Dick Cheney's new memoir

[Guest Derek L]

But not as much as Danielle Steele novels, which means that the latter are superior, wiser, and that you should choose her over Cheney's memoir.

But at any rate, I have no opinion on the man's book...as I haven't read it. A crazy method of criticism, I know!

That was actually pretty funny……I guess it all comes down to personal preference……Again, if the late Jack Layton had a book out, or book written about him, It’s doubtful it would be a priority for me to purchase it, that said, I’d probably still read it……I bought and read W.’s book and fully enjoyed it, then loaned it to my sister to read (NDP voter & member of the BCTF), and even though she’s not a fan of the man, still enjoyed it, especially the parts on his childhood…..

I’ve bought and read some books by both Ann Coulter & Glen Beck and they where both truly painful reads…..I’ve read most of Bill O’Reily’s books, and enjoyed each one…..

Hows the old saying go? Never judge a book by it’s cover

Edited September 6, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest American Woman]

As for being an asshole, doesn’t bug me, he did what he thought was right, made millions, wrote book and is now retired and can spend his remaining days hunting and fishing…………I admire that, and heart attacks aside, would hope to be in his position when I reach 70.

Doing all of those things isn't necessarily admirable by any means - one can do horrible things that they "thought was right" and make millions and write a book and retire and spend their remaining days hunting and fishing .....

[Guest Derek L]

Doing all of those things isn't necessarily admirable by any means - one can do horrible things that they "thought was right" and make millions and write a book and retire and spend their remaining days hunting and fishing .....

If the man was doing what he “thought was right”, and I tend to agree that what he did was right, I suppose doing and/or being admirable is a mater of opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

If the man was doing what he “thought was right”, and I tend to agree that what he did was right, I suppose doing and/or being admirable is a mater of opinion.

Exactly. If someone doesn't think he's doing what's right, and most other people don't think it's right, then it's not admirable. So doing what one thinks is right regardless of popular opinion isn't in and of itself admirable, and in fact, can be the exact opposite.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. If someone doesn't think he's doing what's right, and most other people don't think it's right, then it's not admirable. So doing what one thinks is right regardless of popular opinion isn't in and of itself admirable, and in fact, can be the exact opposite.

Cheney also agrees torture is acceptable. Cheney also agrees with breaking the law for the wiretaps during his time in office. But I guess breaking your own laws while hunting those who broke laws is not a conflict of any kind.

Bush said 'we do not torture', all while Cheney is overseeing the torture.

So is breaking your own laws to get the bad guys the right moves? And if so, what precedent does that mean for the average American?

[Guest American Woman]

Cheney also agrees torture is acceptable. Cheney also agrees with breaking the law for the wiretaps during his time in office. But I guess breaking your own laws while hunting those who broke laws is not a conflict of any kind.

Bush said 'we do not torture', all while Cheney is overseeing the torture.

So is breaking your own laws to get the bad guys the right moves? And if so, what precedent does that mean for the average American?

I never said it was the right thing to do. In fact, I made a point of saying "doing what one thinks is right [...]" can be the exact opposite of admirable.

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. If someone doesn't think he's doing what's right, and most other people don't think it's right, then it's not admirable. So doing what one thinks is right regardless of popular opinion isn't in and of itself admirable, and in fact, can be the exact opposite.

There’s obviously a difference between doing whats right, and doing whats popular……..I’m sure if a party promised if elected, every person would have a gold house and a rocket car would be popular, but not necessarily right.

What Cheney did was obviously not popular, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t right.

[Guest Derek L]

Cheney also agrees torture is acceptable. Cheney also agrees with breaking the law for the wiretaps during his time in office. But I guess breaking your own laws while hunting those who broke laws is not a conflict of any kind.

Bush said 'we do not torture', all while Cheney is overseeing the torture.

So is breaking your own laws to get the bad guys the right moves? And if so, what precedent does that mean for the average American?

Technically, they didn’t torture, the outsourced it…..If they didn’t use all available methods to “go after the bad guys”, and another terror attack had of occurred during their administration, we’d be discussing how they could have prevented it, but didn’t and were negligent in the deaths of their citizens…..really, they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t.

