[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: 'Conservative of the Year' award for Dick Cheney is a sham 'Conservative of the Year' award for Dick Cheney is a sham This week conservative magazine Human Events declared former Vice President Dick Cheney the “Conservative of the Year.” Frankly, this honor is unwarranted and unjustifiable. Just as President Obama didn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, Cheney doesn’t deserve this accolade. Yes, many Americans are worried our country’s direction under Obama’s leadership, but that doesn’t mean they are jumping on the Cheney bandwagon, especially conservatives. What Human Events doesn’t realize, is that Cheney and former President Bush – along with their neoconservative philosophy – hurt the Republican Party and conservatives immensely during their two terms in office and after. If Cheney (and Bush) had done a better job in office, currently there would most likely be a Republican in the White House, more Republicans in Congress, and the cap and trade and health care reform bills never would have been created. It absolutely amazes me how many Republicans still defend Cheney after all his failures. During the beginning of his first term as Vice President (April 2001), Gallup polling had Cheney’s approval rating at 63%. And just what was his approval rating toward the end of his second term in March of 2009? A pathetic 30% – a failing grade by any standard. Currently, many conservatives see Cheney as their advocate since he has been criticizing Obama on various war policies. But who is Cheney to criticize anyone on leadership during war? What does he know about war? He received numerous draft deferments during the Vietnam War and stated; “I had other priorities in the '60s than military service.” It is an absolute disgrace that someone like Cheney – who has never served in the military – has been in charge of so many troops’ lives as Secretary of Defense and Vice President. He has neither credibility nor authority on leadership during war. Months ago, retired Army General Paul Eaton summed up Cheney’s legacy concerning war: The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11. The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy ‘experts’ have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to… rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes. Does this kind of leadership deserve to be applauded like Human Events did? Real conservatives revere the Constitution and its clear allocation of power within the executive branch. While in office, this was part of our founding document that Cheney liked to disregard as he expanded the power of the office of Vice President to unprecedented levels. I wish the conservatives who run Human Events would have answered this question before honoring Cheney: Why didn’t he run for president in 2008 if he was so great? Since they cannot answer, I’ll do it for them: Because Cheney wasn’t a true conservative, two terms of his policies failed, and he lost the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Now just how does all that deserve to be honored?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Bickus Dickus (#0)
Bush, Cheney and Congress used 9/11, and the WOT, to proceed with their *dream of 'promoting democracy around the globe'. To 'make the world safe for democracy'. *A leftist, neoconservative pipedream. This also served another function: To help further bankrupt the United States to facilitate an easier shift into global government under the UN.
I agree completely.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|