Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance

Washington Post ^ | June 16 2013 | Sean Sullivan

[WilliamIII]

Former vice president Dick Cheney said Sunday that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was wrong to suggest that the government’s recently revealed sweeping surveillance techniques are an invasion of Americans’ privacy. “Two-thirds of the Congress wasn’t here on 9/11, or for that period immediately after when we got into this program,” Cheney said on “Fox News Sunday.” He later added: “When you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop that attack before it ever gets launched.”

Cheney defended a National Security Agency program to collect phone records from millions of Americans, about which Paul has expressed deep concerns. The Kentucky senator announced last week that he has taken steps toward bringing legal action against the government over its surveillance efforts.

[DoughtyOne]

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?

Just as it would cause you to re-examine your position if you if you found that Nancy Pelosi agreed with your stance on a political matter, I think it should cause some element of re-examination if you find our vile Left agrees with your with regard to Bush/Cheney.  If you wish to dismiss it out of hand, go ahead.  I think you're wrong to.

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.

Okay, then you can't see any difference between those who maneuvered so as to not take part in a failed war effort, but still remained positive about the effort our troops were involved in, and those who went to Canada to avoid taking part and spit on the troops who did fight in that effort after slipping back across the border in time to do so?  I consider Cheney to be an honorable man.  I consider John Kerry to be worthy of being taken out and shot.

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.

How many large corporations are there that are up to speed on the ground, and capable of handling a project of this magnitude?  50?  1000?  3?  2?  1?  Our instincts are to support a robust bidding concept.  Do our time contingencies allow for months of bidding, hiring, training, building up to speed, pulling together the logistical nightmares that go along with this sort of operation?  You seemingly have adopted a belief in the absolute worst case scenario at every turn when it relates to Cheney.  I'm not nearly as convinced of that as you are.

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?

I agree with the comments about the elder Bush.  I would probably term it more under misguided globalist outlook, but there's wiggle room in there.  I somewhat agree with the S&L problem also.  I would have liked to have seen far more heads roll, if any in fact did.  At the point of the collapse, what do you do to keep the average depositor from being ruined?  With regard to Halliburton, I see it more of you grasping at straws.  Halliburton is a massive enterprise.  It already has an infrastructure in place to handle such large operations.  If the fact that they hadn't built the structures of the type we needed were a big issue, those structures would not have been delivered in a timely manner.  They seem to have been.  Seems like they did a respectable job.

Some people are going to look at this and see chrony capitalism.  Others are going to look at it and see a relationship where both sides benefited.  So far, I still remain in the later group.

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.

Well, you can do as you like, obviously.  I'm not going to join you in this.  The job was done.  I have no reason to believe that Halliburton made massive graft off this situation.  I have no reason to believe that Cheney acted improperly or illegally.

What exactly, step for step was Cheney's participation in all this?  What one to ten things specifically do you wish to charge him with?

[ek_hornbeck]

Just as it would cause you to re-examine your position if you if you found that Nancy Pelosi agreed with your stance on a political matter,

Adolf Hitler agreed with you and me in opposing Communism and wanting to wage war against it. Should I re-examine my anti-Communism because a vile individual also happened to oppose it?

Okay, then you can't see any difference between those who maneuvered so as to not take part in a failed war effort, but still remained positive about the effort our troops were involved in, and those who went to Canada to avoid taking part and spit on the troops who did fight in that effort after slipping back across the border in time to do so?

I fail to see anything honorable in the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset (see my post above). In fact, those who opposed the war and tried to avoid service (or became disillusioned after being drafted) are at least not hypocrites. The same can't be said for those who support the war as long as others make the sacrifice. Do you really see nothing wrong with somebody who wants to see YOUR sons on the frontlines while refusing to do the same himself or with members of his own family?

I consider Cheney to be an honorable man.

Fundamentally, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. You see angels that just aren't there.

