Dick Cheney 2000 VP debate excerpt

[Craig234]

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:

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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:

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.

Yeah, I too remember the reaching across the aisle and then seeing the knife sinking into Bush's back. But hey, remember only what you wish.

 

[bamacre]

They did reach across the aisle. Many Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre
They did reach across the aisle. Many Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq.

And NCLB, prescription drugs, patriot act, ...,...,...,...,...,...,...,

 

[Jaskalas]

Obama will also ?reach across the isle?. Must be popular.

 

[UberNeuman]

Sour Neocons make for bitter whine...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Obama will also ?reach across the isle?. Must be popular.

We need someone who has the capability of not only reaching across the aisle, but smacking everyone on each side of it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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:

Craig, it is hard to compare the Clinton years to the Bush years after 9-11.

In the Clinton year terrorism was a minor thorn in our side.
During the Bush years it has become the focal point of our foreign policy.

Read through the transcript and see if anyone asked them how they would respond to a major attack on US soil and get back to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
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:

Craig, it is hard to compare the Clinton years to the Bush years after 9-11.

In the Clinton year terrorism was a minor thorn in our side.
During the Bush years it has become the focal point of our foreign policy.

Read through the transcript and see if anyone asked them how they would respond to a major attack on US soil and get back to me.

Uhh, it seems like Iraq quickly became the "focal point of our foreign policy."

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Craig234
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 ...

All one had to do was look at his voting record when he was in congress.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
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:

Craig, it is hard to compare the Clinton years to the Bush years after 9-11.

In the Clinton year terrorism was a minor thorn in our side.
During the Bush years it has become the focal point of our foreign policy.

Read through the transcript and see if anyone asked them how they would respond to a major attack on US soil and get back to me.

PJ, try to put down the kool-aid for a minute, and deal with the facts.

Your comment about terrorism being a 'minor thorn in our side' under Clinton is only accurate for the first several years of his presidency. By the time of these debates, that had greatly changed. Clinton was holding daily meetings with his CIA and counter-terrorism team, he had signed an order authorizing killing bin Laden. During the transition soon after this debate, Clinton's officials told the Bush incoming team that Al Queda would be their #1 foreign policy problem. The Bush team did not listen, at all.

The debate, including the text I quoted, included hypotheticals, and is relevant to post-9/11.

When Cheney said he's very reluctant to use the troops for any peacekeeping - a theme the Bush campaign attacked Clinton for strongly, for Clinton's relatively modest use of the military for that purpose - that comment wasn't somehow made 'inoperative' by the Iraq war; it was made very relevant by the Iraq war. Same for his comment that in the rare cases troops should be used for peacekeeping, there needs to be a time frame specified.

Do you really need to be reminded of Bush's statements in the runup to the 2000 election?

?Victory means exit strategy, and it?s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.?

?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.?

Also, since they only said they'd push for part of the *surplus* to be returned in tax cuts, when you argue how much changed with 9/11 including an expensive war, why didn't they cancel the use of the vanished surplus, and cancel the tax cuts now that it'd simply be borrowing to pay for them - fiscal irresponsibility and the return to large deficits?

 

[Phokus]

How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
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:

Craig, it is hard to compare the Clinton years to the Bush years after 9-11.

In the Clinton year terrorism was a minor thorn in our side.
During the Bush years it has become the focal point of our foreign policy.

Read through the transcript and see if anyone asked them how they would respond to a major attack on US soil and get back to me.

In great part because they made it one.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Sour Neocons make for bitter whine...

thats quite witty.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

It requires a very thick skull.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

It requires a very thick skull.

Or rather, a rational mind. The reason our heads don't explode is because we(or I atleast) put rational thought behind our stances. I think the head explosions have been coming from a few of your people as of late. Must be letting hate get the best of 'em...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

It requires a very thick skull.

Or rather, a rational mind. The reason our heads don't explode is because we(or I atleast) put rational thought behind our stances. I think the head explosions have been coming from a few of your people as of late. Must be letting hate get the best of 'em...

No, the reason ultimately for you I think... is that you just don't give a shit. That's a pretty elitist attitude bubba.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bamacre
They did reach across the aisle. Many Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Well, I was against going into Iraq, but in defense of everyone who did vote to fund the war with Iraq I do have to admit that the way the administration presented everything they made it pretty hard for any politician to go on record as being against it.

Given more time I think many would have, that is why the Bush adiministration was in such a rush.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

It requires a very thick skull.

Or rather, a rational mind. The reason our heads don't explode is because we(or I atleast) put rational thought behind our stances. I think the head explosions have been coming from a few of your people as of late. Must be letting hate get the best of 'em...

No, the reason ultimately for you I think... is that you just don't give a shit. That's a pretty elitist attitude bubba.

You're right, I don't give a shit what a bunch of liberals think about me. I know what I believe and why I believe it based on a core set of ideals. The thing about that is though, is that I'm not running for office trying to campaign on the notion that I know what's good for people, etc.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

The same way the flat-worlders' heads don't explode; their views work well enough in the small scale, i.e., the world looks flat from where they stand, so no problem.

The views of the closed-minded are amazingly resilient against contrary data.

How many Germans and Japanese late in WWII still supported the war? How many Russians today still like Stalin? We still hear the supply-side nonsense...

The prosperity of our nation allows for foolish beliefs to thrive in a protected bubble.

By the time the bubble bursts, 'I told you so' will be lean nutrition indeed. The apologies, if they come at all, will not help much.

 

[kage69]

How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

Well that is usually a trait of inert contents...



Yeah that Cheney has some real gems. Many enlisted are wondering where the hell his concerns for over-committing and under-resourcing went these last seven years.
Maybe it was those 'other priorities' calling again...

To hear him speak of "providing good leadership" gives me a sick yet angry feeling, taking into account what his admin has done to politically alter the workings of our government and military.

No explosions, but my mind does spin a bit when I ponder those poor souls who still support this evil, hypocritical person.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Phokus
How PJ's and Cad's heads don't explode is a complete mystery to me

You fail at physics. Vacuums cause implosions, not explosions.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yeah, I too remember the reaching across the aisle and then seeing the knife sinking into Bush's back. But hey, remember only what you wish.

Case in point.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm not running for office trying to campaign on the notion that I know what's good for people, etc.

Instead you're posting here based on that notion! :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm not running for office trying to campaign on the notion that I know what's good for people, etc.

Instead you're posting here based on that notion! :laugh:

No, I'm expressing my opinion here. You can take it or leave it, just as I do with everyone else's opinions here.