Vice President Cheney and Liz Cheney on the Dangers Facing America

Good. I heard this on Rush today.

My Guy.

Thanks for the post. I’ll listen to the audio later today.

What I am unclear on, is Liz. What’s the scoop on her? She seems to take some good stands, but I remember the view held by many when she ran for office a few years back.

Is she damaged goods? I don’t remember the particulars.

I remember she was going to run against a real conservative and that she supports gay rights. I also know her Daddy was part of the Bush II “Brain” trust that was responsible for the prolonged and expensive occupation of Iraq under the dilusion that we could take 6th Century Savages and turn them into 21st Century republicans under a government that allowed Sharia Law, persecuted Christians and in effect kicked us in the butt.

That’s all I know about her.

Zulu, in time you will find out that the only thing worse than having our troops involved, is not having our troops involved.

If this ISIS/ISIL thing is successful, this nation will be at extreme risk, as will our allies.

She did come out against homosexual marriage.

Her dad sided with her in a family feud against her gay sister.

That doesn’t mean she doesn’t support a good share of the rest of the homosexual agenda though. I believe here dad is sympathetic there too, due to his daughter’s situation.

Agreed, I don’t like how our country has handled the recent deployments but we can’t go to burying our heads in the ground either...we are, like it or not, the worlds peace keepers. Look at the price of Obamao’s inaction around the world already for examples and it can only get worse. Not saying that military action is the one and only choice but we do need a strong military to back up our words.

I agree. I would say our military can generally get it right too, if the idiots in the oval office would just let them.

Rules of engagement being terrible at times, our troops are put at risk. I detest that.

We should have gone in, destroyed Saddam, replaced him with a reliable and supportive military strongman and ally and pulled out.

The loss of money and lives in defeating him was very low and generated a real fear among the local states there from Libya to Afghanistan.

But we tried to make a purse of a sow’s ear with Bush’s idiotic experiment of Democracy in a Muslim Sheikdom under Sharia law and an occupation crippled by equally idiotic rules of engagement we began to look like a paper tiger.

The West is in a real war with Islam as it has been since the 600’s. We need to pick our targets carefully and determine our objectives prudently. Our resources are not infintessimal nor is the patience of the American voter very enduring.

Its hard to justify an extended war against Islam thousands of miles away when we don’t have the manpower or will to defend our borders here or even to identify the enemy right among us who continues to grow, expand, recruit and make more and more outrageous demands in our own homeland on our culture and core beliefs.

Great interview on Rush today...

We should have gone in, destroyed Saddam, replaced him with a reliable and supportive military strongman and ally and pulled out. The loss of money and lives in defeating him was very low and generated a real fear among the local states there from Libya to Afghanistan.

That could have worked if we left the Republican Guard in tact. Without it, it couldn't have. The problem with that truth, is that it couldn't have worked. The Republican Guard was as corrupt as it gets, doing the dirty deeds of Hussein and his sons. We couldn't leave it in place. Taking it out and leaving, we would have been where we are now ten years ago.

But we tried to make a purse of a sow’s ear with Bush’s idiotic experiment of Democracy in a Muslim Sheikdom under Sharia law and an occupation crippled by equally idiotic rules of engagement we began to look like a paper tiger.

I was never a big believer in Bush. IMO< the guy was weened too early or something. What kind of idiot would install a man that had lived in Iran for twenty years, as the head of a nation bordering Iran, whose government we wanted to remain moderate, and a friend of the United States?

You are dead on target when it comes to rules of engagement. Our military is there for one purpose, kill bad guys. Don't change that. If people are good, no problem. If they are bad, they need to be dead.

The West is in a real war with Islam as it has been since the 600’s. We need to pick our targets carefully and determine our objectives prudently. Our resources are not infintessimal nor is the patience of the American voter very enduring.

You know, our finances always surface when talking about taking out terrorists. When we spend as much on welfare, not so much. So what's the difference? The difference is, we have people on both sides of the isle trashing our military spending, and nobody gives a hot fudge sunday about actual spending. If they did, they'd focus on welfare 50% of the time. Try and find even 10% of the carping about welfare spending being out of control, that you see here about military spending being out of control.

We need to quit fighting the Left's battles amongst ourselves. If nobody stands up to evil, pretty soon evil is on our door-step, and we don't have an ally left in the world.

Its hard to justify an extended war against Islam thousands of miles away when we don’t have the manpower or will to defend our borders here or even to identify the enemy right among us who continues to grow, expand, recruit and make more and more outrageous demands in our own homeland on our culture and core beliefs.

No, it's not hard to justify an extended war against evil. It's always going to be out there, and if we don't combat it, it will fluorish. NO!

As for the other, it stands on it's own, and you're right. We should be doing something about all the aspects you touched on.

7 Agreed, I don’t like how our country has handled the recent deployments but we can’t go to burying our heads in the ground either...we are, like it or not, the worlds peace keepers. Look at the price of Obamao’s inaction around the world already for examples and it can only get worse. Not saying that military action is the one and only choice but we do need a strong military to back up our words.

Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War (paraphrased) "No nation prospers from prolonged warfare."

The U.S. lost a 10 year war in Vietnam.
The U.S. lost a 10 year war in Iraq (Gulf II) and is on its way to doing the same in Afghanistan.
The U.S. barely prevailed against the USSR in the 44 year Cold War.

The U.S. was united during WWII in a way it has rarely been since - maybe 2001-2004. It fought and won WWII, on 2 fronts (with it Allies) in ~ 3.75 years after Pearl Harbor. The demographics and economics have changed so much since WWII, and not in the direction of national unity. POTUS #43 GWB was correct that the war against jihad terror would be a long 1, but wrong in his goal to bring democracy to a Muslim nation. The U.S. people don't have the temperament to get the job done today. Jihad will come again to the U.S., but in a bigger, more terrifying way. POTUS #44 BHO has subverted our nation with Islamics in every corner of the federal government.

“Financially it is ruinous. Morally it is wicked. Militarily it is an open question, and politically it is a blunder.”

The above quote was written by Winston Churchill in a private letter to his mother, Jennie Randolph Churchill, 10/21/1897, regarding his assessment of the British Malakand Field Force punitive expedition against the indigenous Pushtan tribal uprising in the Hindu Kush along the borders of Afghanistan, India, and the future nation of Pakistan. Churchill was 22 years of age and a veteran of this campaign as a subaltern in the cavalry. This is the same area in which U.S./NATO troops faught Muslim mujhadien (the great-great grandchildren of Churchill’s enemies) from 2001-2014 – America’s longest war.

She ran last year against Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, but withdrew her candidacy on January 6 of this year

Thank you for that thoughtful analysis. I agree with you.

>> She did come out against homosexual marriage. <<

She took the John Kerry position: she was for it, before she was against it.

>> That doesn’t mean she doesn’t support a good share of the rest of the homosexual agenda though. <<

Exactly. She was trying to run to Enzi's right to win a GOP primary in solidly conservative Wyoming. Had she succeeded in selling that kool-aid, I think she would have instantly "evolved" on gay rights once she got to the Senate.

>> I believe her dad is sympathetic there too, due to his daughter’s situation. <<

Dick Cheney announced his support for gay marriage long before Obama did, and long before it was trendy to do so. Cheney has been cheerleading the gaystapo movement for years. Saying he's sympathetic on gay rights is like saying Al Gore is sympathetic to environmentalism.

The idea of trying to nation build an Islamic country into a functioning democracy is as stupid an idea as can be imagined.

Only ideologues of the utopian liberal sort would believe such hogwash, but unfortunately Dubya surrounded himself with exactly that sort of advisor.

His father had the good sense to take advice from foreign policy realists which is why he didn’t try to conquer Iraq.

His less than brilliant son gobbled at the neoconservative trough, and the advisors he chose were true to their liberal roots - they imagined that an ancient society would be immensely malleable and that its underlying religion would be irrelevant. All that was needed to turn Iraq into a western style democracy was their will.

It’s the same hubris that Lyndon Johnson possessed when he thought he could turn Vietnam into a miniature United States. The neoconservatives learned nothing from that fool’s errand.

America’s finances are in terrible shape. Dick Cheney would have us borrowing even more from China in order to police the Middle East. Time for him and his ambitious GOPe daughter to just go away.

Thanks Billy-Boy. Dick Cheney has so much potential to be a real mover for our cause. And then he goes and mucks it up with his homosexual agenda. It is troubling to me.

7 Agreed, I don’t like how our country has handled the recent deployments but we can’t go to burying our heads in the ground either...we are, like it or not, the worlds peace keepers. Look at the price of Obamao’s inaction around the world already for examples and it can only get worse. Not saying that military action is the one and only choice but we do need a strong military to back up our words.

Sun-Tzu wrote in The Art of War (paraphrased) "No nation prospers from prolonged warfare."

All well and good. Now, tell me, does any nation prosper that allows it's allies to be picked off one by one, or allows it's enemies to solidify positions across vast expanses of territory consuming multiple nations in the process? The answer is no.

The U.S. lost a 10 year war in Vietnam.

We did not lose the war. We simply refused to win it. Nixon's bombing had the North on the ropes multiple times. Each time the Democrat Congress demanded a cease-fire thus allowing the North to resupply and structure their war machine.

The U.S. lost a 10 year war in Iraq (Gulf II) and is on its way to doing the same in Afghanistan.

The U. S. did not lose a ten year war in Iraq. If some troops had been left in coutnry, as was the sound plan, Iraq wouldn't be in any trouble today. This was a warm wet kiss to ISIS, from Barack Obama. Do you remember back last year, when Obama wanted to supply the al Qaeda faction in Syria? What do you want to bet that ISIS wasn't funded and armed by the United States? It's my perception this is exactly what happened.

The U.S. barely prevailed against the USSR in the 44 year Cold War.

One nation became the economic power-house for the planet, and the other melted down. How is that barely winning the Cold War?

The U.S. was united during WWII in a way it has rarely been since - maybe 2001-2004. It fought and won WWII, on 2 fronts (with it Allies) in ~ 3.75 years after Pearl Harbor. The demographics and economics have changed so much since WWII, and not in the direction of national unity. POTUS #43 GWB was correct that the war against jihad terror would be a long 1, but wrong in his goal to bring democracy to a Muslim nation. The U.S. people don't have the temperament to get the job done today. Jihad will come again to the U.S., but in a bigger, more terrifying way. POTUS #44 BHO has subverted our nation with Islamics in every corner of the federal government.

When we start waxing rhapsodic about the futility of turning a naton like Iraq pro Western, we need to look no further than Iran to see that it is entirely possible. If not for Jimmy Cater, we would have an Iran today that was pro Western, and anti Terrorist. Instead we have just the opposite. Jordan has been pro-Western for decades. Althought it's populace is a wild card, the government of Saudi Arabia has been largely pro-Western as well.

Barack Obama is doing his best to turn every nation in that region into an enemy of the United States.

“Financially it is ruinous. Morally it is wicked. Militarily it is an open question, and politically it is a blunder.”

The U.S. should have made an agreement with Maliki early on to cover our expenses. We didn't. That was a massive blunder. I can't help it if Bush was an idiot..

The above quote was written by Winston Churchill in a private letter to his mother, Jennie Randolph Churchill, 10/21/1897, regarding his assessment of the British Malakand Field Force punitive expedition against the indigenous Pushtan tribal uprising in the Hindu Kush along the borders of Afghanistan, India, and the future nation of Pakistan. Churchill was 22 years of age and a veteran of this campaign as a subaltern in the cavalry. This is the same area in which U.S./NATO troops faught Muslim mujhadien (the great-great grandchildren of Churchill’s enemies) from 2001-2014 – America’s longest war.

We are going to confront Islam somewhere. The quesiton for folks is this. Do we fight it in foreign lands, or do we fight it in downtown New York, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, and Los Angeles?

We need to be much more vigilant here at home. I think we all know that. As for foreign lands, they are our business. Allowing an entity like ISIS to solidify a position in Iraq and beyond is out of the question.

Yes this is the United State's longest war. It is also the war with the least amount of casualties.

If this battle is not fought, we will lose millions at home. Europe will crumble. We will then have Russia, China, and a massive Kalifate that will all be against us..

Please try to remember what brought this all on. At the time we had no troops in the Middle-Eest. Even if that is the model you wish to return to, I cannot join you.

Thank you Zulu. I appreciate it.

The idea of trying to nation build an Islamic country into a functioning democracy is as stupid an idea as can be imagined. Only ideologues of the utopian liberal sort would believe such hogwash,...

