Thread: Elements of the Bush Doctrine Will Outlive the Bush Presidency

Cheney previously chaired, owns shares and is still paid (retirement pensions I guess) by a company which happens to have/had big contracts with the federal state, whom he is the Vice president. Through the aforementionned ways he continues to receive public money other than through his salary as a VP. In my country it is called a conflict of interests. And in yours ?

No grandiloquent rethoric S-2, just the facts. I agree it's less staightforward than Richelieu but the equation stays the same : enrichment for a member of the executives with public money.

S-2

I find the Bush/ Cheney Doctrine fabulously brilliant from a military POV. I have no qualms over Bush/ Cheney’s strategy over Afghanistan or Iraq. It was most essential from the Strategic POV to ensure US supremacy. What I don’t subscribe to is the pithy piety being showcased in the pseudo moral jabberwocky of “Freedom and Democracy”.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would explain, lest I am misunderstood. The high standing on “Freedom and Democracy” is a bit overworked, more so, since the US has supported dictators and horrendous autocratic and horrid regimes before and even now. Therefore, the rationale for invading Iraq appears a bit off key. Indeed, if Saddam was a horror, which he was, so is Mugabe, the Sudan junta or even the Somalia rabble.

Therefore, sans the morality, the Doctrine is flawless.

Today, it may have its critics, but in the not so far future, this Doctrine will be hailed as a masterpiece, the same way buying of Alaska is acclaimed!

No, even if one wants to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan, one just cannot for a variety of reasons. And, anyway, as I look at it, there is no intention to leave. Not for some imperialist reason, but mere strategy. They are great strategic footholds; something like a land version of the Chinese strategy of string of pearls! The Middle East is being kept in place and Russia and China squeezed and kept on tenterhooks! Pakistan, which has potential for trouble and exportation of terrorists is totally leashed and instead are being busied by fighting the terrorists they themselves had spawned. India is currently being pampered and weaned away from Russia and her strategic concerns are being addressed to conform to the US scheme of things! Things would have been better from the US strategic perspective, but for Rudd appearing to be a maverick!

I am not looking at the tactical wins and defeats in Iraq or Afghanistan. These things have their ups and downs. The strategic resolve is the most important aspect. Come what govt in the US, it will still have to fall in line with the strategy since no American, irrespective of party affiliation, is ready to be the second fiddle. Hilary, Obama or McCain, they are all the same; their rhetoric different, the goals same!

I don’t think that the neo con knights were wrong. They were deviously brilliant!

"... he stole public money too but I think that's the only way where you can relate them...owns shares and is still paid (retirement pensions I guess) by a company which happens to have/had big contracts with the federal state, whom he is the Vice president. Through the aforementionned ways he continues to receive public money other than through his salary as a VP..."

Previously chaired- Chaired? Chairman of the Board of Directors? Incorrect. Chief Executive Officer. Not the same.

Own shares= no value. Zero until cashed. He's no requirement to liquidate his personal portfolio on assuming public office. That doesn't fly.

"is still paid"- Deferred salary from past employment. Accrued interest is the only income-generating element.

Where's the THEFT? THEFT is a crime. Conflict of Interest is not THEFT. Further, there's a huge difference between a conflict of interest based upon a decision made for personal gain and a POTENTIAL conflict of interest that has never actualized. You've not made that case at all. If anything, a personal wealth between $19-85 million creates a great deal of immunity and freedom from leverage by past relationships.

I don't see theft and don't like the casual accusation by a foreigner. It's no joke to a man's reputation and neither are you funny for the slander. No public official's financial disclosure in America has been so carefully scrutinized. Whether there's impropriety or, worse, criminal behavior has yet to be established by far better investigators than you.

Did you know that his after-tax proceeds from his unexercised stock-options are pledged to charity? He did so in 2003-

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

He flies in rarified air and moves with the heaviest hitters in the world. I think he's smarter than THEFT and I find that your off-hand slag constitutes nothing of substance but predictable in any case.

You've gone from THEFT OF PUBLIC MONIES to hints of a conflict of interest? Tiresome and all-too-common.

"What I don’t subscribe to is the pithy piety being showcased in the pseudo moral jabberwocky of 'Freedom and Democracy'."