You were correct to say that the Bush administration isn't the worst we've had. Thanks to Obama, you're right. However, I can safely say that the Bush administration was certainly the worst Republican administration we've had, and a notch worse than many Democrats at that. Where you see misguided but decent people, I see just another gallery of cronies, crooks and morons, perhaps no worse than many other politicians, but certainly no better.

[XenaLee]

"When you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop that attack before it ever gets launched.”"

Uh...Dick....I love ya, BUT....if you were so concerned about somebody smuggling a nookleer device into the USA, how come you and George didn't bother to secure our borders to prevent such a possibility. Hmmm?

[ek_hornbeck]

What exactly, step for step was Cheney's participation in all this? What one to ten things specifically do you wish to charge him with?

I never said he did anything illegal. Our system is set up in such a way that crony capitalism is not only legal but implicitly encouraged. That doesn't make it right.

somewhat agree with the S&L problem also. I would have liked to have seen far more heads roll, if any in fact did. At the point of the collapse, what do you do to keep the average depositor from being ruined?

The very same problems that we faced with TARP. In the short run, the creditors whose finances were ruined by the banks should have been bailed out. The problem is that the S&L rescue, just like TARP, didn't come to the rescue of the victims so much as the unscrupulous perpetrators who moved people's savings into risky ventures.

The bottom line is that heads didn't roll because they those heads belonged to people like Neil Bush.

[DoughtyOne]

Just as it would cause you to re-examine your position if you if you found that Nancy Pelosi agreed with your stance on a political matter,

Adolf Hitler agreed with you and me in opposing Communism and wanting to wage war against it. Should I re-examine my anti-Communism because a vile individual also happened to oppose it?

I don't see Cheney or Halliburton as a NAZI or a Communist, so this agument is lost on me.  It does pretty much tell me where your head is at on this issue, and I'm not implicating anything unsavory.  You're revealing how vilely you see Cheney, and I think it's vastly overwrought.

Okay, then you can't see any difference between those who maneuvered so as to not take part in a failed war effort, but still remained positive about the effort our troops were involved in, and those who went to Canada to avoid taking part and spit on the troops who did fight in that effort after slipping back across the border in time to do so?

I fail to see anything honorable in the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset (see my post above). In fact, those who opposed the war and tried to avoid service (or became disillusioned after being drafted) are at least not hypocrites. The same can't be said for those who support the war as long as others make the sacrifice. Do you really see nothing wrong with somebody who wants to see YOUR sons on the frontlines while refusing to do the same himself or with members of his own family?

Advocating for good policy at any point in your life isn't contingent on what you did previously in your life.

When I was young, I drove like a reckless fool, and broke some other laws as well.  Should I now be silent on the subject of unsafe driving and other infractions of the law?  Am I a hipocrite, or am I simply trying to do the right thing?

I consider Cheney to be an honorable man.

Fundamentally, this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. You see angels that just aren't there.

I'm not sure that I do.  I don't see any angels.  I do see some people who did things they thought appropriate, but weren't.  In some instances I see things they did that they clearly should have known better than to do or try.  I haven't seen you list anything specific up to here that you think Cheney should be charged with.  So it seems to me it's more like you're seeing demons that just aren't there.

You were correct to say that the Bush administration isn't the worst we've had. Thanks to Obama, you're right. However, I can safely say that the Bush administration was certainly the worst Republican administration we've had, and a notch worse than many Democrats at that. Where you see misguided but decent people, I see just another gallery of cronies, crooks and morons, perhaps no worse than many other politicians, but certainly no better.

Did I say the Bush administration wasn't the worst we've had?  I may have.  I agree with that, but I'm not a fan of the Bush administration.  Even concerning the war I have defended, I'm not sure he did the best he could have.  And once you've covered that aspect of his administration, there are legions of issues that are fair game.  I don't like being put in this position, because it's something I never wanted to have to admit, but I'd say Bush actually did a worse job than Carter with the nation he was handed.  There are some aspects of his administration that are startlingly bad.  Job's grew by 0.83% under Bush.  Tradtionally it should have been around 15 to 15.5% growth in eight years.  Look at the economy he handed off.