Politically, the Patriot act and the invasion of Iraq were not popular, and Bush’s second term was by no means guaranteed, but they did it regardless…..as opposed to governing based on which way the wind blows……

Obama brought in the Healthcare plan, and though not popular, he still did what he thought was right….I feel he too did what he thought was right, and it could very likely (amongst other things) cost him a second term…..In my view, that too was admirable and foolish all at the same time

[Guest American Woman]

There’s obviously a difference between doing whats right, and doing whats popular……..I’m sure if a party promised if elected, every person would have a gold house and a rocket car would be popular, but not necessarily right.

Well, "doing" something and "promising" something aren't comparable. We are referring to what Cheney has done.

What Cheney did was obviously not popular, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t right.

It doesn't mean it was admirable either. That's the point I'm making. Doing something that one feels is right even if it's against public opinion can be admirable - or it can be just the opposite - it can be the wrong thing to do. Popular opinions are sometimes wrong, as you say, but they are also sometimes right.

I'm curious, though - what do you think of someone who does something he thinks is wrong - because of popular opinion?

[Guest American Woman]

Technically, they didn’t torture, the outsourced it…..

To me that's the same as hiring a hit man to kill someone instead of carrying out the murder itself - and in the eyes of the law, the person who hired the hit man is guilty of murder.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said it was the right thing to do. In fact, I made a point of saying "doing what one thinks is right [...]" can be the exact opposite of admirable.

Agreed...the larger issue and the significance of his leadership when faced with that exact criticism is what makes Cheney an important but "hated" political figure. The exact same 'assault on liberties' was claimed for Lincoln and FDR, yet history treats them far more kindly in retrospect.

Bush (and Cheney) matter because they were game changers, for good or bad, and we are seeing the ramifications of their actions in the Mideast and Northern Africa.

[Guest Derek L]

Well, "doing" something and "promising" something aren't comparable. We are referring to what Cheney has done.

But we’re comparing what he did do to something a politician promises……..Cheney never campaigned on having Egyptian security services hook up terrorists to a car battery, nor did he promise he wouldn’t have it done. Yet, his detractors complain about.

They did campaign on keeping America safe, and they delivered post 9/11.

I guess it becomes a metaphysical debate….Do the ends justify the means? As per Spock, does the goods of the many, outweigh the goods of the few or the one?

It doesn't mean it was admirable either. That's the point I'm making. Doing something that one feels is right even if it's against public opinion can be admirable - or it can be just the opposite - it can be the wrong thing to do. Popular opinions are sometimes wrong, as you say, but they are also sometimes right.

And in the case of Cheney, as I said above, they promised to "keep America safe" post 9/11, and they did......"Mission Accomplished"

I'm curious, though - what do you think of someone who does something he thinks is wrong - because of popular opinion?

Thats politics.....

To me that's the same as hiring a hit man to kill someone instead of carrying out the murder itself - and in the eyes of the law, the person who hired the hit man is guilty of murder.

It depends how you look at it.....I look at it as a WWII General ordering a bombing of a city...or a senior police officer ordering a SWAT sniper to kill a hostage taker....Mater of ones perspective I suppose.

[bush_cheney2004]

...really, they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t.

Agreed...this was one of the most important messages that Cheney (Petroleum Godfather) banged home...to an audience of at least two Prime Ministers who agreed: The world will have terrorism with access to Mideast oil, or we can have terrorism without access to Mideast oil, with all the negative economic consequences.

Politically, the Patriot act and the invasion of Iraq were not popular, and Bush’s second term was by no means guaranteed, but they did it regardless…..as opposed to governing based on which way the wind blows……

Hence my member id...the embodiment of what happened regardless of "unpopular" choices. The "world" was stunned.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...It depends how you look at it.....I look at it as a WWII General ordering a bombing of a city...or a senior police officer ordering a SWAT sniper to kill a hostage taker....Mater of ones perspective I suppose.

Perfect example....you can find no more hated a man than General Curtis LeMay in that respect. He "killed" hundreds of thousands while doing his duty....and he did it very well.

[Guest Derek L]

Perfect example....you can find no more hated a man than General Curtis LeMay in that respect. He "killed" hundreds of thousands while doing his duty....and he did it very well.

Funny, I always liked LeMay (and "Bomber" Harris) ......Peace Is Our Profession

[Guest Derek L]

Agreed...this was one of the most important messages that Cheney (Petroleum Godfather) banged home...to an audience of at least two Prime Ministers who agreed: The world will have terrorism with access to Mideast oil, or we can have terrorism without access to Mideast oil, with all the negative economic consequences.

The difference between Realism and Idealism……it would be nice if our economy was fuelled by the laughter of children and recycled hemp, or we all had Unicorns and/or a Pegasus to ride to work.

[bloodyminded]

That was actually pretty funny……I guess it all comes down to personal preference……Again, if the late Jack Layton had a book out, or book written about him, It’s doubtful it would be a priority for me to purchase it, that said, I’d probably still read it……I bought and read W.’s book and fully enjoyed it, then loaned it to my sister to read (NDP voter & member of the BCTF), and even though she’s not a fan of the man, still enjoyed it, especially the parts on his childhood…..

I’ve bought and read some books by both Ann Coulter & Glen Beck and they where both truly painful reads…..I’ve read most of Bill O’Reily’s books, and enjoyed each one…..

I know just what you mean. I'm not an autobiography reader personally, but I can't see how a book's worth--as an interesting read--could possibly be determined by how close we adhere to the politics of the author.

A friend of mine read both Clinton's and W's, and preferred W's overall. She's no fan of Bush, to put it mildly, but she is a fan of books....

As for Coulter, Beck, and O'Reilly...I've never read any of them, but I'm not surprised. Bill has a more appealing personality (to me, anyway), more self-effacing and down-to-earth.

[Guest Derek L]

I know just what you mean. I'm not an autobiography reader personally, but I can't see how a book's worth--as an interesting read--could possibly be determined by how close we adhere to the politics of the author.

A friend of mine read both Clinton's and W's, and preferred W's overall. She's no fan of Bush, to put it mildly, but she is a fan of books....

As for Coulter, Beck, and O'Reilly...I've never read any of them, but I'm not surprised. Bill has a more appealing personality (to me, anyway), more self-effacing and down-to-earth.

Well, I’ll tend to give someone “a pass” if I tend to agree with them and/or supported their “public life“……I enjoyed Slowhand & Hammer of the Gods as well.

I felt the two Coulter books were so blatantly partisan to be laughable, and Beck’s book to be extremely juvenile….O’Reily’s books are all good reads…..Try Bold Fresh and Pinheads & Patriots….both entertaining….I enjoy the Factor nightly, so I’m slightly biased, but some of his stories from his youth are defiantly relatable for many.

[Moonlight Graham]

Effective? The Bush administration, with the hand it was dealt, was rather effective in my view in terms of national defence, homeland security etc......

Due process and the rule of law? How did Cheney not respect it?

That statement is pure conjecture..............Again I'll ask, how many terror attacks have there been on the United States since 9/11? If Homeland defence was the cornerstone focus of the administration, I feel they did more things right than wrong………actions speak louder than words..........

If you're going to judge the effectiveness of the Bush admin simply by how many terror attacks occurred on US soil after 9/11, so be it. That's an easy thing to hide behind, because it's about the only thing they did right. I guess you forgot that 9/11 itself occurred on their watch? Effective!

Anyways, the failures of the admin has been well documented thousands of times by thousands of different pundits, scholars etc., so no need repeating it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Anyways, the failures of the admin has been well documented thousands of times by thousands of different pundits, scholars etc., so no need repeating it.

All administrations have successes and failures....Bush's was no different in that respect. As a two-term president, he had twice as long to get things right or wrong...Obama hopes for that 2nd chance/term.

[Guest Derek L]

If you're going to judge the effectiveness of the Bush admin simply by how many terror attacks occurred on US soil after 9/11, so be it. That's an easy thing to hide behind, because it's about the only thing they did right. I guess you forgot that 9/11 itself occurred on their watch? Effective!

Anyways, the failures of the admin has been well documented thousands of times by thousands of different pundits, scholars etc., so no need repeating it.

It sure did, but the prior gutting of the CIA & NSA happened under Clinton.......