Dick Cheney: Rand Paul Is Wrong On Foreign Policy

Business Insider ^ | 06/22/2014 | Hunter Walker

[SeekAndFind]

ormer Vice President Dick Cheney fired back Sunday after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized his position on Iraq. In an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Cheney argued Paul, who is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016, is an "isolationist" who doesn't understand the "absolutely essential" need for America to be involved in the Middle East.

"Now, Rand Paul and — by my standards, as I look at his — his philosophy, is basically an isolationist. That didn't work in the 1930s, it sure as heck won't work in the aftermath of 9/11, when 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters came all the way from Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our citizens," Cheney said, according to a rush transcript of the show. 

Paul addressed Cheney's position on Iraq in an interview with NBC that aired on "Meet The Press" Sunday. In that interview, Paul critiqued a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Cheney and his daughter, Liz, that was critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy and handling of the crisis in Iraq. The Cheneys said Obama's "rhetoric" about ending the Iraq War had "come crashing into reality" after troop withdrawals were followed by jihadists from the group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) taking territory in the country. Paul argued Cheney and others who supported the Iraq War were primarily to blame for many of the current issues in the Middle East. 

"What’s going on now — I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East," Paul said. "I also blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran.

[Alberta's Child]

To me it’s not a question of whether Cheney ever served in the U.S. military. It’s a matter of him getting multiple deferments to stay out of the U.S. military while millions of other men were meeting their obligations and getting sent overseas to fight in a disgraceful military campaign that would end up with untold lives lost and permanently destroyed, and 58,000+ names on a wall in Washington D.C. to serve as a reminder of the feckless idiocy of their own government.

[jwalsh07]

Obama did what was politically expedient for Barack Obama. A leader interested in our nations security would have found a way to maintain a strong prescpresence. Your judgement is not something I trust because you continue to sing Powell’s praises. This is a man who stood silently by while Scooter Libby was crucified by a special prosecutor and knew the whole time that Libby was not the leaker. Dishonorable and untrustworthy would describe Colin Powell.

[jwalsh07]

What does Cheney’s lack of military service have to do with his analysis of the situation in Iraq? The answer is not one damn thing. You seem to conflate issues to serve some goal. Why that is I have no idea but doing that does not give credence to your views on either issue.

[re_nortex]

What does Cheney’s lack of military service have to do with his analysis of the situation in Iraq? The answer is not one damn thing. You seem to conflate issues to serve some goal. Why that is I have no idea but doing that does not give credence to your views on either issue.

I, of course, agree 100%.

With some degree of hesitancy, because the thought of it is horrendous, I'm going to state this hypothetical. Had Vice-President seen combat in Vietnam and been killed by enemy fire, how would America have handled the wake of Clinton's 9/11? While President Bush surrounded himself with good men, the absence of Dick Cheney may have drawn things in a far different direction. The point I'm trying to make, albeit in a ham-fisted manner, is that Vice-President Cheney was truly "The Indispensable Man" for our times.

Yes, he's not without a few warts but his brave leadership, resolute firmness and steadfast morality continues to inspire. And he never apologizes to America's enemies.

[aruanan]

There was a reason why the Founders designed the system so that control of the military would be by civilians. It is just weird, considering their reasoning (which is far more insightful than almost anything else since then, especially lately), that someone would believe that military experience gives anyone any sort of particular advantage as Commander-in-Chief or makes one candidate for the office necessarily better than another.

The purpose of the armed forces is to protect the country from foreign enemies. The president doesn't at all need to know anything about operational matters in the military to be able to direct them to fulfill the goal any more than I need to know the mechanics of the internal combustion engine to be able to drive down to the store for a gallon of milk.

Thinking otherwise is really just a variation on the mistaken notion that the chief executive is supposed to be some kind of wonk who knows everything about everything so he can tinker and fiddle with things in order to effect a solution. He is supposed to know the Constitution and the role provided for him by it and then confine himself to that. His job is not "to run the economy" or "to run the nation" or anything else.

The economy is not the government. The nation is not the government. Both are to be protected by the government from enemies both foreign and domestic. But when people in the government start believing because they definitely have the power to eff up both the economy and the nation that they therefore have some sort of responsibility or right to decide how the economy is to be run or what the goals of the nation should be, then they have demonstrated that they are unfit for office and have become enemies both of the nation and its economy.