Wow.  Even Carter didn't sink us to the degree Bush did, and Carter literally did his best to do it.  I give him an A for that effort.

At first, I did see Bush as misguided but decent.  I had to toss in the towel on that one.  There's no way I can pass all he did off simply on ignorance.  This wasn't a Cheney administration.  I'm not able to tarnish him on the record.  Do we look back at Carter's V. P. and blame him?  No.

With that ending comment about no worse or no better, I think we're much closer in our overall thoughts.  I still don't fixate on Cheney the way you have.  I do not see him as the evil Darth Vader of the Bush administration.

Ideologically I have had to part ways with him.  It's a shame he took the wrong fork in the road years ago, and he has drifted so far from Conservatism.  That's my take on him.

[ek_hornbeck]

I don't see Cheney or Halliburton as a NAZI or a Communist, so this agument is lost on me.

I didn't say that he was, nor is Pelosi Stalin. I was making an argument based on an analogy. The point is, because somebody vile hates someone or something, it isn't a good enough reason for me to stop hating that someone or something.

Advocating for good policy at any point in your life isn't contingent on what you did previously in your life. When I was young, I drove like a reckless fool, and broke some other laws as well. Should I now be silent on the subject of unsafe driving and other infractions of the law? Am I a hipocrite, or am I simply trying to do the right thing?

Bad analogy. You now admit that you were a fool to drive recklessly. Did Cheney ever express regret for avoiding the draft? Did he ever come out and say "I was a hypocritical coward who used my connections to avoid risking my life while advocating a war where those without the same connections would have to risk theres?" Now, if all you're saying is that Cheney isn't unique in this regard, I'll agree, but that doesn't make it any better.

And once you've covered that aspect of his administration, there are legions of issues that are fair game. I don't like being put in this position, because it's something I never wanted to have to admit, but I'd say Bush actually did a worse job than Carter with the nation he was handed. There are some aspects of his administration that are startlingly bad. Job's grew by 0.83% under Bush. Tradtionally it should have been around 15 to 15.5% growth in eight years. Look at the economy he handed off.

No argument there. Most of the bad policies that we're dealing with now under Obama are just the logical extrapolation of things that got rolling under the last administration: amnesty for illegals, TARP (morphing into a "stimulus package" and bailout), the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance, etc.

Frankly, because the Bush administration was attacked by despicable people like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, there was a knee-jerk tendency by many on the right to defend it, even when the criticisms came from the libertarian/Constitutionalist Right. With some perspective, people are starting to see that a lot of the previous administration's policies weren't so different from those advocated by a Pelosi or a Clinton after all.

This wasn't a Cheney administration. I'm not able to tarnish him on the record.

Well, there's a good case to be made that Cheney was put on board because daddy thought that Junior wasn't up to all the heavy lifting that the job required.

[DoughtyOne]

What exactly, step for step was Cheney's participation in all this? What one to ten things specifically do you wish to charge him with?

I never said he did anything illegal. Our system is set up in such a way that crony capitalism is not only legal but implicitly encouraged. That doesn't make it right.

Okay, well it seems we're a bit closer here than I thought.  I don't think anything illegal took place either.

No, it doesn't make it right.  And if that were what was taking place here, I would be more inclined to object.  Is it your position that Cheney merely decided it was going to be Halliburton, and he appointed them?  You realize that wasn't what happened right?

somewhat agree with the S&L problem also. I would have liked to have seen far more heads roll, if any in fact did. At the point of the collapse, what do you do to keep the average depositor from being ruined?

The very same problems that we faced with TARP. In the short run, the creditors whose finances were ruined by the banks should have been bailed out. The problem is that the S&L rescue, just like TARP, didn't come to the rescue of the victims so much as the unscrupulous perpetrators who moved people's savings into risky ventures.

I agree with that.  In fact my major problem with TARP was that we made a massive fund available, and then spent the whole damned thing and more when we probably should have spent 33% to 50% of the initial fund and that was it.

Bush went so far as to spend it all, then gave Obama a new fund to spread around to his cronies.  How big an idiot would you have to be to do that?  Seriously!

