Since when do conservatives give a fuck about the ‘sovereignty of the UN’, and what does that phrase mean? How can we uphold the sovereignty of a body when we go expressly against its stated policies? The UN didn’t want an Iraq invasion, and they were right.
Did you not see my bracketed phrase after that, saying pretty much what you say? GWB’s argument, when you parse it, is a betrayal of everything conservatives have always said about the U.N. He took the position that it was vital to the UN’s credibility (paleoconservative: what credibility?) to “enforce” (paleoconservative: how can you “enforce” the diktats of a glorified Student Council, when we have for years been denying that they have any binding power, and certainly would never concede that they were binding on the U.S.?) the UN Resolution and the intent of the members who voted for it (paleoconservative or anyone: But those same members were screaming till the eve of the invasion that whatever the Resolution meant, it didn’t mandate or “authorize” (assuming that UN “authorization” is necessary for U.S. military action) an invasion.
GWB tried, that is, to manufacture the appearance of “international authorization” by portraying himself as just carrying out the UN’s wishes. In addition to not convincing any staunch liberal war opponent or critic of his policy, really, this is a fundamentally un-conservative act, as it tacitly acknowledges that some sort of UN approval or facsimile thereof is necessary before the U.S. can take military action – something no real conservative would countenance. Why GWB did this I don’t quite know, but it could have very bad unintended consequences down the road, as everyone will say “Even that crazy cowboy GWB acknowledged the need to obtain, or at least forge, a UN permission slip for his foreign policy.”
The invocation of the UN also makes me think GWB recognized he and the neocons might not be able to sell the war solely on the grounds that Iraq threatened U.S. sovereign interests – but by talking about the Kurds, and WMD destabilizing “the region,” and then invoking the UN and the “international community” (again, a phrase no real conservative would ever utter), he thought he could tip the balance, gain Dem Congressional votes, etc. And I guess it “worked.”
Image-wise, for the Democratic party, a true Cheney presidency might be the best thing that would happen to get the Dems re-elected. Little would change policy-wise, but Cheney is such a bad frontman(low-talker, able to explain points, but not at all inspirational) that people might not feel as trusting as with our current President.
I disagree with that. One thing Cheney is good at is public speaking.
Only with a hand picked sympathtic audience.
Or, “I’m not a Lincoln. Go fuck yourself.”
Lest we forget, at least for a short while, he was Acting POTUS
Given the concensus that Cheney is the power behind the facade, I would say not much would change, except, possibly, he would have less hands on control of the government. As VP, his sole main duty is to be in charge of the Senate, when he feels like it. Thus, he has pretty much as much free time to be the “XO” as he wants. If he wants to go visit something or talk to someone, it won’t be broadcasted like it would if the POTUS does it. (How many times did Cheney visit NOLA? I sure as hell didn’t hear of any - but we know when Bush was there.)
I would imagine that, these days, we are completely underestimating the importance of the VP. The Prez might be the Head of State, but a good Veep is truly the Neck.