Cheneys, Bushes, and Roves.

The surveillance is fine so long as overseen by people of honor. Problem is we have ZERO trust for our current “leaders”.

The surveillance is fine so long as overseen by people of honor. Problem is we have ZERO trust for our current “leaders”.

Bottom line is, don't give power to your political friends if you don't want your political enemies to wield it a few years later.

Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, we haven't had "people of honor" occupying the WH or coming anywhere close to doing so since 1989.

One man's chicken-hawk, is another man's simple patriot. There is a group that thinks we shouldn't be involved in ground wars in Asia. There's others who think we must take some military action when our nation is attacked, otherwise you look pretty much the paper tiger. The attack on September 11th, 2001 was of a level that I supported the ground war. I didn't care for how it was executed in the early years, but they did turn things around in due course in Iraq, and I think that was about as much as we could hope for.

Since Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, I don't follow your logic as to why the terrorist attacks warranted a ground war and 10 year occupation of Iraq. The bottom line is, "shock and awe" wouldn't have worked in Afghanistan on account of the terrain. The Bush administration needed to show the people that it was doing something, so Iraq became a convenient scapegoat. They basically banked on the fact that the general public doesn't understand the differences between Shia and Sunni, between secular despots and Islamists, and so forth.

Saddam Hussein had been the most visible world leader advocating terrorism against the U. S. That alone garanteed him attention after the attacks. His history of invading his neighbors, threatening to do vile things to the U. S., and offering rewards for attacking Israel made him a prime target. U. N. inspectors themselves believed Hussien to have WMDs. They were frustrated with his lack of cooperation with inspections. He was breaking the no-fly zones regularly. He was moving troops up to the Saudi border and back, causing concern he planned another invasion of a neighbor. If he had pulled a Moahmar Kadaffi, I doubt he would have been taken out. He didn't. He was taken out.

I don't see this as a matter of "a convenient scapegoat" at all. The U. S. was entering the region to address the issue of terrorism. It decided it was in our best interest to eradicate Hussien, and get his nation on an even keel before leaving. Bush/Cheney didn't ramrod this down everyone's throat. There was a fairly broad consensus that this needed to be done. Our government, the governments of other nations, and the U. N. (reluctantly) agreed that something had to be done, and this was it.

I don't see the general public's understanding of Shia vs Sunni to be the big determining factor here. I don't see the difference between secular despots and Islamists to be either. Hussein was taken out because he made the case that he was anit-U. S. enough to do it grave harm. We weren't going to take a pass on him a second time.

Please tell me what you think we should have done post 09/11/2001. What actions would you have taken? How would they have given us a better more stable anti-terrorism situation?

I don't believe Cheney advocated for a ground war based on his idea that his old buddies would make lots of money if there were one. Others may disagree.

I think this is just a case of your cutting slack for somebody because he happens to have an "R" rather than a "D" next to his name. If a Democratic VP had such close ties with a military contractor that got filthy rich from a war of dubious value, would you think the same?

As I said to another poster, some of our folks get very upset when Biden exhibits anti-military tendencies and a failed grasp of our military needs. In steps a capable man who came from that culture, and we get upset about that too. What the hell is wrong with Cheney? Good Lord, this sounds like Democrat Underground stuff. Cheney got $33.7 million in Haliburton stock when he left. Due to the press slamming him constantly, he sold $30.0 million of it before running on the Bush ticket. He gave up a $20 million per year job to earn something like $150 thousand a year. Even this isn't enough to aleviate concern. Now I'm supposed to loathe the guy because he had friends at Haliburton. Good fricken grief! Military contractors make profits off of wars. Is that something we should eliminate? Should we nationalize the military suppliers and logistical contract groups? Should we run it like the Post Office? Sorry, count me out on that.

Cheney hasn't just started doing things I haven't liked. I thought the idea to allow Islamic Clerics to officiate at the 09/11 memorials was absolutely unforgivable.

Bush and his people have always had close business and political connections with the House of Saud. Hence the Muslim clerics at the memorial, hence the smarmy "Islam is a religion of peace speech" by Bush. Remember those photos of Bush holding hands with the Saudi King? People were rightly outraged to see Obama bow before the Saudi royals, but Bush's actions were just as despicable. Ironically, in terms of culpability for 9/11, Saudi Arabia would have been a much more plausible target than Iraq!

Except for one thing, Saudi Arabia has been a stable pro-Western nation. We attack it and heaven only knows what emerges from the rubble. I realize that the Wahabbi sect is very anti-Western and it is dominant in S. A. None the less, the leadership has worked with us many times over the years. They have moderated their people's actions. What would happen if a very strict Wahabbi cleric were to gain control of the nation?

My big problem is allowing upwards of 30,000 Saudi students to be on our soil at any given time. We've seen what 19 of them did. Bush wouldn't have had to fire a single shot at Saudi Arabia, to reduce it's threat to us significantly. Instead I believe we actually increased the number of Saudi students who could come here at one time. That's my big beef when it comes to our dealings with Saudi Arabia.

As for post 9/11 immigration, Bush/Cheney were basically on the same page of the issue as Democrats from the get-go (as unfortunately are otherwise promising Republicans like Rand Paul).

I agree, and it makes me furious.

Part of the Patriot Act is being gamed against us. They ramroded through new super-powers, and those powers are being used on citizens, NOT TERRORISTS. It's infuriating. We shouldn't have to wonder who is listening in on our converstations. They can put saran wrap on it and call it anything they want, it's still a s--t sandwich for U. S. Citizens.

Once again, why is it that conservatives are only beginning to be outraged by the Patriot Act and its implications when it's under a Democrat's watch? It was a bad idea under a GOP President, and it's a bad idea now.

Many people including myself were not all that thrilled with the Patriot Act. I have been against the 'East German like' airports we have turned them all into. We basically have McDonald's rejects running security, and put a happy face on it. Idiotic. And we're wondering why good judgment isn't exhibited. While we expected the Patriot Act to be abused, it wasn't until recently that we have had the level to which it was revealed. Of course folks are going to raise holy hell over it. They should.

None of us were thrilled with developing powers another 'Clinton' could exploit.

The bottom line is, Cheney and the Bush administration represent the worst of what the GOP had to offer. "Compassionate conservatism" was simply statist leftism light, with some patriotic rhetoric thrown in as red meat to keep the peanut gallery happy. It was a rotten mix in 2000, and we've been served the same rotten package in every Presidential election as a fake "alternative" to the Democrats' policies.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I reluctantly did in 2004. I saw Bush for what he was in minutes. There was no way I wanted that ass in charge of our borders or the rest of our nation. Sadly, we're presented with worse and catastrophic every four years these days. I don't think Bush was the very worst. He was certainly bad enough.I agree with your conclusion. Where we differ is what do you do if someone attacks your nation? Do you weigh the options and essentially do nothing? Do you attack an old friend and potentially make things worse? Do you go to areas where there is a known anti-U. S. leader and remove him? Do you attack known terrorist networks that have been causing problems globally, and training to do even more damage?

I am not convinced we got it wrong.

Except for one thing, Saudi Arabia has been a stable pro-Western nation. We attack it and heaven only knows what emerges from the rubble. I realize that the Wahabbi sect is very anti-Western and it is dominant in S. A. None the less, the leadership has worked with us many times over the years. They have moderated their people's actions. What would happen if a very strict Wahabbi cleric were to gain control of the nation?

The Saudis talk out of both sides of their mouths. Their rulers probably don't care much about religion at all, but they are willing to exploit it and to pander to the Wahhabi imams.

So if there's an Islamic jihad anywhere overseas, be it southeast Asia, central Asia, and Africa, the Saudi government sends money and arms to the fighters to show the Wahhabi imams and the pious majority that they're "one of them."

So they present a pro-Western face to the American government and an Islamist face to their own people.

As for Iraq, the bottom line is that there was no Al Quaeda there prior to the war. Now there is. Just as Libya became an Al Quaeda stronghold after Obama decided to support the "Arab Spring" uprising. The desire to spread "democracy" in the Middle East by overthrowing secular dictators and replacing them with who knows what is a program that Obama inherited from the Bush administration and intensified.

