Posted on 08/13/2009 6:44:01 AM PDT by meandog
The fact is that Cheney, in his own book, will be quite critical of GWB's second-term decisions and rightly so. Like it or not, GWB lost his nerve under pressure and cut his anchor, condemning himself to drift aimlessly along in DC's leftist currents. He abandoned many conservative principles, not the least of which being the support of free market Capitalism, in a vain attempt for approval by the left and the media (but I repeat myself). Cheney knew, as do most Conservatives, that it's a fool's errand to seek the approval and support from leftists that will never, ever materialize no matter how much you try to appease them.
Please don't misunderstand: I'd take GWB over the Chicago Thug any day. But for supposed-conservatives to throw Cheney under the bus when the truth is so plain to see is the height of Bushbotism.
Libby still has the felony conviction on his record. He should have been pardoned.
Bush should have pardoned Libby. No question.
We diagree here, I see! (see my post at #6 right above your post)
I actually welcome anything Dick Cheney can do to dispel the ridiculous notion promulgated by the leftist media that George W. Bush was a mind-numbed robot rubberstamping whatever the eeeevil Halliburton kingpin Cheney instructed him to do.
My only question is this: Will Keith Olbermann report the fact that GWB & his 'master' had disagreements? (I won't be able to see for myself because I'm boycotting all GE products, including Herr Odorman.)
If KO does report this, will he be able to muster enough functioning brain cells together at one time to recognize that Cheney's revelation undercuts the fundamental underlying premise of MSNBC's entire schtick for the last ten years, that GWB was just a stooopid doofus tool shamelessly manipulated by by that evil mastermind, Dick Cheney?
It's pretty self-evident. In fact, I would probably hold it against Cheney if he didn't speak out against Bush's disasterous second term and his abandonment of Scooter Libby.
Yep and many Freepers lap up this junk thinking Cheney is the kind of scum to write a trashy expose.
Truth is...Cheney will never help Oshama by smashing Bush. It would hurt our soldiers, the WOT, and help the liberals and, as a conservative, that would be anathema to Cheney.
Bush *was* weak in the sense that he didn’t more forcibly confront his critics and attackers. Cheney, on the other hand, is not the type to be sh*t on repeatedly.
That is true. It is the duty you accept when you take the job. Cheney honorably discharged his duty. The duty ends when the job ends.
As usual...very few direct quotes from Cheney. A hit piece by WP which many Freepers who have BDS will believe hook, line and sinker as the WP tries to get some anti-Bush gossip out there to distract from Zero's sinking poll numbers.
You didn’t understand my post. Big media doesn’t color my opinions. I lived through and followed events myself. I am fully capable of forming my own independent opinions. Mr Bush successfully protected the country. That is significant enough to call his a successful administration. In virtually all domestic policies he was a failure.
What MSLSD wants to spin that into is out of Cheney's control, but he shouldn't feel the need to go to his grave defending GWB in contrast to his own conscience based on that Olberman's fevered mind will concoct.
if Cheney had been POTUS we would not be in this mess with Bam, because he would have been vigorously defending the GWOT and Iraq war against lib/media attacks starting in ‘03.
Correct and the libs have done it to him for years.
If you think he's going to backstab Bush thereby giving a huge boost to Obama and the liberals you are very naive.
Don't buy into the WP strategy...this weak attempt at splitting the Bush administration. All it is is propoganda.
Her name was Harriet Myers (his office lawyer, who was (like him) totally unqualified. The TARP bailouts was his idea though many advisers disagreed; what sparked my angst and anathemas against him was his mismanagement of Operation Iraqi Freedom--in not going completely all out with overwhelming force (surge) until after the 2006 (we tuk a thumpin') elections. I was extremely angry at the wholesale looting, anarchy, and brave men and women being killed by snipers and IEDs because of too few troops in the initial stage of Iraq while he appeared on an aircraft carrier under a "Mission Accomplished" sign. As a Vietnam veteran, I am committed to never ever being in a shooting war unless we USE EVERYTHING we have to win it!
But Cheney isn't siding with the left. He's saying Bush wasn't strong enough on the issues that matter most to conservatives. How would that give a "huge boost" to Obama's left-wing supporters.
I preferred the "Wanted Dead or Alive" President Bush. Bush was much more effective when it was "My way or the highway." I began scratching my head on several issues in his second term, but I remained and am still a Bush supporter. No apologies. I am a strong supporter of Cheney.
I will wait to see what the book says rather than an article in the WaPo.
The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice.
Are they saying Cheney is bitter and being vindictive because Bush disagreed with Cheney?
"When the president made decisions that I didn't agree with, I still supported him and didn't go out and undercut him,"
No one ever mentions that the GOP stood strongly behind Bush until about a year into his second term. They could no longer expect to remain in office on Bush's coattails and they allowed the dems to frame the issues. When the dems began to frame the issues how many of them publicly turned against Bush? More than I care to remember. The GOP on The Hill went soft. NO BALLS. They would rather get along than fight for what they believed was right.
Bush could no longer depend on GOP support because those that did turn against him did so in such a way, he may have thought he could get nothing done. His demeanor changed and he was more willing to compromise. Not saying I agreed with it--only that I could understand it.
In that sense, what Cheney says is not surprising nor is it shocking. I can understand Cheney's frustration. IOW, he was not whoring for votes like the rest of the party.
I would not be surprised if he spoke with Bush prior to making a final commitment to write the book.
....the former vice president is driven, now as before, by the nightmare of a hostile state acquiring nuclear weapons and passing them to terrorists. ...
Cheney remains passionate about the threat this nation faces from the world of Islam. He sees Obama going soft (ie there is no more "Global War on Terrorism") Bush will be just like GWH Bush....an ex-President shall never speak ill of a sitting President.
This article is attempting to use Cheney to accomplish what the left could not do. Destroy Bush in the eyes of John Q Public.
Cheney will dispel the myth that Bush was his lackey and stupid, and I welcome that.
What I do not welcome is the left shamelessly trying to divide us, as WaPo is doing in this article.
As you can see from this thread, they have convinced their target audience that the article is valid. Pity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.