(from a former Republican, but not yet a Democrat 
) Cheney just made another speech blasing Russia. Does he think we don’t have enough enemies already so that we should alienate as many more nations as possible? Or what?
Alternatively, since there are indications that Putin would be more than happy to turn Russia into the Soviet Union Lite–with central control, ambitions of regional hegemony, and the suppression of civil liberties within the country, Cheney might be seen as actually standing up for the announced principles that the U.S. so cavalierly destroyed in its Iraq invasion.
Think moves ahead. He trying to get street cred with the Kazaks.
So the question is, is he a hypocrite, a nut, or both ?
I vote both.
I’m certainly no Cheney fan, but trashing Russia looks like on of the smartest things the Bush Administration has done. What Cheney said is mostly true. Putin is a thug, has used the police to disrupt and bully his political opponents, and has tried to undermine the spread of democracy in other countries of the former Soviet bloc. It would be hypocritical for the United States to support Putin while at the same time claiming to be pushing for democracy elsewhere in the world.
Agreed. Not that Cheney and the rest of the US administration aren’t hypocrites (they got their own little “rule of law” problems going on), but it is encouraging to see the US standing up for its supposed values, no matter the motivation (which, in this case, is probably something to do with Russia’s anti-Western stance, for example in blocking sanctions against Iran and opposing the Orange Revolution).
When I see Rumsfeld calling for UN intervention in Chechnya I’ll be really pleased.
You make good points, but do you think:
-
His attacks will force changes in Putin’s policies?
-
It will further our efforts to get Russia to support us in curtailing Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs?
-
That the attack-dog bent of his speeches will endear us to any other nations?
-
That we are not already fraught with hypocritical policies worldwide?
-
That if indeed this is the smartest thing we could do, you can list the concete benefits long and short-term?
ad infinitum
Even more scary, I think he’s perfectly sane. Rumsfeld pointed out “Old Europe” and “New Europe” and said that our traditional alliances with Old Europe weren’t helping us in the War on Terror.
Bush pointed out the “Axis of Evil”, then attacked one of them. They feigned surprise when the remaining members armed themselves.
I think he’s going for a particular response. I’m not sure what it is yet, but they (and by “they”, I mean the executive branch in power) can’t be stupid enough as a whole to not think it through and look at what is possible. They can’t know that what they say has enough weight to impact people. Actually, I think they know exactly how much weight they have on the international scene.
I wish I could get unlimited access into Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Junior Bush’s mind. I just want to see how these arguments are drawn out and how things are “better” because of them, because as it’s going, I sure as hell don’t see it.
I almost get the impression this administration wants to start a “Cold War II”, for some assanine reason.
But who’s the other power? If we can conduct war unilaterally and expect no reprocussion, then the executive branch is acting without that other power. No way in hell they’d have done it as openly if Russia were still a superpower.
I don’t necessarily disagree, I’m just wondering.
At this point, I’m cynical enough to believe they don’t care who the other power is. Or it’s this Axis of Evil, or Iraq, or the Middle East, or whoever the hell it is.
Perhaps because all of the arguments for the War on Terror sound eerily similiar to the War on Communism.
Thank you for making me chuckle.
I disagree. These people strike me as being all tactics and no strategy; what strategy they have is based on ideological fantasies. Look at their lack of a real plan for post war Iraq, for example; they just assumed the Iraqis would fall in love with us.
I’ve believed that for years, and I think that’s what they are trying to do with the so called War on Terror. I mean, Bush even recently referred to the WoT as “World War Three” :rolleyes: .
As for why, it’s obvious. The Cold War was a great excuse for everything from persecuting the left to foreign invasions; they want it back.
Keep in mind that the left did their fair share of presecutions during the Cold War as well.
I’m curious as to two things: firstly, what a “presecution” is, and secondly, how the left used the Cold War as an excuse to oppress their opponents?
First, it’s called a typo. I meant to say persecution.
Second, the left AND the right used the charge of “soft on communism” against one another regularly, however, I was more referring to the US left, in that the Democrats were just as guilty of supporting violent and oppressive regimes all in the name of fighting communism.
Better to remain silent and do nothing?
You’re thinking of this as if this was part of some political conversation. VP Cheney didn’t say this on Larry King on the spur of the moment. It was a calculated speech that was crafted by a room full of people for a reason. The reason could be speculated on and debated at length.
Russia is struggling financially and because of this they are in bed with nations they would otherwise stay away from. In a time when they are dealing with terrorism, they seem to be backing Iran. You can’t come out and blast them for this without starting another tirade from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Every time the Iranian President opens his mouth the oil futures market goes postal and the price of gas goes up.
I’m not saying that’s the case but give it as an example of the political gamesmanship of speeches. It’s easy to see how such things are played out. Iran my not have any serious intentions of destroying Israel but it’s a pretty slick way to raise oil profits.
I’m sorry for the unkind typo comment. Hope you take it in the spirit in which it was intended.
Thank you for your explanation. I agree that the Democrats used the threat of the Red Menance to conduct unpleasent foreign policy decisions- Bay of Pigs, anyone?- but I think that domestically speaking, the charge of being Soft on Communism was more a weapon of the Republicans (not that right and left necessarily apply to the US political spectrum- not as I would view them, anyway). If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
It’s okay, I’m a bit cranky today, I shouldn’t have jumped down your throat like that.
Basically, it probably was more of a Republican weapon, but considering that at the time, the US was skewed more left than they are today, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it is now (with the whole, “Oh my god, so and so is a LIBERAL!!!”).
When was that?
Alright, so it’s probably cynical positioning, and Cheney is almost surely being a hypocrite here. That said, the criticism of Russia is more than deserved. Putin is obviously not a particularly big fan of democracy and that shouldn’t be ignored.