Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

Cheney and the GOP criticizing Obama over Crimea

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-putin-obama-ukraine-171405306.html

I find it ironic (but typical) that Cheney and others in the GOP (except for the Paul family libertarians) would bash Obama for being "weak" in the face of Putin's aggression in Crimea. Politicians have short memories, but I seem to recall that Bush did jack squat against Russia's overt invasion of Georgia in 2008 (and in that war, >700 people died whereas in Crimea one guy got a concussion so far). Diplomacy, not threats or military buildup, eventually led to a Russian withdrawal and UN peacekeeping mission.

Obama said that the US would issue travel restrictions and asset freezes of Russian nationals tied to the Crimea situation (that is already more than Bush did in 2008). We are giving $1B in aid to Ukraine's bankrupt transition gov't. Obama is pulling out of a future G8 summit in Sochi and will likely cut some planned joint military activities. But that's about all he can do for now. If we can't pressure Assad to change course, what do you think we can do against a top energy producer and nuclear arsenal? It remains to be seen if the EU will implement these sanctions too in order to make them more effective, but of course they have more to lose being closer proximity and dependent on Russia for gas and trade.

Previously, I was against Bush's plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe (ostensibly to counter Iran, but we know who it was meant for). I thought it was provocative to Russia, ineffective, and a handout to Lockheed. Our defense budget is tighter now, but I am reconsidering whether the missile shield would be useful as a strategic deterrent (albeit a pricey one). Russia should abandon their plans to reclaim former Soviet republics, as the West is not going to stand for it as long as the peoples of Eastern Europe are choosing Western values over Putinism.

After the Georgia War:

The [2008 EU] Report claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhaz and Ossetians may not be considered legally binding under international law. As a result, the interests of these people may not be used as a reason for starting military actions, in defense of Russian citizens living abroad.

How the Dulles brothers made Kissinger and Cheney look like peaceniks

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/234752747/meet-the-brothers-who-shaped-u-s-policy-inside-and-out

We don't hear much about these two (apart from the DC airport name), but their beliefs and actions literally shaped the Cold War, US global ambitions, and we are still dealing with the negative repercussions today.

Ike appointed John F. Dulles as his Sec. State and Allen Dulles as the CIA head. They were both corporate lawyers who represented, among others, United Fruit and the financiers of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Enough said. Ike basically gave them carte blanche authority to make enemies and "intervene" in any foreign country they saw fit, and they didn't hesitate: Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Cuba, Indonesia, and Vietnam ... basically our greatest hits. They were especially adamant about Iran, because under no circumstances could they tolerate a leader nationalizing oil reserves for the people, and renegotiating terms on foreign companies. Imagine the shockwaves to big business, and what message that would send to other countries.

Unlike Kennedy's "team of rivals" model, it was very dangerous for Ike to appoint two like-minded, corporate shill, biological brothers into the complementary (and sometime necessarily adversarial) positions of State and CIA. One side shapes foreign policy and strategy, and the other carries it out covertly. Or one side tries to make peace, while the other sows the seeds of war. It's playing with fire. Now they were basically one org, without any sanity checks or devil's advocate to say, "What happens after we overthrow Lumumba? (answer: civil war and genocide for decades)," or "Maybe we can't win in Vietnam."  I guess the Dulles' and their Cold War were enough to make General Ike warn the nation about the military-industrial complex upon his retirement.

The Dulleses believed that the US, its market economy, and its multinational corporations were exceptional and entitled to dominate the globe (because we were the good guys). Anyone who opposed these interests (regardless of the reason, like the crazy notions of self determination and liberty) were automatically evil monsters. It's OK for George Washington, but not for Third World leaders (esp. when they are sitting on natural resources). Clearly enemy #1 was communism, and by extension populist nationalism, because it went against the model of private capital might makes right, and neo-colonialism/imperialism. Any attempt to regulate or take power/profit away from US companies was as much of a threat to US security as nuclear missiles.

Apart from the direct and indirect violence & collateral damage (5M total deaths at least), militancy/extremism, and harm to our global reputation in most of the world, here is the Dulles' biggest legacy and curse on humanity: a pervasive culture of rejecting peace talks and the undermining of democracy.

After Stalin died, the USSR wanted to improve relations with the West. It was a great opportunity, but Dulles was the only major foreign leader to reject this overture (and pressured our allies to do the same), because he thought the Russians were too evil to talk to, and preferred that our conflict continue. Later, both sides' nuclear brinksmanship almost ended the world. During the North-South Vietnam diplomatic talks after the French withdrawal, most European powers felt that the party was over and they should learn to live with Ho Chi Minh. Dulles was the only one who felt that Ho could be beaten militarily if we stuck it out, and he persuaded Ike and Kennedy. We know how that turned out. But you can see this US hubris and misguided thinking carrying over to our negotiations (or lack theoreof) with Cuba, Iran, and North Korea over the years. We have certain beliefs about other people, and our stubbornness ends up prolonging/worsening conflicts and missing out on opportunities.

Why was the US so successful in overthrowing the democratic regimes in Iran, Guatemala, and Congo in the '50s? The author argues that it was because those societies (and their idealistic, civilian, center-left leaders - a.k.a. died-in-the-wool commies) were fairly open and democratic, thereby allowing foreign agitators access to covertly undermine the gov't and eventually launch a coup d'etat (with a pro-US dictator waiting in the wings). Later revolutionaries learned from those cases, and ruled more like repressive tyrants in order to defend against a possible US overthrow. Cuba, North Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, etc. all became more paranoid and less democratic after the Dulles' time. It could just be coincidence, but at least in the case of Cuba, Che and Castro were quoted that they would not repeat the mistakes of Arbenz in Guatemala. They would repress and spy on their own people to make sure the CIA wasn't gaining a foothold.

So even though the US portrayed itself as the global example and defender of democracy, in fact its foreign policy under the Dulleses was terribly undemocratic, and motivated many others around the world to choose brutality over democracy too (tragically, during a time of global change that we will never get back, when we really could have forged tremendous social progress and peace). And the human race may never fully recover from the legacies of those dark times. To me, that is a much greater failure, security threat, and shame on the US than letting a few undeveloped countries elect a socialist leader, or try to nationalize their resources.