The perceived and real sins of Dick Cheney

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 8:28 PM

James Fallows blogs about how George W. Bush has acted like all ex-presidents by refusing to criticize their successors in their first year of office -- as opposed to ex-VP Dick Cheney. To Fallows, this is an unforgivable sin:

I am not aware of a case of a former president or vice president behaving as despicably as Cheney has done in the ten months since leaving power, most recently but not exclusively with his comments to Politico about Obama's decisions on Afghanistan. (Aaron Burr might win the title, for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, but Burr was a sitting vice president at the time.) Cheney has acted as if utterly unconcerned with the welfare of his country, its armed forces, or the people now trying to make difficult decisions. He has put narrow score-settling interest far, far above national interest.

I confess that I've been on the fence about Cheney's outspokenness to date. On the one hand, I think Fallows is correct in pointing out the breach of protocol. On the other hand, I think Cheney genuinely believes that he has an obligation to speak out on foreign policy matters. In his mind, the stakes are huge enough, and the policies Obama is pursuing are wrong enough, to warrant his criticisms.

So I'm inclined to cut Cheney some slack for his decision to speak out. On the other hand, when we read the Politico interview, Cheney's actual sins come out:

Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating (emphasis added).

Seriously? Seriously? I dare any Cheney supporter to make the argument that Afghanistan was hunky-dory until January 20, 2009, at which point things went to hell in a handbasket.

For the rest of us on the Planet Earth, there's no way to read that passage and not come to one of two possible conclusions:

Richard B. Cheney is a liar;
Richard B. Cheney is so unconnected from reality that it is impossible to trust anything he says.

I don't mind that Cheney speaks up for what he thinks is right -- I mind that he's a liar.

Or, to paraphrase Garry Trudeau, "That's LIAR! LIAR!! LIAR!! LIAR!!"

COMMENTS (26)

EXPLORE:U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, AFGHANISTAN, OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENTS

Prospect theory and vice-presidential nominees

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, September 1, 2008 - 1:34 PM

I've been slow to blog about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for the following reasons:

I was at APSA.
Everyone at APSA kept asking me about Palin, and I was too busy attending APSA to think about it for a little while.
My first, snarky instinct upon hearing the pick was "Danielle Quayle" -- which isn't really fair to anyone involved -- Quayle had served Congress for twelve years before Bush picked him.
Since almost everyone at APSA is supporting Obama, the conversations about Palin were juuuust a little skewed to her negatives.

Surprisingly, however, I see that part of William Kristol's New York Times column today pretty much captures my impression of the pick:

There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — “experience.” There are also sensible strategists who nervously note just how big a gamble McCain has taken. But what was McCain’s alternative? To go quietly down to defeat, accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story? McCain had to shake up the race, and once he was persuaded not to pick Joe Lieberman, which would have been one kind of gamble, he went all in with Sarah Palin.

That's largely correct. Despite poll numbers indicating that it's a close race, both campaigns know that the contours of this race are stacked heavily in Obama's favor. And this fact led to different factors in their VP selections. Barack Obama picked Joe Biden mostly because he was concerned about governing after the election; it was a risk-averse decision. John McCain picked Sarah Palin in the hope that she helps him win the election; it was a risk-loving decision. Kristol, naturally, thinks Palin is a risk that will pay off. I'll reserve judgment for a spell. AFTER A SMALL SPELL: Wow, the McCain campaign has done some fantastic vetting here.

COMMENTS (21)

EXPLORE:POLITICS, PROSPECT THEORY, VICE PRESIDENTS