To answer your question about what I would have done post 9/11, I supported going after Al Quaeda strongholds and their Taliban enablers in Afghanistan - the people culpable directly or indirectly for the 9/11 attacks. I do not support a decade-long occupation with "nation building" schemes, nor was I or anyone else ever shown any reliable evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. If anything, organizations like Al Quaeda were more than happy to see Hussein (and later Qaddafi) go, and would like nothing more than to see us back the rebels in Syria against Assad.

As I said to another poster, some of our folks get very upset when Biden exhibits anti-military tendencies and a failed grasp of our military needs. In steps a capable man who came from that culture, and we get upset about that too. What the hell is wrong with Cheney? Good Lord, this sounds like Democrat Underground stuff. Cheney got $33.7 million in Haliburton stock when he left. Due to the press slamming him constantly, he sold $30.0 million of it before running on the Bush ticket. He gave up a $20 million per year job to earn something like $150 thousand a year. Even this isn't enough to aleviate concern. Now I'm supposed to loathe the guy because he had friends at Haliburton. Good fricken grief! Military contractors make profits off of wars. Is that something we should eliminate? Should we nationalize the military suppliers and logistical contract groups? Should we run it like the Post Office? Sorry, count me out on that.

Just because the Left hates Cheney doesn't mean that I should like him. Communists hate the Nazis, does that mean that we should all run to the defense of Nazis?

The Cheney-Halliburton connection wouldn't be so contentious if it werent for several things.

1. Cheney sure talks all tough and macho when it comes to defense, but he found ways to avoid the front lines during the Vietnam War like the leftwing hippies that he claims to despise. So typical of our elites: do as I say, not as I do.

2. Both Bush administrations were positively rotten with cronyism, so Cheney's Halliburton connections need to be seen in this context. More broadly, they need to be seen in the context of a general culture shift away from free markets and towards crony capitalism - something that's been going on for decades but has only recently been intensified.

Bush the elder gave us free trade with China because his brother had business interests there. He bailed out S&L to a large part because his son Neil was basically laundering money. Bush the younger gave the Saudis kid glove treatment because of his family's business interests there. Cheney and his Halliburton ties are part and parcel of the same thing. Do you think it's an accident that Halliburton got all of the building contracts in Iraq, even though civilian construction (as opposed to building oil rigs) is not their forte?

Now, does the Left exploit these as talking points? Sure. It doesn't mean it's wrong. Just like I'm not going to defend Communists because the Nazis hated them or vice-versa, I'm not about to defend cronyism and big government advocacy among Republicans just because Democrats hypocritically criticize it.

You are talking about two totally different things. Enforcing and strengthening immigration laws and rules is totally different than “banning a religion”. I’m all for kicking out those who aren’t supposed to be here. Thats perfectly constitutional. “Banning a religion”, which was the initial suggestion, is not.

“...Never has such an unqualified person obtained so much power....”

“Never???”

Have you taken a look at who’s currently residing in the WH lately???

You are talking about two totally different things. Enforcing and strengthening immigration laws and rules is totally different than “banning a religion”. I’m all for kicking out those who aren’t supposed to be here. Thats perfectly constitutional. “Banning a religion”, which was the initial suggestion, is not.

It's not just a matter of throwing those that are here illegally out. That should be a given.

The other aspect to consider is who should be allowed in legally. US immigration policies until the 1960's favored people who had a good potential to assimilate and be productive members of society.

Our immigration policies should reflect the fact that we can assimilate a thousand Englishmen or Germans more readily than we can a thousand slum-dwellers from Somalia, Mexico, or Haiti.

The Vietnam War was not like WWII. Literally everyone was doing what they could to stay out of it. If you start condemning folks who avoided it, you won’t have many people left from that period that you can support.

You had three attitudes towards the Vietnam war at the time.

One group supported US involvement in the war and volunteered (or had their children volunteer) to fight it.

Another group opposed the war and did everything they could to avoid serving.

Then there was a third, hypocritical category of people, those who just loved the war as long as someone else or someone else's kid does the fighting. Cheney is the poster boy for this mindset.