U.S Power not Executive Power
Before I expand on my critique of Angler, I want to respond to Spencer Ackerman's post in which he attempts to distill "Cheneyism" into the view that "power for its own sake is an uncomplicated good, and letting it expire without use is irresponsible." By power, Ackerman says he means "executive power."
Ackerman thinks his theory explains why Cheney opposed taking down Saddam Hussein in 1991 but favored doing so after 9/11. In the earlier period, according to Ackerman, going to Baghdad would have weakened the presidency due to certain "institutional impediments," namely "the United Nations, the Democratic opposition, the country's touch-and-go wariness to a ground war." After 9/11, as Ackerman sees it, these obstacles ceased to exist and, in their absence, "the imperative of harnessing and using executive power" caused Cheney to push for war.
Ackerman presents no evidence to support this speculation, and Angler strongly suggests that Ackerman is wrong. Bart demonstrates throughout the book that Cheney sincerely holds the views he fought to implement, and that these views extend far beyond mere belief in executive power.
In the case of Iraq, Bart argues that Cheney was preoccupied (reasonably so, in my opinion) with the prospect of terrorists working with states to produce a level of death and destruction they would otherwise find impossible to achieve. According to Bart, Cheney believed that, to prevent this, the U.S. needed to demonstrate its power by striking at an enemy state with which terrorists might collude (I take no position here about whether Iraq had colluded or was likely to collude with al Qaeda specifically).
That's why Bart calls his chapter on going to war with Iraq "Demonstration Effect." In his view, Cheney saw too many practical obstacles to going after North Korea or Iran. In Iraq's case, the obstacles seemed far less formidable. Thus, in Bart's telling, "the United States would take [Saddam] down because it could." (page 232)
If Bart is correct, then from Cheney's perspective the invasion was primarily about demonstrating U.S. power in order to dissuade enemy states from cooperating with terrorists and from taking other actions that would threaten our security. It was not about demonstrating or exercising executive power.
Bart's thesis is subject to question, and I do not fully subscribe to it. But Bart has presented evidence to support his thesis. Ackerman has not.
A quote from Cheney circa the Iran-Contra era:
"Duty bound to assert monarchical notions of prerogative." Quite a statement.
Screw the Enlightenment, hello 18th century absolutism!
November 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still don't address the fundamental question. While I think only a liar or a naive fool could honestly maintain that Cheney did what h did in the best interests of the country, for the sake of argument let's say that he does.
How then, could someone advocate advancing the country's best interests while violating the basic tenets of it's founding documents and the laws promulgated thereunder?
It's the "we must destroy the constitution in order to save it mentality," and I don't believe for a second that Dick Cheney gives a rat's ass about the constitution, the rule of law, or the democratic process. His entire career is an exercise in subverting all three in order to carry out objectives that the rest of American government could not be persuaded to support.
He believes in an unaccountable executive, and the majority of his actions in furtherance of that belief were for the ultimate benefit of his sponsors in the oil and defense industries, and in direct opposition to policies that promoted the general welfare.
November 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We went to war with Iraq because we thought it would be easy and because we knew that they couldn't fight back...
November 18, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember in 1987 a collegue of mine reading the closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom, after reading it... unfortunately Professor Blooms predictions have come true, people seem unwilling or unable to think critically and discern truth. I try and stay away from commenting on blogs whether conservative, libertarian, liberal, whatever - because people become deranged when writing in emails and on web logs, things are said that would never be said in person or in face to face public. I have experienced the derangement myself in my own attempts to participate.
I appreciate Paul's effort to engage with people who think differently than he does.
Most of the comments on this book review, I cannot properly put into perspective. It is always easier to be critical, much more difficult to offer solutions that have a basis in reason rather than anger.
Current events never judge leaders the same way as history does. Truman is highly regarded today, in 1952 he was viewed in some of the same ways as is W and Cheney are today.
What i find most curious is when people who tend to have a conservative worldview are defeated or lose a vote, debate, etc - they do not generally lose the ability to be respectful (of course with each individual there are exceptions), with people who associate with progressive/liberal worldviews lose, there seems to be a lot of whining and blaming - but never pointed at their areas - it is a conspiracy, unfair advantage. When the public votes in agreement with liberalism, the majority / people have spoken, when the vote is against, the voters are racist/bigots/stupid or were unfairly influenced by right wing nutcases.
Claiming that Cheney is blanket "criminal" does not make it so. Stating that he does not have the country's best interest in mind does not make it a fact.
There was a movie, Wrong is Right, that tanked at the time, but seems to be a documentary of many events unfolding today.
It would be helpful to dialogue without name calling, without the liberal types resorting to labeling critical voices as hate speech, and threatening commercial radio networks with "fairness".
I do think that there is something to Cheney Derangement Syndrom. No reason, no useful revelant facts, just enough information to make the case for your point of view, and destroy anyone who disagrees.
That I think is sad.
November 19, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink