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.

Cheney is in the News Again: Stirring the Pot Up Again With His Flawed Approach to National Security

Keeping traditions is an important part of our American tradition, and one tradition is that former Presidents of the United States do not criticize their successor for a while.

Former President Bush is honoring this time-honored tradition, saying that he "...doesn't want to criticize President Obama as he deserves my silence." His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is honoring no such tradition. He's been blasting away at Obama's approach to national security.

I thought that Cheney should have resigned alongside President Bush's former Defense Secretary, Don Rumsfeld, due to his contribution to the hype behind the Iraq War, and the mismanagement of the occupation, and his willingness to shred the Constitution in the name of national security.

In fact, I tried to blister both their hides (Rumsfeld and Cheney) with criticisms of those points, to the point that someone who reads this blog sent me an e-mail, warning me to "tone it down" or else I would end up disappearing when "martial law was declared" as that reader put it. I ignored that advice. Martial law was NOT declared, President Bush didn't seize power like some thought he would, and he and Cheney left the White House precisely on time.

Since Cheney has refused to fade quietly into the background, I'm going to dial my criticism of him back up.

And make no mistake, I think Obama's mismanaging things pretty badly, but he'll get his own articles once I have a clearer picture of what direction he's steering us in. For now, Cheney is invoking the wrath of my poison pen. Again.

Human rights should NEVER be sacrificed in the same of national security, as Cheney has suggested. Rather, human rights and national security should go hand in hand. But that means changing what our perception of "national security" is.

"National security" should involve a free American people being able to live their lives, free from fear of terrorists, of criminals, and free of being afraid of what their own government might do to them for speaking up, and criticizing the government. The American people want their government to stand up for the rights of individuals, and to honor and cherish the Bill of Rights, on which their natural rights are confirmed.

Cheney's version of national security involves star chamber justice, weakening the parts of the Constitution that he doesn't like, because they're INCONVENIENT, holding people without trial indefinitely, and denying people accused of crimes the right to challenge their imprisonment, in spite of all the international treaties that the United States has signed that says it would take the lead in upholding international norms of decency and human respect.

Human rights need to be considered in all national security matters, and shouldn't be subordinated. There are ways to do both, and still get the job done. And that's what infuriates me the most about Cheney's approach to things. His approach is that there's only one approach to all of these problems, and human rights can be sacrificed in the name of national security. His inflexibility has made him one of the most controversial Vice-Presidents of all time.

I think in time, history will be kind to Bush, but I'm not so sure about how history will judge Cheney. The damage he inflicted on the Constitution is something that should be held up as the wrong approach to solving the nation's problems.