The bottom line is that heads didn't roll because they those heads belonged to people like Neil Bush.

It seems some of these folks needed to go to jail.  I am willing to listen on a case by case basis, but as you said, these were risky ventures or flat out mis-appropriation of funds situations IMO.When you're dealing with other people's money, their retirement savings, or just regular savings, you need to be judicious in your actions.  To do otherwise is to act criminally, to my way of thinking.

I think the Bush boys received their appointments in life based on their dad's position, not on their own earned merits.  Didn't always turn out so well did it.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't see Cheney or Halliburton as a NAZI or a Communist, so this agument is lost on me.

I didn't say that he was, nor is Pelosi Stalin. I was making an argument based on an analogy. The point is, because somebody vile hates someone or something, it isn't a good enough reason for me to stop hating that someone or something.

I tried not to make the case you were labeling them as those people, but none the less in your example you provided two very despicable groups with which to contrast them with.  That pretty much invalidated the example for me, rightly or wrongly.  And while I do find your follow-up sentence above to be somewhat reasoned, there are always reasons for why people do back or oppose certain people.  You can't simply dismiss a similar believe between two diametrically opposed groups, without doing some soul searching.

I'll take you at your word you wouldn't dislike Cheney on the basis of the Left's beliefs, if you'll take me at my word that I don't like him based on mis-percieved Conservative views.  In fact there are things about him that bother me, some of his currently held views.

And once you've covered that aspect of his administration, there are legions of issues that are fair game. I don't like being put in this position, because it's something I never wanted to have to admit, but I'd say Bush actually did a worse job than Carter with the nation he was handed. There are some aspects of his administration that are startlingly bad. Job's grew by 0.83% under Bush. Tradtionally it should have been around 15 to 15.5% growth in eight years. Look at the economy he handed off.

No argument there. Most of the bad policies that we're dealing with now under Obama are just the logical extrapolation of things that got rolling under the last administration: amnesty for illegals, TARP (morphing into a "stimulus package" and bailout), the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance, etc.

I agree.  We'll still be dealing with Medicare Part D forty years from now.  It will be a decade or two if ever, before we get back to full employment.  It will take that long before the government's income stream is healed.  We need to pay down debt, and this income stream needs to be healed in order to do it.  Your comments on the Patriot Act and the NSA problem are also spot on.

Frankly, because the Bush administration was attacked by despicable people like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, there was a knee-jerk tendency by many on the right to defend it, even when the criticisms came from the libertarian/Constitutionalist Right. With some perspective, people are starting to see that a lot of the previous administration's policies weren't so different from those advocated by a Pelosi or a Clinton after all.

When it came to Conservatism, Bush did not have a burning desire in his belly.  His reactions many times were nothing like what a Conservative's reactions would be.  He hesitated, first sounding more like a Leftist, and then sometimes settled back in a more Conservative position.  A number of times, more than I care to admit, he never returned to the proper position.

When first confronted with most issues, you and I have an almost instantaneious revulsion to the socialst solution.  It's not in our core.  With Bush, it was.  You could tell it when he first ran for the presidency.  It doesn't take long, before you note that his core belief system, is nowhere near your own, because of these snap reactions to scenarios.

This wasn't a Cheney administration. I'm not able to tarnish him on the record.

Well, there's a good case to be made that Cheney was put on board because daddy thought that Junior wasn't up to all the heavy lifting that the job required.

I think it's more than a good case to be made.  I think it's a lock.  None the less, if Bush is the man when the good stuff happens, he's the man when the bad stuff happens.

Too much bad stuff happened.  Cheney played a part in it too.  He deserves to be raked over the coals on some of it.  I'm not in lock step with you over Halliburton, but wrong choices were made all too often during the Bush years.  Cheney was involved in them.  At the end of the day, it was the Bush administration.  The little wanker doesn't deserve to have the blame shifted at all.

He wasn't presidential material.  He should never have been selected as our nominee.  We paid a heavy price for it.  He basically skated.

