Just what the title says... random ruminations on life, the universe, and everything by a Christian Conservative Geek (that's me). Could be religion, politics, or the state of the Star Trek franchise.
It is a shame that in a conflict filled with stories of valor and charity, of service and sacrifice, so many column inches are being devoted to a self-absorbed soldier who seems to have accomplished little more than showing up and nurturing a crummy attitude. Our country, our military, is so much better than that. So while it is necessary, even critical, to expose the fraudulent tales and those who tell them, take time also to promote the stories of the men and women who are going above and beyond the call of duty. Celebrate that which affirms the human spirit in the face of those who seek to tear it down. For every exaggerated tale of the brutal or bizarre, there are a hundred true accounts of bravery and benevolence that more clearly and accurately represent the spirit of our fighting forces. Maybe that is not news, but it should be.
The New Republic, offered stories by Beauchamp which validated their views of the military and of the war — and which were written by the future husband of one of their researchers — bit hard, and came up worse than empty. What they published was shown not to be simply “inaccurate” or “exaggerated,” but false — and TNR, along with its defenders, went to the mat for it.
The motivation for this is likely not as sinister as some ascribe to TNR — it is highly doubtful that they went to press with a story that they knew to be false, from a source they thought untrustworthy. In all likelihood, they simply found a story that validated their views about the “morally and emotionally distorting effects of war,” which also served as “a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both [the author’s] and that of his fellow soldiers.” Thinking the source unimpeachable, they ran with it.
A massive part of the problem with TNR and others who seek to run to press with the first available scandal is that, to them, such behavior is the rule in the United States military, rather than the exception (as it is in reality).
We already knew from all of America’s armed conflicts — including Iraq — what war can make men do. The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say.
Captain Ed somehow discovered a website at least initially designed to confuse potential Fred supporters; they used the name ImWithFred2008.com (an obvious attempt to mimic ImWithFred.com), and posted stuff designed to make Fred look like a member of the KKK.
Turns out the good Cap'n did some investigative work and discovered that the owner of the URL in question had donated to MoveOn, the DNC, and John Kerry. Who'da thunk it?
The site has since been cleansed, after going through several changes, including at least one pornographic. However, Captain Ed has kept track of the changes.
Take a look, if you dare. God only knows what that site has on it now.
Here's a great way that you can brighten the day of an Armed Forces member stationed in harm's way (not necessarily in Iraq or Afghanistan, but still in danger) in three easy steps.
Go to one of the websites below.
Follow the instructions.
Wait for reply)*.
Here's the websites... and thanks to Mazeguy Smilies, we even have flags for the services.
The neatest thing about this service is that the service member who receives your letter will pass it to a fellow service member who hasn't been receiving much--or any--mail.
So, your letters and packages will go to the people who really need a lift. That's a heck of a good system, I think.
So what are you waiting for? Get writing!
* Please note, replies are not guaranteed. These people have other things on their mind... like keeping their skin in one piece, all internal organs where they should be, and all extremities attached.
If you like George Patton and you really support our troops in Iraq, then you need to watch the imbedded video. Produced by londonsdave, aka Jack Bauer on Newsbusters.
Coming right on the heels of my blog post earlier today on Bill's offensive to make Hillary into a hawk, MSNBCcontinued the offensive.
Wednesday night's Hardball with Chrissy Spittle Boy Matthews had Jon Soltz and Buzz Patterson to answer the question of whether Hillary is a hawk or a dove. Fireworks ensued. Soltz is the anti-Iraq War activist, founder of Vote Vets and recently gained notoriety at the Yearly KosKonvention. Buzz Patterson is Vice Chairman of Move America Forward and author of Dereliction of Duty.
Notable in this exchange, watch who started interrupting first. Also, Soltz seems to feel that because he is an Iraq war vet, he has some higher moral authority than Buzz.
Soltz makes his case that Hillary is the best choice for Commander in Chief, based on his private conversations with her and her understanding and grasp of the military and it's organization. He feels that she has the most sensible foreign policy and would draw down forces in Iraq to fight our real enemy, alQaeda.
Soltz had first shot, answering this question from Matthews: "John, is Hillary the kind of candidate who we can trust to get us out of Iraq and not go to war with Iran?"
