Posted on 08/13/2009 6:44:01 AM PDT by meandog
In his first few months after leaving office, former vice president Richard B. Cheney threw himself into public combat against the "far left" agenda of the new commander in chief. More private reflections, as his memoir takes shape in slashing longhand on legal pads, have opened a second front against Cheney's White House partner of eight years, George W. Bush.
Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Believe me Cheney, you were not alone in your disappointment.
Bump for later...
“He’d showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”
Yeah, no bias at all from the unnamed “participant” in the talks with Dick Cheney.
This person also praised President Bush as being “independent”.
Alas, if that were only the case.
The only thing Bush was “independent” from, was the solid conservatism represented by the likes of the redoubtable Dick Cheney.
A hit piece by WP which many Freepers who have BDS will believe hook, line and sinker as the WP tries to get some anti-Bush gossip out there to distract from Zero's sinking poll numbers.
Where is the BS and Barf Alert?
Those of us who see Bush clearly don’t need direct quotes from Cheney to understand how severely Bush failed in many many of his policies.
Then you fall prey to one of the MSM's cleverest tricks...MSM opinion cloaked in really bad journalism. Few or no or unrelated direct quotes from the principal people and many quotes from "unnamed sources" who were "there".
You are right, by the time this story is relayed to the Washington Post, by someone who would actually supply it to them, and then “enhanced” by the Post it probably bears little resemblance to what was said.
It’s amazing how gullible some people on this forum are. They want to believe it to be true so it HAS to be true, even if it comes from the Post.
In addition, you can see the leftist bias in the implication that Cheney was the boss and was upset that Bush became more independent.
Another shameless leftist attempt to divide us.
I'd be gobsmacked - & profoundly disappointed - to learn they hadn't.
For years, the press had tried to promote the absurd notion that GWBush was just a mindless Cheneybot who did the lockstep bidding of the 'real power behind the throne', his Vice President.
That was a crock then, it's a crock now. And any elucidation of their inevitable differences in office which Dick Cheney can now provide to dispel that bogus line of ludicrous propaganda propagated wholesale by the leftist media is certainly welcomed by me.
It will be interesting to see how many "conservatives" here fall in line with it.
???
I thought his sentence was commuted. Not a pardon obviously, but not really "twisting in the wind" either. Or am I mistaken?
The knee jerk anti-Bush agreement with the WaPo is telling.
True. But I think this is much ado about nothing with the press trying to make more of this than there is.
Correct. We already know that Cheney disagreed with Bush on Libby and a couple of other issues. That's already been discussed ad inifintum. But now people are salivating at this story's implication that there was some huge rift between the two when Cheney himself says no such thing. The Post is jumping on board with Zero's strategy to just keep blaming Bush. And some Freepers just love going right along with the WH strategy.
Hear, hear. It is becoming more apparent that Bush DID distance himself from Cheney during the second term because Bush became more "squishy" and liberal.
IMO, Bush's strength, which we saw in his first term, came from Cheney and, today, I have far more respect for Cheney than I do Bush 43. Cheney's book should be an interesting read.
He let us both down Dick.
OCTOBER 31, 2003 : (WASHINGTON POST BURIES DR. DAVID KAY'S REBUKE OF WASHINGTON POST REPORTER GELLMAN FOR GELLMAN'S FALSE CLAIM THAT AUSTRALIAN GENERAL MEEKIN COMMANDED "THE JOINT CAPTURED ENEMY MATERIEL EXPLOITATION CENTER, THE LARGEST OF A A HALF-DOZEN UNITS THAT REPORT TO KAY," IN THE FREE-FOR-ALL SECTION OF THE PAPER; GENERAL MEEKIN 'S LETTER POINTING OUT GELLMAN'S BOGUS ALLEGATIONS IS ALSO PRINTED THERE) Gellman quoted Australian Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Meekin as saying that the aluminum tubes found in Iraq which the CIA had claimed could have been used for uranium enrichment centrifuges were "innocuous." Gellman called that finding "pivotal, because the Bush administration built its case on the proposition that Iraq aimed to use those tubes as centrifuge rotors to enrich uranium for the core of a nuclear weapon."
Gellman used Meekin to debunk Bush administration claims in several different areas, claiming that the Australian commanded "the Joint Captured Enemy Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to Kay."
The only problem, as Kay wrote to the Post in a comment editors relegated to the "Free for All" section on Saturday [www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49199-2003Oct31.html], was that none of it was true.
Meekin, Kay wrote, "does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation center." Furthermore, Meekin was not involved in the Iraq Study Group's investigation of Saddam's WMDs. Instead, his outfit was responsible for making a repertory of Saddam's conventional weapons programs.
Gellman had no excuse for missing these key facts. Indeed, as Meekin wrote in a separate letter that the Post printed side-by-side to Kay's, he had "stressed on a number of occasions" in his interview with Gellman that he did not report to Kay and that his outfit looked only at conventional weapons. "I did not provide assessments or views on Iraq's nuclear program or the status of investigations being conducted by the Iraqi Study Group," Meekin wrote.- "David Kay Rebukes Washington Post Coverage,"By Kenneth R. Timmerman , Posted Nov. 3, 2003,
Concur...Bush was clearly out of his element. I wish that it had been Cheney who headed the ticket with Bush, like his old man before him, gaining experience as VP. There wouldn’t have been a “Florida” to count on in 2000 because Cheney would have wiped the floor with Gore. I also think if that Cheney would have had more of a Reagan type of presidentcy and we would have had Bush now in office instead of OWEbummer as prez.
Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did not agree on everything, but they have enormous respect for each other.
As much as some of you may be hoping he is, Cheney isn't a weasel.
Amen to that!
Hussein's polls must be dropping.
No, not mistaken about the sentence commutation...but ask any person convicted of a felony what's its like not to be able to vote, own a weapon, hold office, get a decent job, etc. It's like "twisting in the wind" ... much like Nixon did to Chuck Colson
I doubt this. I know Cheney has too much class and would never waste time with WAPO
Agreed.
I wish that it had been Cheney who headed the ticket with Bush, like his old man before him, gaining experience as VP.
W spent plenty of time in the Reagan White House studying the job and Washington politics. I don't think extra time as VP would have helped. He just doesn't get it and never will.
I do think Cheney would have made a much better president, though.
Bush haters are saddened.......
You can say that again.
From the article...
“In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him,” said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney’s reply. “He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney’s advice. He’d showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203306.html?hpid=topnews
Cheney’s book will tell the tale. It doesn’t matter much what the Washington Post thinks it’s going to say.
“But there is a sting in Cheney’s critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness.”
Must be Washington Post’s slant.
“See you at the bill signing” and calling supporters names wasn’t exactly a sign Bush gave concessions to public sentiment. Unless it was only the Democrat public he listened to. It’d be interesting to here what Cheney actually said.
“Those of us who see Bush clearly don’t need direct quotes from Cheney to understand how severely Bush failed in many many of his policies.”
That depends on whether or not Bush’s agenda was conservative or liberal. If liberal, he didn’t fail. Of course, the Democrats still hated him for advancing their interests.... they are idiots, after all.
Cheney always seemed like a conservative to me, so I’m presuming he took issue with the expansion of government and debt outside the war. I’d be interested on his views on border defense, frankly. As Vice President, it was not proper to have vocal and public policy disagreements with the President. He acted properly, if he did disagree.
It's impossible to be a conservative and NOT be critical of Bush's disastrous second term. He failed to deal with Iran and N.Korea...Cheney was right. They were ripe for regime change and we sat on our hands. He failed to exercise even a modicum of fiscal responsibility, he took this country by the hand on it's first steps into socialism by insisting on TARP...despite severe pushback and grave concerns by conservatives. He dismissed us and went socialist. Just like he dismissed us as nativists and racists as he tried to foist Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats.
“A hit piece by WP which many Freepers who have BDS will believe hook, line and sinker as the WP tries to get some anti-Bush gossip out there to distract from Zero’s sinking poll numbers. “
Agreed. They are trying to stir up hatred between two good (great) men. Bush made some mistakes, but his job was enormous. Even Jesus stumbled a few times. Give Bush a break.
I hope nobody here falls for this Washington Post trickery. They are evil, pure evil.
By all mean, let's all believe the "participant". Who cares whether it's Woodward, Bernstein, or Sid Blumenthal? It's anti-Bush so it must be true.
Hatred of Bush and Obama? No...but sadness over seeing our precious country being managed (currently and previously) by two of the most incompetent elected officials to ever hold office. YES!
I read the article. Cheney IS writing a book and his record of the second term will not...can not ...be flattering. The second term was a disaster and led directly to president Obama.
The fact is that Cheney, in his own book, will be quite critical of GWB's second-term decisions and rightly so. Like it or not, GWB lost his nerve under pressure and cut his anchor, condemning himself to drift aimlessly along in DC's leftist currents. He abandoned many conservative principles, not the least of which being the support of free market Capitalism, in a vain attempt for approval by the left and the media (but I repeat myself). Cheney knew, as do most Conservatives, that it's a fool's errand to seek the approval and support from leftists that will never, ever materialize no matter how much you try to appease them.
Please don't misunderstand: I'd take GWB over the Chicago Thug any day. But for supposed-conservatives to throw Cheney under the bus when the truth is so plain to see is the height of Bushbotism.
Libby still has the felony conviction on his record. He should have been pardoned.
Bush should have pardoned Libby. No question.
We diagree here, I see! (see my post at #6 right above your post)
I actually welcome anything Dick Cheney can do to dispel the ridiculous notion promulgated by the leftist media that George W. Bush was a mind-numbed robot rubberstamping whatever the eeeevil Halliburton kingpin Cheney instructed him to do.
My only question is this: Will Keith Olbermann report the fact that GWB & his 'master' had disagreements? (I won't be able to see for myself because I'm boycotting all GE products, including Herr Odorman.)
If KO does report this, will he be able to muster enough functioning brain cells together at one time to recognize that Cheney's revelation undercuts the fundamental underlying premise of MSNBC's entire schtick for the last ten years, that GWB was just a stooopid doofus tool shamelessly manipulated by by that evil mastermind, Dick Cheney?
It's pretty self-evident. In fact, I would probably hold it against Cheney if he didn't speak out against Bush's disasterous second term and his abandonment of Scooter Libby.
Yep and many Freepers lap up this junk thinking Cheney is the kind of scum to write a trashy expose.
Truth is...Cheney will never help Oshama by smashing Bush. It would hurt our soldiers, the WOT, and help the liberals and, as a conservative, that would be anathema to Cheney.
Bush *was* weak in the sense that he didn’t more forcibly confront his critics and attackers. Cheney, on the other hand, is not the type to be sh*t on repeatedly.
That is true. It is the duty you accept when you take the job. Cheney honorably discharged his duty. The duty ends when the job ends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.