This Talk of Cheney Running in 2012 Should Remain Talk: I Wouldn’t Support Him

An MSNBC columnist pointed out in a recent column that the conservatives do not yet have a viable candidate to run against President Obama in 2012. He raised a few possibilities: Sarah Palin, John McCain (the not-conservative), and Dick Cheney.

John Meacham thinks that Cheney should run, so that voters will have an opportunity to cast a “final judgment” on the Bush years.

I don’t think so.

Dick Cheney should stay retired, and out of the media. He’s more of a hindrance than he is a viable choice to take on Obama. It’s not his qualifications that I’m questioning, but his judgment. Aside from the fact that he’s disregarded presidential traditions by criticizing the new Administration immediately after leaving office, I disagreed with most of his public stands as they were too far to the right, were reactionary, ill-conceived and war hawkish. And when Iran re-appeared on the radar screen, it was Cheney who was beating the war drums the loudest. That scared me. I was glad that Bush and Cheney left office before they got us into a war with Iran too.

Our side didn’t find WMDs in a bunker in the Iraqi desert like I thought they were going to. That was the entire rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. Cheney’s never admitted to the mistake, which causes issues with more than a few voters, including me.

Cheney presents the image of a man with his finger poised on the little red button, just itching for an excuse to press it. What the red button controls is of equal importance; is it a paper shredder with the Constitution loaded up and ready to shred? Or is it the control that will empty all the missile silos?

I hope Cheney is enjoying his retirement. I like the current administration even less than I like Cheney, and his influence on America’s foreign policy would be a prime target for Obama to go after. This needs to be a one-term President; he needs to be turned out on Election Day.

No thank you on Cheney. We need someone who has broader appeal.

Another Iraq War Movie Bites the Dust: Hollywood Doesn't Seem to be Learning

"Stop-Loss" is the most recent Iraq War-related movie to go in the toilet, making about $4.5 million in it's opening weekend.

The movie had a budget of $25 million, so it looks like Paramount will be eating it, unless the overseas market saves it.

This movie was said to be better than the other Iraq War movies that flopped, as described in this blog before. Hollywood either isn't learning anything, or it's simply taking a while for this slate of Iraq War movies to go through the pipeline.

No one wants to see a movie that is a grim reminder of how terrible the war is, and the price that we as a nation have paid for that war, in terms of national treasure. If people want to see the war, they just turn on the news and get all the horror that they can stomach. Why would people want to pay to see it?

Disgusting.

Latest Iraq War Film Bombs at Box Office: More Proof That Hollywood Needs to Shift Gears

The latest Iraq War film, "Redacted", utterly bombed at the box office, taking in a paltry $25,628 across the country in it's opening weekend. It's a portent of things to come when (IF at this point) it goes into wide release.

It's more proof that Iraq War films are not appealing the the American viewing public, and that Hollywood needs to get out of Iraq War films until after the war is over. It joins "Lions for Lambs", "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah" in the trash can for box office performances.

Anti-war films at this juncture are boring, depressing and a waste of money for the studios.

Are the Hollywood elites getting it yet?

Hollywood is Learning a Lesson on Anti-Iraq War Films: Movie After Movie Flops at the Box Office

The latest and the not-so-greatest thing coming out of Hollywood has been a slew of anti-Iraq War films. And every one of them has been a box office failure. People don't want to go to a negative movie when events in reality are already so negative.

Here's the latest takes:

"Rendition" with Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal---$10 million domestically--a "disastrous" performance. It's been in theaters since October 19th.

"The Kingdom" with Jamie Lee Fox--$47 million domestically--budget was $70 million, so this one didn't fare as well as expected either. It's been in theaters since September 28th.

"In the Valley of Elah"--an independent film with Tommy Lee Jones, made $7 million. It was said to be a good film, but the subject--a father investigating the death of his son in Iraq--was too much for a war-weary U.S. public to stomach.

"Home of the Brave" with Samuel L. Jackson made a paltry $43,753 domestically. This was released in December of 2006, then widely released in May of 2007 before being pulled. Somehow "disaster" doesn't even begin to cover it.

And most recently, Robert Redford's film "Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise made $2 million on opening. This is much weaker than anticipated and may be a sign of things to come for this film.

Hollywood ought to be reluctant to put out multi-million dollar films based on the Iraq War right now. They should be waiting for a few years after the war ends to start producing this stuff; it might attract more people.

All they have to do is look to the past: Vietnam-era films produced in the 1980s did well: "Full Metal Jacket" made $46 million on a $30 million budget; "Platoon" made $138 million on a $6 million budget. "Good Morning, Vietnam" made close to $124 million. "Apocalypse Now", made in 1979, just six years after American troops were pulled from Vietnam, made $83 million. "Rambo: First Blood" made $47 million on a $15 million budget.

With a war in progress, Hollywood needs to pay closer attention to the mood of the viewing public when they produce Iraq War-era films.

Iraqi Prime Minister's Statement That Iraq Can Take Care of Itself Should the Americans Leave Suddenly: Bravado or Reality?

The Iraqi Prime Minister recently made some eyebrow-raising statements concerning political upheaval in Washington that could lead to a sudden pull-out of the U.S. military from Iraq. Said he: "...American troops can leave anytime they want." He also said that Iraqi troops are capable of taking over.

Really? Since when, exactly?

That sounds like bravado backed up by facts not in evidence. I would think that we've heard enough bravado in this war to make everyone uneasy over his choice of words. I believe al-Maliki misspoke and hurt his own cause.

It smells of someone else standing on the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner over his shoulder, stating that major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, or that same person's declaration that he didn't care if bin-Laden was brought in, "dead or alive."

Politicians are the same the world over.

Congress's Withdrawal Timetable is Unrealistic: The U.S. Military Can't Pack Up and Move Out of Iraq Like a Boy Scout Troop on a Camp-Out

As I had feared in my May 14th entry, the Pentagon and other military planners do not have a plan for a full withdrawal yet. In fact, the challenges ahead of them are huge. But they are working on the problem.

According to military logistics officials, it would take 10,000 flatbed trucks and one year to move out--and that's just to withdraw the twenty combat brigades currently deployed in Iraq. For a full pullout, it would take twenty months or more to get the troops and all equipment out of Iraq.

Congress's timetable is unrealistic. They are TOTALLY out of their minds!

This entire withdrawal debate needs to be re-cast with more realistic timetables. Vietnam withdrawal planning took two years to complete, and the draw down took place between 1969-1973.

If the Pentagon needs to take two years to plan it out, that puts the timetable to begin withdrawing somewhere around 2009 or 2010. And then a minimum of twenty months to get all troops and equipment out, which puts the complete withdrawal date anywhere from late 2012 to somewhere around 2015.

Congress must not screw this up! They're going to get a lot of people killed if they insist on this cockamamie plan to complete the withdrawal by April 2008. This is a force of 200,000 people with many thousands of tons of equipment, not a Boy Scout troop packing up to go home after a camp-out.

Congress needs to get it's head out of the sand and get with the program.

Democrats on Verge of Breaking Promise Not to Cut Funding to Troops in Iraq

The Democrats in Congress are on the verge of breaking their promise not to defund the troops in Iraq. This is hardly a surprise given many ran on anti-war platforms. And their defeatist Republican lap-dog colleagues are too weak and ineffectual to disagree with them. I believe de-funding was always inevitable--it's what the Democratic majority wanted all along.

But still, to cut off reinforcements and bullets and equipment to the soldiers who are over there now is irresponsible. And Congress will be unable to keep dodging their collective responsibility in authorizing the war in the first place. Their votes gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, whether his intel was good or not.

They keep saying they are a co-equal branch of government, yet they clearly don't want to take their share of the blame. They're co-equal all right, but only to a point.

The military needs to complete their mission and soon. We have bigger fish to fry and Iraq is taking up too much time, attention and resources. Blindly cutting their funding to bring them home in six months without a measure of success will only make the situation worse, not better.

All that will happen is the next President will have the unenviable task of sending troops back in once terror groups use Iraq the same way they used Afghanistan to attack New York and Washington. And Congress will blame Bush for that too, for stopping the war too soon.

And this will be after Congress and the next Administration decide to slash military rebuilding funds, too.

What a vicious cycle we find ourselves facing.