Who is Matthews speaking for? Himself, the Congressional democrats, Vote Vet, MoveOn, Code Pink, alQaeda, Iran? Anyway, Soltz answered
I think Hillary is someone who has all of the strengths of a strong commander-in-chief. She understands how we fight. I mean, when you talk to her privately, she can tell you the difference between an old brigade combat team and a new unit of action and how we have, you know, combined our mechanized infantry and armor. It is absolutely fascinating to speak with her behind the scenes.
Her last eight years in the Armed Services Committee she has learned from. And she understands why we fight. You know, I was at a large event with her several months ago and she pulled me aside and she asked me about staying in the Army or not staying in the Army. And I said, well, ma‘am, I do not know.
You know, I love the Army, and my greatest hour was ever—I ever had in my life was leading soldiers into war. And she says to me, you know, you are right, Jon. There is no greater honor than being in charge of our troops in a combat zone. And for her to understand that, like I said, she understands how we fight and why we fight. And she is somebody that.
First, Hillary has been in the Senate for six and a half years, not eight. Second, all that Soltz related means she's paying attention while she's in committee and is well briefed. Which is good, but that doesn't mean she should be Commander in Chief. And if Stolz actually thinks Hillary cares one fart about him having lead troops in combat, then he's a sucker. Hillary doesn't care.
Here, Matthews goes to Patterson and asks: "How do you see Hillary, hawk or dove?"
Hey, Chris. She is a dove in hawk‘s clothing. I mean, I know her personally, worked for her for two years, with her husband from 1996 to 1998, and she is anything but a hawk. I mean, she wants to pull us out of a Iraq. She voted for the war before she voted against the war, to coin a phrase from a previous candidate.
She will say anything she has to say, Chris, to get elected president. See, she is a pathological liar. She does not understand the military. I can speak first and foremost personally, knowing her intimately. She is not a hawk. She is anything but. She is a Wellesley College, socialist, anti-military, anti-American.
And there is where Soltz starts interrupting, after Patterson had sat there and let Soltz have his say. Guess when you're the absolute moral authority you get to interrupt. After that, it was on.
The only thing Buzz might be wrong about is saying she does not understand the military. His interaction with her was almost ten years ago. She might not have known much then but she's had her years in the Senate to pick up a few things. If he means she doesn't understand what being in the military is all about, that I'll believe, despite Soltz's position to the contrary.
Soltz goes on defending Hillary as being a credible Commander in Chief. Patterson defends his position against Hillary based on his first hand experience with the Clintons.
SOLTZ: He is wrong. He‘s making the argument for us.
PATTERSON: John, I was there, pal. You were not.
SOLTZ: I was there.
PATTERSON: You weren‘t in the White House. By the way, let me tell you—
SOLTZ: Let me tell you something, you weren‘t in Kosovo when I was in Kosovo under Bill Clinton.
PATTERSON: I was in Bosnia.
Soltz continues, criticizing Bush and missile defense, which he claims has alienated our allies, and talking about how when he was in Kosovo he had up armored Humvees, but not when he went to Iraq.
They have dedication of super duper missile defense systems in the sky that have alienated our allies. And the Democrats have a position where we can take the fight to alQaeda in Afghanistan. I was in Kosovo when we had—
Why did we have armor equipment under Bill Clinton in Kosovo, but when I was in Iraq, we didn‘t have it?
Bill Clinton was a better commander-in-chief than George W. Bush.
Oh no; lions and tigers and bears. How many troops did we have in Kosovo? A few thousand, peak maybe 8500. That's a far cry from having 150,000 in Iraq. I'd suspect it was much easier to scrape together enough up armored Humvees for a few thousand troops than it is to equip an invasion force of 150,000 troops.
In March 2003, we were operating on the second budget of the Bush administration. If there were not enough up armored Humvees when we went into Iraq, then that was a material short fall from the Clinton administration. Unless, of course, one can convince oneself that all the short comings of the Clinton military could be fixed in the first budget. Or that we should not have done anything until we had everything our military needed - even if it would take several years to get to that point.
Note also that Soltz seems to be against missile defense systems, which puts him right smack dab in the same camp as most Congressional democrats.
It went on from there. You can read the whole transcript here.
As I said, this seems to be an offensive to sell Hillary as a pro-military, foreign policy hawk. I suspect we'll hear more on this in the coming weeks.
Bill is abetting Hillary's makeover as a pro-military hawk. After a fund raiser in the military heavy Florida Panhandle, Bill claimed that Hillary has strong support among military voters and military leaders.
Former President Clinton says his wife has strong support among military voters and that the Democratic presidential candidate is up to the task of rebuilding the nation's military after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hillary is best suited to rebuild our military after years of war? Does he mean as opposed to rebuilding our military after his years of budget slashing and morale crippling policies?
And Clinton said his wife is the best candidate for that job.
Clinton says his wife's seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee has helped to build her rapport among military leaders.
"She enjoys a good reputation among many mainline military officers and military people in New York," he said.
The next president will have a major task of taking over a highly stressed Army and Marine Corps, he said.
I'm flabbergasted. Folks, I was in the Navy during most of the Clinton Administration. One of the factors that lead to my decision to retire was the state of the Navy after six years of his misuse and abuse of our Armed Forces. I was in the Navy during the Carter Administration. There were a lot of similarities. There were constant manpower reductions; some of them coming out of the blue. Suddenly our manpower end strength would be reduced and personnel reduction plans would follow. Early outs, early retirements, sudden strict adherence to personnel separation policies that forced separation of members who had been previously waived.
Additionally, after six years our parts and spare parts situation had deteriorated to a state I hadn't seen since the Carter years and the earliest years of Reagan - as he was trying to build up the military - after the Carter neglect.
All of that was in the pursuit of balancing the budget. A budget that got balanced almost exclusively at the expense of the Department of Defense and national security.
In 1996, the summer Olympics were held in Atlanta, GA. Every squadron in the Fighter Wing was tasked to send two or three people to Atlanta for several weeks to perform a variety of duties in support of the Olympics. This was a tasking that was inflicted on many Navy units besides our Wing. I have never heard of the military being used in this role for any previous Olympics, nor any since. I chalk it up as just another example of Clinton's disdain for the military and his view point that they are just there for whatever he wanted to use them for.
If anyone thinks his wife has a different outlook on the military, I think they are sorely mistaken. Hillary has spent her time in the Senate remaking her image into a pro-military hawk. Her early and large lead over her democrat presidential rivals has allowed her to move to the center on foreign policy earlier than she expected. Make no mistake, it's an act. Hillary doesn't like the military and she'll stab them in the back as soon as it benefits her.
Hillary has to do this to try to get the military and veteran vote, and to get the vote of those Americans who believe in a strong military and foreign policy, while at the same time keeping the anti-war crowd happy by denigrating President Bush's Iraq war policy. Bill telling us how good she'll be on the military will not make it so. He's just making it up as he goes along - which is one of the things Bill does best, and the media eats it up.
From an email Theodore's World PC Free Zone blog received from an active duty member:
The Hildabeest came to Baghdad while I was there. She came to the Presidential Palace, now the US embassy, to have lunch with the troops, though none of them would sit with here and if she sat at their table, they finished their meal and promptly left. [...]
One I hadn't heard until reading it at the same blog
...and Chelsea used to tell the Marine Guards that her parents loathed them.
That's one I would love to get a source for.
But, you don't have to believe me on all of this. Read Buzz Patterson's book, Dereliction of Duty. Buzz was a military aide for Clinton. One of the military aides who carries the nuclear football.
...how the President and the First Lady, and much of their staff, consistently treated members of the military with disrespect and disdain; and how Clinton groped a female Air Force enlisted member while aboard Air Force One, among other incidents large and small. A considerable portion of this slim book is devoted to the myriad ways in which President Clinton undermined the military, and hence the security, of the nation. [...]
My firm conviction is that democrats in general, and Bill and Hillary specifically, see the military as a necessary evil. It's highest and best use is a vehicle to direct pork to their districts (see John Murtha), and a social experimentation organization, and as Rush says, a Meals on Wheels outfit.
A former KGB agent lifts the curtain on some of the tactics adopted by the American Left, and it seems the Left has learned the lessons of the KGB all too well:
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
[...]
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
Sounds like a former Presidential candidate from the Party of the Donkey, doesn't it?
Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America's international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.
Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."
One has to wonder if the Left would listen to this man, the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect.
I suspect not. They're too deep in their Bush Derangement Syndrome. And they may find that they've done incalculable damage to the very nation they want to take over.
We've all seen them, the produce bins in the grocery story proudly proclaiming to be "organic." But is "organic" really better?
Perhaps not.
Soil management by farmers is important. Tillage practices can have a major effect on the levels of soil CO2 emissions.
Organic agriculture controls weeds primarily by ploughing. The microbial respiration rate is increased every time a plough churns up the soil. When compared to no-tillage, mould-board ploughing doubles CO2 emissions from the soil.
Along with microbial production of CO2, tractors burn huge amounts of diesel fuel pulling metal ploughs through the soil. Research has shown that a conversion to no-tillage practices can save up to 32 litres/hectare. With no-tillage farming practiced over millions of hectares, there is a huge reduction in the amount of CO2 produced by tractors.
And...
Some have suggested a complete conversion to organic agriculture. But, on average, organic agriculture produces 30 percent less per hectare than conventional farms. If we were to convert entirely to organic agriculture, we would need at least 30 percent more farmland. Significant amounts of the remaining wilderness would have to be ploughed under to maintain current food production levels.
The conversion to organic farming would also require a tremendous increase in animals to generate manure fertilizer. Anyone who has ever been near the back end of a cow knows this would significantly increase a different greenhouse gas.
Once again, the greenies propose something that looks good at first glance, but upon closer examination, turns out to be worse than what we have now.
Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr., the fellow who sued the D.C. dry cleaners for $54 million dollars for losing his pants, is in jeopardy of losing his job.
Judge Pearson was appointed as a District Administrative Law Judge in 2005 for an initial two year term. The city commission (Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges) that reviews the sitting judges for reappointment for an additional ten year term has notified Judge Pearson he may not be reappointed. Pearson has the opportunity to file a rebuttal and then appear before the commission at the next meeting in September.
If he hasn't already started, the D.C. judge who sued his dry cleaners for $54 million -- and lost -- may want to begin looking for a new job.
The city commission that has been weighing the professional fate of Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. has voted to formally notify Pearson that he may not be reappointed to the bench, according to a government source. [...]
Apparently, the judge's suing his dry cleaner is not his only transgression. His work as an administrative law judge had been questioned even before his much publicized trial this spring.
If and when Pearson appears before the commission's three voting members, he will likely face questions about far more than the lawsuit that made him the butt of jokes around the world and the target of the tort reform movement here at home. Concerns about his work as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity this spring about his lawsuit and the letter from the commission focuses on those concerns, only addressing the lawsuit briefly. [...]
Since winning at trial, the Chung's (the dry cleaner owners) have filed a petition with the court to recoup attorney costs from Pearson. Pearson has been granted an extension to respond to the Chung's motion.
Sounds to me like Judge Pearson is more combative than he is judicious. An order from the court for him to pay the Chung's attorney fees and the loss of his cherished administrative judgeship would be justice served in this case.
A few days ago I blogged about body counts in the war on terrorists. This story is the kind of body counts I do like to see. Still not in favor of a running total though.
Seventy five Taliban terrorists attempted a frontal attack on an U.S. led coalition base in southern Afghanistan. It didn't turn out so good for the terrorists.
GHAZNI, Afghanistan - A group of 75 Taliban militants tried to overrun a U.S.-led coalition base in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, a rare frontal attack that left more than 20 militants dead, the coalition said in a statement.
The insurgents attacked Firebase Anaconda from three sides, using gunfire, grenades and 107 mm rockets, the coalition said. A joint Afghan-U.S. force repelled the attack with mortars, machine guns and air support.
“Almost two dozen insurgents were confirmed killed in the attack,” the statement said. Two girls and two Afghan soldiers were wounded during the fight in Uruzgan province, it said.
What made these seventy five fools think they had a chance in that kind of fight? They hitting the opium water pipe?
Get the virgins ready. Two dozen jihadists on the way.
Assuming the above-linked report from The Weekly Standard is correct, TNR has enough egg on its face to feed an Army platoon.
Seems that Private Beauchamp, on the very first day of the Army's official investigation, voluntarily offered to sign a sworn statement that all three articles published in The New Republic were almost entirely false.
Some folks are predicting spin from the leftymedia... I, personally, think it's 60-40 that they'll go completely silent on this story, since having it exposed to the non-blog-reading public would show them just how far the leftymedia will go to bash the military, the war, the GOP, and the President. On second thought, make that 70-30 in favor of silence.
All will be well now - the United States Navy is on the way to the site of the I-35W bridge collapse to aid in recovery efforts.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2007 – Navy divers will aid in recovery efforts at the site of the Aug. 1 bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Defense Department officials said today.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates approved a request from Transportation Secretary Mary Peters over the weekend, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today.
[...]
Navy divers will help state and local divers examine wreckage and clear debris. The divers will come from Mobile Dive and Salvage Unit 2, based in Little Creek, Va. The unit has sent a five-man assessment team to the city to work with state and local officials.
Whitman said U.S. Northern Command has a coordinating officer at the site to assess requests from state, local and national officials for Defense Department aid. Northern Command coordinates assistance to civilian authorities in such emergencies.
Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit TWO, located at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, was originally established as Harbor Clearance Unit TWO on 01 October 1966. Patterned after World War II mobile salvage units, MDSU 2 consolidated the diving resources of the Atlantic fleet in order to clear harbors and waterways during the Vietnam War.
The command officially became Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit TWO in February of 1982, reflecting the new focus on salvage operations specialized diving missions. Over the years, MDSU 2 earned the title of "Experts in Salvage" through participation in such unique operations as the recovery of TWA Flight 800 and Swiss Air Flight 111, re-floating of YFU-83 in Puerto Rico, the salvage of the USS Monitor screw, and recovery of Haitian Ferry victims.
As my Dad used to say, "Another job well done by the boys in blue."
Following up on this post, turns out that Beauchamp isn't the only liar, according to Confederate Yankee (who's been doing a great job of investigating):
After publishing the information above, that the Beauchamp story is "considered to be an urban legend or myth," I asked Major Russo if she had been contacted by Franklin Foer or any other reporter or editor from the New Republic attempting to verify their new Camp Buehring claim.
It seemed odd to me that with their magazine's reputation on the line, they would go to press without attempting to verify the story of Beauchamp's location shifting.
It so happens that Jason Zengerle, Senior Editor of The New Republic did contact Major Russo. What did Major Russo tell Editor Zengerle?
According to Major Russo:
I released the same information that I gave you. The process and answers are the same when dealing with media queries.
In other words, the Army PAO contacted by The New Republic was told by the PAO that the claim could not be verified, and that the burn victim story was regarded as an "urban legend or myth"... and The New Republic ran their story without disclosing this apparent contradiction.
So, TNR got told that they could not verify the burn victim story, and they ran with it anyway!
That's what they call a "lie," ladies and gentlemen.
Yes Virginia, there was. Who knew? I knew there was one scheduled for today, thinking it would be sometime this evening, and having every intention of looking it up and watching it online. Alas, it was held at 8:00 AM CST.
Who holds a debate on a Sunday at 8:00 o'clock in the morning? Apparently ABC. What was the purpose of holding it that time? I mean, it was 6:00 AM in California. Did they think they would get the getting ready to go to church crowd?
I would attribute the timing of this event as an effort to say that ABC held a GOP Presidential candidate debate and no one watched, except they are going to do it again for the democrats on Sunday, August 19, 2007. I can't find a time, but I'll presume it's the same time since it's moderator is Steph and suppose it's to capture his normal Sunday morning Boy George This Week audience.
Whatever the reason's for this selection of day and time, it was a bad idea. Unless of course your idea is to minimize the number of people who watch.
If you've noticed, I do not blog about polls. The other bloggers here can, I have not made it an editorial policy not to, and have no intention of so doing; I just don't do it myself.
The reason is simple. I do not trust polls. Or, rather, I do not trust pollsters.
And now comes some more justification for my distrust:
When a New York Times poll found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."
Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent. The headline for Elder's piece read, "Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm." But it should have read: "America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."
So why should I trust any poll? How can I tell if the pollster just ran one poll or kept trying until they got the answer they liked?
