Dick Cheney has once again crawled out from under the rock, this time to project President Obama as a dithering world leader. (Now we at the Firecracker Report don't always agree with Obama, BUT we would pick him any day, over the Bush-Cheney-McCain-Ann Coulter cabal). Our favorite candidate remains Ron Paul, but there are practical limitations to his becoming President.
Coming back to Cheney, it seems like his delusional thinking has only gotten stronger since he left office. A Bloomberg news report titled Cheney Afghanistan Barb Draws White House Rebuttal, highlights his school-boy bully-like ideas:Cheney said President Barack Obama “seems afraid to make a decision” about sending more troops to the conflict. Obama seems “unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission,” Cheney said last night to the Center for Security Policy in Washington.
Since when did making harebrained decisions without weighing the consequences become the mark of a great leader? Isn’t it the job of a President to make decisions carefully with due deliberation and a comprehensive evaluation of the ramifications? Does Cheney not understand that he and his party were voted out of the office precisely because they plunged the United States into an un-winable war in Iraq without due though-process.
Mr. Cheney we are tired of you war-mongering ideas, which is why we voted you out of office. Can you please crawl back under your rock?
6 comments:
Cheney should be forrced to serve as a soldier on the frontlines in Agfhanistan
Why does the US not focus on creating peace in the world through dialogue and negotiations?
Is that so tough.
Wait a minute, I'm not supporting the war or any war since I'm not fully informed of the facts here. However, it does seem like Afghanistan has been on the 'radar' for an extended period of time, to assume that a thorough evaluation of the situation hasn't been assessed would be something notable. I do have to side with Cheney on this one though, Obama doesn't make decisions when cornered and between his wantoness for war in Afghanistan and the Generals on the ground requesting more troops... lets say he knows the options and doesn't want to make a decision.
I think the article you authored about the nobel prize committee checkmating him shed some light on that issue.
A cursory examination of his past record shows similar inability to make decisions. Where is the definitive bill on health care? Will there or will there not be a public option? He has yet to make a stand on any issue and because of that his base of power is eroding, hence his popularity amongst Americans has been declining rapidly.
Let's get it straight Cheney sucks, but so does Obama.
John we agree with you that both Cheney and Obama suck, however we are merely siding with what we consider the lesser evil Obama, because we remain somewhat hopeful that he will see the light and take the country in a new direction. We fully agree that so far he has shown scant initiative and has not been willing to take a stand on any issue (financial crisis, healthcare etc.).
With regards to Afghanistan, our thesis is the following: The Bush administration had changed focus of the war on terror from Afghanistan to Iraq all the while claiming that in doing so they kept the U.S. safe. If that is the case then the terrorist threat to the U.S. from Afghanistan is greatly diminished otherwise al-quaeda would have had ample time (8years) to regroup and launch an attack on the U.S. or its allies.
So what gives now? The real threat to the U.S. is posed not by terrorists but is economic in nature. With the USD steadily declining in value, coupled with increasing voices from the middle east, asia and russia to diversify away from the dollar, the real threat is a resulting death spiral in the u.s. economy. So a military build up in Afghanistan is aimed to keep economic threats from Asia and the Middle east in check. Therin lies the real problem of military adventurism which could easily draw in Russia and China, which we at the firecracker report are most worried about.
If the threats are economic in nature, why not protect or preserve the USD? Raising rates or tightening monetary policy would do the trick.
Personally I think something a little bit more foul is afoot, what it is I'm uncertain of. I think it goes beyond bailing out bankers and trying to enhance our position as an exporter. I think it's more likely related to China and their need for our currency to stay weak in order for them to reasonably manage their country. Not to mention increases in rates or dollar strength would really only hurt the US short term (go back to 2008 early 09 to see that) but would pave our way for a generation of prosperity. Instead I think we're exporting our prosperity but I can't figure out why.
Russia seems to weak to me, if you compare them side by side to China, it seems like there's a cat and mouse game going on and China is the cat.
John you hit the nail completely. We have been exporting our prosperity by shipping jobs overseas. What worked so far was that asset inflation (home price and stock market rise) masked the massive deflation in worker wages, so most of america was lulled into a false sense of prosperity. That prosperity bubble has burst with the home price collapse and decades of misguided fed & corporate policies have been exposed. Now even if bernanke wants to save the dollar he can't because as you point out raising rates will put an end to whatever fake recovery he has been touting. And if the U.S. economy tumbles further, China is sure to take a big hit. As it its they are facing huge social problems with all the factory and construction workers that got laid off. China is learning that suppressing your people works only if the economy is good...
Post a Comment