I was curious and read the transcript of the 2000 VP debate, looking to see what Cheney had to say, how much warning there was about the disaster he'd be.
I might start another thread at some point on the larger issue it raised, how inadequate our election process is for warning us against dangerous candidates, but this isn't for that.
No surprise, there was nothing about his radical agenda for a 'unitary presidency', and the only talk of tax cuts involved returning a fraction of the surplus to 'all the taxpayers'.
To his credit, he did say that military action might be needed against Saddam if WMD were found to be an issue, and that he was in favor of removing Saddam.
But I think the following excerpt is poignantly a reminder how little the 'problems' of the Clinton years were for the military compared to the Bush administration:
Here are his closing comments:
Ya, I think we can remember all that 'reaching acros the aisle' the Bush administration did 2001-2006, as democrats tried to find out where meetings were being held.
I might start another thread at some point on the larger issue it raised, how inadequate our election process is for warning us against dangerous candidates, but this isn't for that.
No surprise, there was nothing about his radical agenda for a 'unitary presidency', and the only talk of tax cuts involved returning a fraction of the surplus to 'all the taxpayers'.
To his credit, he did say that military action might be needed against Saddam if WMD were found to be an issue, and that he was in favor of removing Saddam.
But I think the following excerpt is poignantly a reminder how little the 'problems' of the Clinton years were for the military compared to the Bush administration:
MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America's armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers?
CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors. There may be occasion when it's appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars. And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We've seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time we've seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he's now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We're overcommitted and underresourced. This has had some other unfortunate effects. I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in '95 getting ready to get out of the service because he's only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He's concerned if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost. It's a legitimate concern, the fact the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. It's a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them good leadership and build up the forces.
Here are his closing comments:
Finally, we think it's very important to rebuild the U.S. military. The military is in trouble. The trends are in the wrong direction. The finest men and women in uniform that you'll find anyplace in the world but they deserve our support. They deserve the resources that we need to provide for them and they deserve good leadership. George Bush is the man to do this. I've seen him do it in Texas. What we need is to be able to reach across the aisle. Put together coalitions of Republicans and Democrats and build the kinds of coalitions that will get something done in Washington. George Bush is a man of great integrity that will make a first rate president
Ya, I think we can remember all that 'reaching acros the aisle' the Bush administration did 2001-2006, as democrats tried to find out where meetings were being held.