Here's the official word from Col. Steven Boylan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus:
To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas?
Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.
As to what will happen to him?
Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not happen.
To summarize: Beauchamp is a liar, and they're letting his CO punish him. And I'd imagine that his CO is gonna take a real dim view of Beauchamp's actions.
US Democratic presidential candidate and New York Senator Hillary Clinton has rejected suggestions of a unilateral US strike in Pakistan's tribal region, American troops should accompany Pakistan troops.
But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.
"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Stephen Hayes, the author of Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President, on his radio show Wednesday. The interview was fascinating as Hayes related some of the experiences he had while interviewing Cheney and President Bush as he worked on the book. It sounds like a good book and I've added it to my ever growing reading list.
[...] The next president has got to chose a vice president as skilled as Cheney and a team as experienced as that which was around President Bush after 9/11 if only because the scale of the responsibility is so great and the need for clear thinking so profound. The people diseased with BDS will never get this, but the country is extraordinarily blessed to have had President Bush and Vice President Cheney and their senior aides during these first few years of a very long war. Reading Hayes' book drives that point home again and again.
Listen to audio of the interview Part 1Part 2Part 3 (each clip app. 34 minutes).
Hayes likes Cheney.
HH: [...] So back to the thirty hours, do you like the guy?
SH: Yeah, I do like the guy. You know, he gets a bad rap, and to be candid, I think he deserves some of the blame for that, because he doesn’t put himself out ever. You know, he doesn’t do this kind of thing. But I think if people had the opportunity to sit down with him and sit across from him, or listen to him more in long interview formats, which is what he prefers, I think it’s hard not to like the guy. And not just me, now it’s important to say this, Lee Hamilton, you know, Democratic representative from Indiana, former Democratic representative from Indiana, I said to him what explains Dick Cheney’s Darth Vadar image? Because as you know, if you look at the body of political coverage of Dick Cheney, from the time he came to Washington until he was chosen as vice president, it’s so overwhelmingly positive, it’s almost embarrassing for the Washington Press Corps.
Hayes interviewed the President for the Cheney book. Despite the reporting from time to time how Bush has shunned the VeePee and there's a chill between the two, etc., apparently the President likes Cheney and respects his input and counsel.
HH: This is extraordinarily well reported. You met with the President in December of ’06. Did you just have the one conversation with Bush?
SH: We ended up having two, actually.
HH: About Cheney, and did he warm to that subject? Was he eager to set the record straight about Dick Cheney?
SH: I think he was. I mean, he was, you know, as I was with my time with Cheney, I found Bush to be remarkably candid in these sessions. I mean, things that I didn’t expect, the first interview, the second question I asked, I just asked sort of a general, sort of a warm-up question. What can you tell us, the American public, that we don’t know that would surprise us about Dick Cheney? And the President launched into sort of the tension in his relationship with the Vice President, because the President favored a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and the Vice President didn’t.
[...]
HH: When Cheney goes fishing with Bush, and this is from Page 497, with Bush in the President’s stocked pond on his ranch in Crawford, Cheney stands up. “We float out there, and he’s firing a fly at these large mouth bass,” says Bush. “We’re chucking bubba bait, and he’s fly fishing.” They sound like they’ve become pretty good friends, not just trusted advisor, but like Gore and Clinton were not friends.
SH: No, right, exactly. Well, there’s none of that rivalry, I mean, because Cheney’s not going to run. But they also joke with each other quite a bit, and there’s a great story, I think it’s a great story, from when I interviewed Bush in the Oval Office
Hugh and Hayes both think Cheney and Bush should do more long format interviews - something neither one does very often. Hugh talks about how neither are great orators but both are great conversationalists.
HH: This is my frustration, and you probably see this coming, I’ve also interviewed the Vice President. I’m a big, big fan…I worked for Lynne back when she was at NEH, and so I’ve just admired the family for a very long time. He’s so tremendously persuasive, as is the President. But they’ve got to get into these long form interviews. They’re not great orators. They’re tremendous conversationalists. But then they don’t do it.
SH: Right.
I have my suspicions on why neither do a lot of long format interviews. Part of it is because American's have too short of an attention span to llisten to the whole thing to get the full context of what was said, and the driveby media will take a snippet of the conversation and report it dishonestly, taking it out of context to snipe or make a point.