Brigadier,

I understand but don't see it as pseudo-moral. Let me explain. It may seem as pap fed to the masses for their consumption but behind the pithy phrasing lies some fundamental tenets that deserve support. The notions of public secular education, democratic elections and transparent governance, public health, free and unfettered trade, and bills of rights are the instruments of ultimate power and not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric to mask Machevellian intentions.

We are hardly perfect and I understand that you damn us with faint and disingenuous praise for seeming self-serving duplicity. Still, realpolitik concerns require our engagement with onerous leaders. This is true for every democratic nation on this planet. We know that- nearly all of us. It doesn't require that we surrender our principles and, for the most part, we don't.

Those principles, we believe, represent our best weapons to creating a world that will be no less competitive but far more cooperative. Laura Bush's comments about the Myanmar leadership were spot-on and hardly untypical. In sum, this nation has "walked the walk" as well or better than any nation on earth and our goals/objectives certainly further our interests- and yours and every other nation that believes in those aforementioned principles.

Don't lose sight of those "tools", Brigadier. It's what separates altruistic interest from narrow self-interest.

Cheney's investment has been moved to a blind trust after he was selected to run as Bush's VP, just to avoid any conflict of interest issues.

Liberals like nothing less than to crucify Cheney. But so far their best and brightest lawyers (and they have a lot) can't find anything. Don't you think if there was even a shread of evidence of anything, the dems would have found it after 7 years?

There has been more proof of Saddam's WMD found in Iraq than Cheney's inproprieties at Haliburton.

Originally Posted by S-2

"... he stole public money too but I think that's the only way where you can relate them...owns shares and is still paid (retirement pensions I guess) by a company which happens to have/had big contracts with the federal state, whom he is the Vice president. Through the aforementionned ways he continues to receive public money other than through his salary as a VP..."

Previously chaired- Chaired? Chairman of the Board of Directors? Incorrect. Chief Executive Officer. Not the same.

Own shares= no value. Zero until cashed. He's no requirement to liquidate his personal portfolio on assuming public office. That doesn't fly.

"is still paid"- Deferred salary from past employment. Accrued interest is the only income-generating element.

Where's the THEFT? THEFT is a crime. Conflict of Interest is not THEFT. Further, there's a huge difference between a conflict of interest based upon a decision made for personal gain and a POTENTIAL conflict of interest that has never actualized. You've not made that case at all. If anything, a personal wealth between $19-85 million creates a great deal of immunity and freedom from leverage by past relationships.

I don't see theft and don't like the casual accusation by a foreigner. It's no joke to a man's reputation and neither are you funny for the slander. No public official's financial disclosure in America has been so carefully scrutinized. Whether there's impropriety or, worse, criminal behavior has yet to be established by far better investigators than you.

Did you know that his after-tax proceeds from his unexercised stock-options are pledged to charity? He did so in 2003-

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

He flies in rarified air and moves with the heaviest hitters in the world. I think he's smarter than THEFT and I find that your off-hand slag constitutes nothing of substance but predictable in any case.

You've gone from THEFT OF PUBLIC MONIES to hints of a conflict of interest? Tiresome and all-too-common.

Well, he was chairman of the board too

But for the rest, after making my reseach, I owe you some apologies. Even if the as old as Aristotle argument (rich people, once in power, don't steal) has been proven wrong so many times.

Again I was in the wrong there's strictly no way where you can compare this guy with Richelieu. History will judge...But don't forget it's the victor who writes it.

Back to the thread, the Bush/Cheny legacy in the Middle East will certainly endure that's right, but more like Lyndon B Johnson's legacy overshadowing the Nixon Administration over the Vietnam war I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Oscar

History will judge...

Odd, how certain people are so eager for a 'ruling'!

But don't forget it's the victor who writes it..

So when you're proven wrong you trot out a tired quote to cover your inadequacies. Didn't learn anything in Historiography class?

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Odd, how certain people are so eager for a 'ruling'!



You're right, how odd it is for a thread dedicated to the Bush legacy.



So when you're proven wrong you trot out a tired quote to cover your inadequacies. Didn't learn anything in Historiography class?

Well unfortunately I was not the first one with a thread which ended up making comparisons between Cheney and Richelieu...