Yes it does sound stupid on the surface. Then you realize that both buildings of the World Trade Center have been taken down, several other large buildings there too, and the world's leading known blow-hard that supported terrorists was still mouthing off in support of terrorism. You also realize you didn't have any troops in the Middle-East at the time, and that if intervention wasn't taken, you would likely see more of the same short-term. Hussein, like it or not, was the most visible proponent of terrorism on the planet, providing $25,000 a pop to the families of suicide bombers inside Israel. He was breaking no-fly zones. He was moving his troops into areas off limits close to his neighbors in violation of agreements. He was still targeting our aircraft in country We needed to make it clear we wouldn't stand by idly while our nation was attacked. We took action.

Look at Iran pre-Peanut Boy Jimmy Carter. It was pro-Western. Women had elevated rights, un-rivaled in the region. The Shah wasn't just pro-Western, he was an actual ally. In comes Carter, works his magic, instant Kalifate. If Iraq had been managed properly, I believe it could have been more of a Pre-Kalifate modeled on the Shah, absent the Shah position of course. Brain trust Bush put a 20 year resident of Iran into the leadership position of Iraq. That was doomed from the moment he did it.

...but unfortunately Dubya surrounded himself with exactly that sort of advisor.

While I do agree with you about the quality of Bush's advisors, I do it for a different reason. Two massive mistakes were made right off the bat. One, they installed the wrong guy. Two, they didn't make an agreement with the guy they supported, to see the U.S. paid back for the war's costs. Iraq had plenty of oil and gas reserves, that could easily have paid us multiple billions in war related reparations. It's hard to fathom how the Bush team could have failed on those two accounts, leaving aside your beefs for the moment.

His father had the good sense to take advice from foreign policy realists which is why he didn’t try to conquer Iraq.

IMO, this could have been what drove Bush to avoid entering Iraq and toppling Hussein. I have always thought it had more to do with the colation with the region's rulers, that they would support U.S. action as long as it didn't telegraph a willingness to topple governments in the process. I think Bush had to promise to leave Hussein in power, just checked from doing more mischief after Kuwait was returned to it's pre-war situation.

I have never faulted Bush for not toppling Hussein. I haven't faulted the follow-on Bush for removing him either.

His less than brilliant son gobbled at the neoconservative trough, and the advisors he chose were true to their liberal roots - they imagined that an ancient society would be immensely malleable and that its underlying religion would be irrelevant. All that was needed to turn Iraq into a western style democracy was their will.

Do you think the people who showed off their purple thumbs were just posturing for the cameras? Look, I understand where you are coming from, but I am not convinced the Iraqis were angry at the situaion the U. S. ushered in.. I believe Bush accomplished something there. Factions settled down, and there was relative peace. If ISIS had not invaded Iraq now, relative peace would have continued. I do think a contingent of U. S. troops should have remained in Iraq, but with Obama that wasn't going to happen. We won the war. Obama lost the peace. Actually, I see it worse than that too. I think Obama armed and funded ISIS/ISIL, under the guise of helping those against the Syrian government. He helped the rebels destablize Libya, Egypt, Syria, and now Iraq. That's quite a feat, especially for a Community Organizer.

It’s the same hubris that Lyndon Johnson possessed when he thought he could turn Vietnam into a miniature United States. The neoconservatives learned nothing from that fool’s errand.

I don't think the goal was to turn Vietnam into a miniature United States. I believe it was an effort to keep the people of South Vietnam free. In those days Communist insurgents would kill massive numbers of thier conquered enemies. Johnson ran his war machine like a true predicessor of Carter and Obama. He was an idiot. Given free reign, Nixon would have concluded that war. Congress fought him every step of the way. Congres was single-handedly responsible for about half the casualties in the war. Nixon would bomb the North. It would be reeling, and Congress would demand a cease-fire to negotiate in good faith. That would fall through, and Nixon would bring the hurt again. Again he would make headway, and Congress would jump back in to defeat victory. Congress turned out to be the North's best ally, after Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and the hippies of the day. These entites could not allow the Right to win the war. If Johnson couldn't, it couldn't be shown that a Republican could. IMO, it was about that simple..

America’s finances are in terrible shape. Dick Cheney would have us borrowing even more from China in order to police the Middle East. Time for him and his ambitious GOPe daughter to just go away.

I think his dauther is DOA poitically. She should be. Expect to see the GOPe try to inflate her once again. Please realize that we had no troops in the Middle-East when the Trade Center attack was launched. We are going to have to fight Islam. Better to do it off our soil than on it. The cost here would be a lot highter in the long run.