Witness what we have as the main reason for going into Iraq - WMD and mushroom clouds. Of all the speeches, of all the briefings, of all the talking Bush and Cheney and everyone else did leading up to the war as reasons to go to war with Iraq, the only thing most Americans remember and that the media and dishonest democrat politicians now spout is WMD and mushroom clouds. Why is that all that most Americans remember? Because it's what the sound bite media continuously repeats.
Essentially, if doesn't matter what either of them say, the driveby media is going to make them say what it wants them to have said.
We all know about Cheney's love of fishing, and his love of shooting. Apparently, according to Hugh, if the he had to give up one it would be fishing. Of course, that was a concession Hugh got from Cheney before the shooting incident.
HH: You covered the fishing, I thought, very, very well, particularly since I don’t fish. I don’t…but I asked him once if he had to give up either fishing or pheasant shooting, which one would it be, this was before the accident, and he said he’d give up fishing before he gave up shooting.
SH: No.
HH: Yes, he did. It’s what he told me.
SH: You’re kidding.
HH: No. Isn’t that amazing, given what…you chronicle how much he is into this stuff.
SH: That blows me away.
HH: Yeah, go ask him yourself.
Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. But maybe the most cerebral person in the White House since Woodrow Wilson. Who knew Bush had such smart people around him.
HH: He was going to be a PhD. He was going to be the Congressional fellow turned professor, and when his life took a turn…on two occasions, you talk about the three times, twice he chose academia over politics, and once, he chose government. Is that, do you think he’s perhaps the most cerebral guy we’ve had in or near the White House as president or vice president in, well, since Woodrow Wilson.
SH: You know, I consider Bill Clinton pretty cerebral. I mean, I don’t think he’s probably in Cheney’s class.
I've been a fan of Dick Cheney's since Bush picked him as his running mate in 2000. I thought it was a brilliant choice and think it should be a template for the selection of a Vice President for every Presidential candidate. Vice President as loyal lieutenant and trusted adviser. Someone you don't have to worry about going out and making their own policy and establishing their own identity to set him self up as the heir apparent to the Oval Office. Sure, it would be nice if right now if we had a solid conservative sitting in the Vice Presidency that had more than an even chance of being elected President. But what's more important to the nation and the highest elected office in the land? I'll pick someone like Dick Cheney everyday. Besides, the heir apparent role hasn't worked very well since FDR and Truman.
HH: Okay, my guest is Stephen Hayes, I’m going to take some calls, but first, I want to go through a couple of my specifics here. You had some amazing quotes from the President, and I’ve got to go find them here. It’s in the back here. Did he express any regret that Dick Cheney was not running for president?
SH: He didn’t. I pushed him on that, and the way that I pushed him on that…actually, I don’t know that this actually made the book, because it was too, it was a little clunky. But I think it’s great stuff. The way I asked the President was, you clearly believe that your policies have kept America safe.
HH: Right.
SH: You clearly believe that this is a struggle for Western civilization, and yet you haven’t asked your vice president, the person most likely to carry on your legacy, to succeed you. Why not? And he said I have talked to him, and he doesn’t want to do it.
HH: Wow.
Wow is right. But who can blame him. He's sixty six years old. He's got a bad heart. He's got six grand kids and he wants to fish and hunt. No one can say Dick Cheney hasn't served his country. There is only so much you can ask one person to do, and apparently Dick Cheney thinks he's done enough.
All in all I thought it was a fascinating interview and I'm looking forward to getting and reading the book in the near future. As I said earlier, I'm a fan of Dick Cheney's, so that probably explains some of my enthusiasm. Besides, how can you not like a guy who can shoot a lawyer and get by with it? As my Uncle said at the time, "If this thing with the Vice President shooting that lawyer turns out okay for him, I think I've got a plan..."
Conservababe Mary Katherine Ham has released her latest HamNation vlog Better Living Through Bathroom Etiquette. It's okay to flush just about anything down the crapper, even a cat, but not the Prophet Mohammad's Holy Handbook, the Koran.
AnySoldier.com
AnyMarine.com
AnySailor.com
AnyAirman.com
AnyCoastGuard.com
