Many Americans were repulsed by the methods former Vice-President Dick Cheney used to consolidate and exercise war powers in the Executive Branch during the administration of George W. Bush.
Unfortunately, that controversy clouds many people’s judgment on Cheney’s many noteworthy accomplishments during his 30-year career in public service. He has been an extraordinary public servant.
My sense is that Cheney based his aggressive exercise of war powers during the Bush Administration in large part on classified information regarding the risk of more attacks on U.S. citizens after the attacks of September 11, 2001, a point that Barton Gellman notes in his seminal but generally critical book on the Cheney vice-presidency, Angler: The Cheney Vice-Presidency (Penguin 2008).
Cheney’s public comments from earlier this week appear to be consistent with my impression regarding his assessment of the risk of further attacks.
Given that, when you have 25 minutes or so, take the time to watch the video below of Irwin Redlener’s recent TED lecture on how the nature of a nuclear attack threat on the United States has changed, but our generally deficient approach to preparing for one has not.
As Dick Cheney says, fighting those who would levy such an attack on the U.S. is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business.”
Here’s hoping that the Obama Administration is up to the task.
Tom,
There are quite of number of us who were in no way whatsoever repulsed by the methods former Vice-President Dick Cheney used to consolidate and exercise war powers in the Executive Branch during the administration of George W. Bush. We simply got tired of trying to discuss the subject with the rabid moonbats who couldn’t get past their hysteria against all that was associated with the Bush administration. Both Bush and Cheney are comfortable allowing history to judge their actions. I believe history will judge them fairly.
Already, those who place their faith in the proposition that Obama is The Messiah are beginning to learn that governing is quite different from campaigning. Bush and Cheney not only made difficult decisions, they accepted the political consequences of those decisions. I only hope those in decision making capacities today are willing to continue to make the difficult decisions and accept the consequences for those decisions. One thing we know for sure is that Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney. Cheney measured his words and understand words, as well as actions, have meaning. Joe Biden, on the other hand,….
Tom,
It surprises me, that, as a libertarian, you would term Cheney an “extraordinary public servant.”
As it happens, I agree with this statement, with the caveat that I suspect what you and I mean by “extraordinary” is quite different, and perhaps even diametrically opposed.
Daniel, Cheney’s impact on the U.S. government has been indisputably extraordinary. Some of it has been positive, some has been negative, some has been neutral. I suspect that what you and I mean by “extraordinary” is closer to the same than you think.
However, I think it is a very hard case to make that Cheney’s efforts to coordinate an effective defense from terrorist attacks on the U.S. were anything less than extraordinarily effective.
Daniel Goldberg’s reply to my prior comment (he had problems logging in to Typepad):
I suspect that what you and I mean by “extraordinary” is closer to the same than you think.
I am willing to wager you are quite mistaken in this surmise, if I am reading your post correctly.
I think it is a very hard case to make that Cheney’s efforts to coordinate an effective defense from terrorist attacks on the U.S. were anything less than extraordinarily effective.
Respectfully, this is one of the least plausible claims I have seen you advance on your weblog. Arguments from deterrence can never do the work you seem to be relying on here: the elephant repellant sold on Fifth Avenue apparently has also been extraordinarily effective. Moreover, there are no shortage of respectable scholars (check out Balkinization, or Obsidian Wings, just by way of example) who, I think, would quite seriously disagree with your assessment here.
In any case, though I understand and respect that you see things differently, I remain surprised.
Respectfully, this is one of the least plausible claims I have seen you advance on your weblog.
So, Daniel, when did you gain access to the classified information that allows you to assess that Cheney’s efforts were unnecessary to deal with the threat imposed post-9/11?
I don’t have that information, either, so I may be wrong in my assessment that the threat was extreme, too. Thus, at the end of the day, the question is whether Cheney is trustworthy regarding his assessment of the threat and his decisions on what actions were necessary to combat the threat.
Any fair evaluation of Cheney’s actions in the 25 years as a public servant before he was required to deal with this threat post-9/11 would conclude that he is trustworthy in his judgments.