George Washington said that we are to consider the government as an untrustworthy servant, necessary for accomplishing certain tasks, but never to be given control of the house. Increasingly since the founding we have been screwed over by untrustworthy servants spending our money and commandeering our time for their own purposes. It's time they were all fired.

[WilliamIII]

At least you’ve stopped arguing that Cheney served in the military. He got multiple deferments, but now he’s a big one for sending other people’s kids to fight needless wars.

[Forgotten Amendments]

Rand Paul is a Libtardian moron!

38 serious posts before the name callers arrive. Pretty good for a weekend!

[Forgotten Amendments]

Hey nortex

Rangel is a corrupt pol. But he won combat medals in Korea. How dare you denigrate his heroism in a real war vs. a very real enemy?

[GeronL]

John Kerry won medals too, applied for them himself after being hit by flying rice.

[re_nortex]

Military service, no matter how heroic, does not confer a permanent condition of praiseworthiness.

A tale of two veterans:

One, a very senior officer, was a wounded, decorated hero, who died alone, unloved, in exile.

The other, a young soldier decorated for his service in a very short, spectacularly successful (at its objectives, whatever you or I think they should have been and weren’t) conflict, died in the company of professionals— at the end of a poisoned IV.

Benedict Arnold, and Timothy McVeigh.

Proof that one “oh crap” can wipe out a whole lot of “attaboys”.

Those are the wise words of 10-year FReeper stalwart ExGeeEye concerning Charles Rangel in this thread: Ben Stein defends 'hero' Rangel against censure (Rangel is no Superman).

[Forgotten Amendments]

Kerry was a creep. I’ve never heard anything about Rangel that implied that his medals weren’t well deserved. Wasn’t he in the Hell of the Chosin Reservoir? I know he was friends with Bob Novak, a Korea vet/true conservative that the chickenhawks didn’t like.

[GeronL]

I don’t know anything about his medals or the circumstances, I was just pointing out that it doesn’t automatically make someone valorous because they got one.

[re_nortex]

chickenhawks

That says it all. The term "chickenhawk" is a favorite of the anti-American leftist crowd. Looking over the past few posts, I have to wonder if I'm on Free Republic since some of the remarks echo those found in the vile garbage heap of Democratic Underground or the Daily Kos.

[Forgotten Amendments]

I don’t know anything about his medals or the circumstances, I was just pointing out that it doesn’t automatically make someone valorous because they got one.

Umm ... I think it is pretty much the *DEFINITION* of "valorous" to win medals for heroism in combat. No?

That doesn't mean we have to *LIKE* him. Or *AGREE* with him on anything! That other poster was belittling his service. That's just wrong.

[jwalsh07]

The question here is whether serving in the military qualifies a person to hold positions demanding important decision making and analysis. The answer is of course not. I served with guys that were damn good grunts but I wouldn’t trust them to drive my car stateside. I don’t think Cheney distinguished himself by avoiding the service but I think Chney distinguished himself as SecDef and VP. The man has a very shapr intellect and analytical skills. I’m sure he regrets his decisions back then and that was one of the reasons he kept on keeping on as SECDEF and VP even though his heart was ready to explode any moment.

[Forgotten Amendments]

No, that’s not the question I was addressing. I don’t disagree with you.

A sick little FReeper hack mocked what Rangel did 60 years ago. That shouldn’t happen here.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm just tired of having big-government globalists -- who would convert to Islam before they ever put on a military uniform themselves -- pissing away thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers' pockets -- on these delusional nation-building campaigns.

My original point on this thread was that Cheney was a hell of a lot smarter in 1994 than he is in 2014 on this issue. If he thinks U.S. military intervention in Iraq is important, then let him send his own children and grandchildren to lead the invasion.

[Alberta's Child]

There was a reason why the Founders designed the system so that control of the military would be by civilians. It is just weird, considering their reasoning (which is far more insightful than almost anything else since then, especially lately), that someone would believe that military experience gives anyone any sort of particular advantage as Commander-in-Chief or makes one candidate for the office necessarily better than another.

You miss an important point, though. The Founders designed a system where there was never any intention of having a large standing military force dominated by career military men. In those days, local militia were called upon when needed -- and when the crisis was over the soldiers went home and did their jobs. I suspect the Founders would be aghast at the thought of American military personnel assigned to permanent military bases all over the world.

Heck -- I suspect they'd even be adamantly opposed to something like the Pentagon.