[henkster]

It has occurred to me that the elitists are the new world order. The elite Bush family member who graduates with an MBA from Harvard Business school or his PhD from Harvard’s Government School has much more in common with his counterparts in Shanghai, London, Moscow and Mumbai. They all run in the same circles, vacation together, and increasingly sit on the same directorates. They have nothing in common with us “common folk” whether we work in a shop in Calcutta, a factory in Chelyabinsk, or as an office manager in Liverpool or Indianapolis. When it comes to this group, labels like “left wing” and “right wing,” “hard liner” or “reformer,” or “conservative” or “liberal” are meaningless. They are statists first, and that means the power of the state transcends all. We don’t have rights, we are pieces of meat.

And for this the gigantic omniscient data center is created. Not to prevent terror, but only to cement their power. Get out of line, they scan the monster for all the information they want to single you out and destroy you.

If you aren’t born into the highest caste, and are not in “the club,” you need to mind your place and behave.

[stfassisi]

It has occurred to me that the elitists are the new world order. The elite Bush family member who graduates with an MBA from Harvard Business school or his PhD from Harvard’s Government School has much more in common with his counterparts in Shanghai, London, Moscow and Mumbai. They all run in the same circles, vacation together, and increasingly sit on the same directorates. They have nothing in common with us “common folk” whether we work in a shop in Calcutta, a factory in Chelyabinsk, or as an office manager in Liverpool or Indianapolis. When it comes to this group, labels like “left wing” and “right wing,” “hard liner” or “reformer,” or “conservative” or “liberal” are meaningless. They are statists first, and that means the power of the state transcends all. We don’t have rights, we are pieces of meat.

God Bless you. you nailed this and are right on target

Don't worry though, God is in control and love will win in the end

[ObamahatesPACoal]

Steve King says Reagan failed him twice. I wonder what the other time was.

Sandra Day O’Connor was not the best choice for SCOTUS. If you profiled SCOTUS candidates the best ones have been the most socially conservative like Thomas, Scalia and Alito.

[vox_freedom]

Click here to contribute
and keep Free Republic on the air!!!

[dragnet2]

He later added: “When you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies

Bull cheet... no one buys this crap Mr. Cheney...

Your administration stood by and even aided and abetted the illegal invasion of tens of millions of illegals...During war time yet!

If they can bring in truck loads of illegal alien cargo on a routine basis, from corrupt countries like Mexico, how hard would it be to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction?

[dragnet2]

Bush and Cheney imported MORE Muslims into the U.S. AFTER 911 than the previous two decades...

Cheney, Bush, Obama are all riding in the same limo... Now he’s telling us they have to spy on and monitor law abiding citizens to fight terrorist?

What utter bull sheeet.

[steelhead_trout]

Can’t forgive Dick Cheney for 2 reasons:

1. He encouraged the invasion of Iraq. Now we have a satellite state of Iran (and thousands of wounded warriors). Great move, Dick.

2. He believed that the power of the presidency was undercut by the Watergate scandal (when in fact it had grown far more powerful than the Framers wanted it to be) and dedicated himself to restoring the bloated caesarism that is now the presidency. Having a Congress that winks at undeclared (and thus illegal wars) doesn’t help much.

[pgkdan]

Not me. I’ll take Paul.

[EricT.]

Did you and GW Bush do that? No. GWB stepped out in front of a microphone on 09/12, and sentenced human civilization to another century or millennia of muslim terrorism.

"Islam is a religion of peace." Remember this, Dickhead?

Agreed.

[Theodore R.]

I don’t put much into anything a Cheney says. They are too bush-like.

[Theodore R.]

Reagan’s best year was 1981 even though he was shot in March and recovered pretty soon. After he nominated O’Connor, it was mostly downhill for the remaining seven years. The tax cuts were delayed, but weren’t they passed in 1981? And the air traffic controllers were read the riot act in August 1981.

[Paul Ross]

I doubt Cheney has a clue...or cares... what Obama has done to government surveillance of conservatives.