Vice President Dick Cheney cannot be accused of being a man of little conviction. In an interview with the Republican-friendly Fox News (on the Fox News Sunday program with Chris Wallace), the current but soon to be former VP did not back down on many of his strongly held beliefs -- beliefs, such as the power of the executive in times of crisis, the role of the Vice President, and the legitimacy of harsh interrogation techniques -- that have caused tremendous controversy during his eight-year term.
This steadfast refusal to change his mind and unwavering support for policies and people that have been largely discredited is nothing new. For a previous look at Cheney's views, see this post and this post.
The Fox News Sunday interview: Final thoughts while in office?
In the interview (read the full transcript here), Cheney made several comments that are sure to encourage his supporters as well as outrage his detractors. Notable among his statements were comments about:
- Keeping America safe -- no mention of the cost to US military men and women. When asked about the Administration's low public approval numbers, the VP noted that, "We set out to do what we thought was necessary and essential for the country." The primary accomplishment he focused on during this answer was about security. He said, "I think the fact that we were able to protect the nation against further attacks from al Qaeda for seven-and-a-half years is a remarkable achievement."
This "no attack since 9/11" view has been the one pushed recently by President Bush and administration supporters. And, it would seem correct on the surface as there has been no known al Qaeda attack -- big or small -- on US soil since the mass murders on September 11, 2001. However, supporters of this view fail to mention the resulting blood toll paid by US military personnel during the seven-year war in Afghanistan (known officially in the Pentagon as Operation Enduring Freedom, or OEF) and the over five-year conflict in Iraq (Operation Iraq Freedom, or OIF).
The most recent Pentagon casualty figures -- including civilians from the Department of Defense -- for the conflict available today are (view the always-updated report here): 4,211 killed, and 30,879 wounded in Iraq; 625 killed and 2,606 wounded in OEF, mainly in Afghanistan. If you follow the logic that the efforts in OIF and OEF helped defeat or destroy al Qaeda and deter attacks in the US, the total loss to US forces would be 4,836 killed and 33,485 wounded. So, while the mainland and its inhabitants have note been attacked, many thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded fighting against al Qaeda. - The role of the VP according to the Constitution -- lecturing on the role of VP without basis. In the sole VP debate in the fall, VP-elect Joe Biden famously made the statement about Cheney (read the debate transcript here): "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch." When asked about this comment during the Sunday interview, Cheney responded:
Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution. Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature, which provides for the executive.
According to the Constitution (read it in full at the National Archives here), Article I does mention the roles of the VP: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." Beyond some mentions about the election process and impeachment, that is all the actual Constitution (not amendements) says about the office.
In fact, you could argue that the amendments to the Constitution diminished the role of the VP. For example, originally, the No. 2 vote getter in a presidential election became the VP, regardless of party. The Constitution originally read: "In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." The 12th amendment (Amendment XII, 1804) dealt, in part, with separating the Electoral College votes of the President and Vice President (the No. 2 candidate no longer would become No.2, or the VP, in the executive branch; eventually, states took over the role of choosing electors, and the one-party winning ticket we expereince now was cemented in place). Perhaps the most powerful role assigned to the VP was the 25th amendment (Amendment XXV, 1967), which made it clear that the VP became the actual President -- already in practice but not clear in law -- if the President died or resigned. - Strong executive power in times of emergency -- still supporting questionable intelligence gathering practices and harsh interrogations. When asked about the role of the Executive Branch versus Congress, Cheney continued his consistent view that the President has broad powers in times of emergencies:
Well, I think in wartime, when you consider his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, clearly that means command of the Armed Forces. It also, when you get into use of forces in wartime, means collecting intelligence. And therefore, I think you're fully justified in setting up a terrorist surveillance program to be able to intercept the communications of people who are communicating with terrorists outside the United States. I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high-value detainees.
These powers he is talking about resulted in domestic surveillance programs that the President was forced to abandon, as well as harsh interrogation techniques -- that critics call US-sanctioned torture. To Cheney, all of the criticisms -- and forced changes to these programs -- are a kind of arm chair quarterbacking enabled by the peace those very programs enabled:Now we've had a lot of time pass over it and so we've had -- I think more people are more complacent, perhaps, than was true some time ago. We've also had a lot of our critics who want to score political points who've made what I think are outrageous charges.
Given that the intelligence programs have been altered, and that the "harsh interrogation" methods are likely to immediately be abandoned by the incoming Obama Administration -- with plenty of support from current and former military and defense specialists -- Cheney's continued insistence that these were appropriate actions leave him with very few supporters on these topics. - Rumsfeld's forced resignation -- not backing up his boss. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a lightning rod for critics of the Bush military policies, particularity in Iraq. He made news for seemingly not caring about the lack of armor (body and vehicle) for US troops in Iraq. He was admonished by many for using a machine to sign his name to notices sent to family members of deceased troops. Soldiers during his tenure managed the Abu Ghraib prison and the Guantanamo Bay facilities. He presided over the Pentagon as the Iraq situation worsened post-invasion and as the Taliban reconstituted in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. He was in charge when the scandal over treatment of returning troops at Walter Reed and other facilities was occurring. Overall, he was seen as a polarizing figure even by supporters, and a disaster by many critics and even Bush supporters. But Cheney continues to support his friend:
Obviously, I did disagree with the decision. It wasn't my decision to make. The President doesn't always take my advice ... But I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us.
- The historical view of Bush -- not much of an endorsement for Bush II. When asked to name his favorite president in the last four decades -- largely time he spent in Washington as a public servant (as President Ford's Chief of Staff, a Congressman representing Wyoming, Secretary of Defense under the first Bush President, and now as VP) -- Cheney only talked about two, Ford and the current President Bush. But he did not give the current Commander in Chief much of an endorsement:
He's been, in my mind, a very consequential President, a guy who made very tough decisions and never looked back.
An earlier interview offered similar responses
In an interview with ABC News the week before, Cheney had held a similar, steady course (read the transcript here). In that interview, of particular interest were his comment on torture and the invasion of Iraq.
Regarding torture: On the question of so-called "torture," we don't do torture, we never have. It's not something that this administration subscribes to ... Did it produce the desired results? I think it did....On invading Iraq: [Saddam Hussein] was a bad actor. And the country is better off, the world is better off with Saddam gone. And I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] was off in some of its major judgments.
A place in history
For the seemingly few public and vocal Cheney supporters, the VP's responses in both interviews were classic Cheney -- he didn't admit wrong, and he didn't give an inch. For his detractors, they perfectly represented the hubris and inability to change that many see as a hallmark of the Bush two-term presidency.
However, when all is said and done, this powerful VP will likely be studied nearly as much if not more than his boss, for many believe it was his thoughts and opinion, and his power by connection to Bush, that shaped the most important and influential decisions about US security, military, and intelligence affairs during the last eight years. Love him or loathe him, Cheney has left a major mark on America and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment