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.
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.