Dick, Bush and a New Book

[Guest020612]

I normally avoid the sandbox because this is like a death match of Sunday morning news shows but, I want you politico's to weigh in on Dick's new book.

Without reading it, I think we can all see what it is about and his perspective of the truth.

So here's a few thoughts/questions:

1. Was it disrespectful from a VP stand point to talk shit about Bush? Yes, most have spoken badly about him publicly, but your own VP?

2. Powell, don't even know what to think on this one. I kinda think he was the sacrificial lamb and Dick just threw him all the way under the bus. Should he even bother to respond at this point? He has made it clear he wants nothing to do with further public office.

3. Condi has her own book coming out so her truth will soon be known. Again, should she even respond to him or let it roll. Will this affect her ability to run whatever school/football program she lands at?

4. Did he do the country any favors by airing this out? By that I mean, he stated this morning that he does not feel the Iraq war damaged our reputation in other countries. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

5. Do you think the timing of the release around 9/11 was strategic?


Ok folks keep it clean and wear your cups!

BTW I did read Decision Points but I don't know that I will dedicate the time to his one.

[DTorrchia]

1. I haven't read the book. I haven't even seen interviews with Cheney about the book. So without knowing just exactly what he said about Bush, it's hard to say if he was disrespectful or not.
2. If I had to choose on whom to believe between Powell and Cheney, I'd probably have to go with Powell.
3. I'd like to read Condi's book. Again, between her and Cheney, I'd have to go with her as far as credibility.
4. I think people will take the book for what it is. I don't think it will hurt our country no matter what's revealed. In the end, it's already considered "history".
As far as the Iraq war not damaging our reputation with other countries?...hmmm, I believe that war strained our relations with many of our "allied" countries more than at any other time. Having said that, I also believe many of those fences have been mended. I believe ultimately we'll be judged by how Iraq turns out over the course of the next 20, 30 years.

[Booth]

Originally Posted by Ava Stone

I normally avoid the sandbox because this is like a death match of Sunday morning news shows but, I want you politico's to weigh in on Dick's new book.

Without reading it, I think we can all see what it is about and his perspective of the truth.

So here's a few thoughts/questions:

1. Was it disrespectful from a VP stand point to talk shit about Bush? Yes, most have spoken badly about him publicly, but your own VP?

Absolutely. I don't recall other VPs coming out so strongly against the men they served under. He's well within his rights but it's classless.

2. Powell, don't even know what to think on this one. I kinda think he was the sacrificial lamb and Dick just threw him all the way under the bus. Should he even bother to respond at this point? He has made it clear he wants nothing to do with further public office.

He'll say whatever he says with some class and dignity.

3. Condi has her own book coming out so her truth will soon be known. Again, should she even respond to him or let it roll. Will this affect her ability to run whatever school/football program she lands at?

She should be used to lure Gaddafi out of hiding.

4. Did he do the country any favors by airing this out? By that I mean, he stated this morning that he does not feel the Iraq war damaged our reputation in other countries. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

I don't think Dick Cheney has ever done the USA any favors. To say that the Iraq war didn't damage our reputation internationally is a blatant, self-serving lie.

Obama is frequently criticized for being an "apologist". When it comes the issue of our invasion of Iraq, I'm not sure any amount of apologizing will ever be sufficient. We fucked up big.

5. Do you think the timing of the release around 9/11 was strategic?

Eh.. could be but not a major issue with me. I wasn't likely to be swayed by the lies of a war criminal so the date of release makes no difference.

Ok folks keep it clean and wear your cups!

BTW I did read Decision Points but I don't know that I will dedicate the time to his one.

I'd love to see Cheney tried in The Hague.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by Booth

I'd love to see Cheney tried in The Hague.

I'd have loved to see Bill Clinton tried in the Hague. How about the famous 'wag the dog' episode when Clinton bombed a Sudanese baby formula factory to distract the country on the night before Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony. Is this not a war crime?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...DAN/sudan.html
Scroll down and check out the world opinions and political cartoons from around the globe.

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html
Clinton needed to look "presidential" for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law.

[Booth]

Not to sidestep the question but I think the OP was asking for opinions regarding Cheney.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by Booth

Not to sidestep the question but I think the OP was asking for opinions regarding Cheney.

It's a common malady. I just want to make sure that I understand your definition of war criminal.

[Guest020612]

I will start my Bill thread another day..... Yes, I read his and Hillary's book too!


Cheney was my focus due to his Today Show interview basically saying fuck what the world thinks about us, its all good.

[Booth]

Originally Posted by Ava Stone

I will start my Bill thread another day..... Yes, I read his and Hillary's book too!


Cheney was my focus due to his Today Show interview basically saying fuck what the world thinks about us, its all good.

Which, in a nutshell, is why Obama HAD to apologize.

[Guest020612]

I can see it from both sides....HAD to apologize..eh...I wouldn't say HAD. It is in his personality to do that but I wouldn't say it was a must. We are still Ammmerica, as Dr. Phil would say, so as a superpower had is strong. Prudent, yes, a nice gesture, yes, a requirement no.

Do I think that Cheney's stance is too far is saying he doesn't care what the world thinks of us, absolutely. He should care and we should care. Bottom line no one wants to be though of as a bully

[Booth]

Originally Posted by Ava Stone

I can see it from both sides....HAD to apologize..eh...I wouldn't say HAD. It is in his personality to do that but I wouldn't say it was a must. We are still Ammmerica, as Dr. Phil would say, so as a superpower had is strong. Prudent, yes, a nice gesture, yes, a requirement no.

Do I think that Cheney's stance is too far is saying he doesn't care what the world thinks of us, absolutely. He should care and we should care. Bottom line no one wants to be though of as a bully

We're still a superpower militarily but in almost all other ways that can be measured we've been surpassed. You're correct that apologizing wasn't a requirement but if we want to get along with others (and I realize the need to do this is debatable), it had to be done.

I was working overseas quite a bit between the mid '90s and 2006 and found myself apologizing for my country's actions many times during those last 3 or 4 years. My sincerity was appreciated and the apologies made it easier to do business. Some of my Republican friends would probably say I "sold out" but I wasn't about to let Bush destroy my reputation.

[Booth]

PS: Thanks for starting the thread, Ava. I can't remember the last time a lady started a political thread and it had to take some courage. I hope the lack of participation so far isn't a sign of people having little interest in books.

[Guest020612]

Originally Posted by Booth

We're still a superpower militarily but in almost all other ways that can be measured we've been surpassed. You're correct that apologizing wasn't a requirement but if we want to get along with others (and I realize the need to do this is debatable), it had to be done.

Being the military superpower yes, that is the part I was stressing because at the end of the day if you are an ally, and you need help, we will come running! Therefore, having a reputation for overthrowing "dictators" can be tricky from a PR standpoint.

I was working overseas quite a bit between the mid '90s and 2006 and found myself apologizing for my country's actions many times during those last 3 or 4 years. My sincerity was appreciated and the apologies made it easier to do business. Some of my Republican friends would probably say I "sold out" but I wasn't about to let Bush destroy my reputation.

That I agree with 100%. I have had this experience with a Kurdish family that was kind to that was very kind to me. I couldn't speak on behalf of my country in that way, however I made it known that I didn't view them as a threat simply because of who they were. This went a long way. Explaining how our politics work/don't work to those that are unfamiliar and only watch Al-Jezzera(sp?) is hard.

Originally Posted by Booth

PS: Thanks for starting the thread, Ava. I can't remember the last time a lady started a political thread and it had to take some courage. I hope the lack of participation so far isn't a sign of people having little interest in books.

I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful responses. It did take a little courage, mostly, because a lady shouldn't talk politics on a date Therefore, I don't want any assumptions made about my affiliations in that regard. I am however an avid reader and was curious as to others thoughts. Perhaps some haven't heard that "Reading is Fundamental"...
Plus, this gives me the chance to work on my multi-quoting/color work

[RALPHEY BOY]

I think its all bullshit and exaggerated truths.. boring does not sell, so they have to spice it up..

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Ava Stone

That I agree with 100%. I have had this experience with a Kurdish family that was kind to that was very kind to me. I couldn't speak on behalf of my country in that way, however I made it known that I didn't view them as a threat simply because of who they were. This went a long way. Explaining how our politics work/don't work to those that are unfamiliar and only watch Al-Jezzera(sp?) is hard.

I'm surprised about the Kurdish family. Almost everywhere I went in Iraq, the Kurds more than anyone would usually come up and thank us for getting rid of Saddam. The Kurds more than any other ethnic group suffered horribly under Saddam. Gas attacks, mass executions etc. They now have a semi-autonomous region and much more say in their government affairs than anytime under the Saddam regime. There are still a lot of problems and distrust between them and the Sunnis and Shiites but they're not being targeted for extermination as before.

.

[Guest020612]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

.

You are correct. The Kurds did suffer the most under Saddam and they are VERY grateful that he is gone. The appreciation that they have shown is real and sincere. They are also recognizing that in some ways our presence there is preventing a better understanding of their relations with the Sunni's and Shiites. The explanation part is more toward how/why we came to be so to speak, i.e., Republicans, Democrats, Independent, etc.