Am I Wrong To Regret Voting For Obama?

Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 | Posted by Chico Brisbane | Labels: , , , , , , , ,

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq, he committed the United States to the reckless task of disassembling a sovereign nation, and then reassembling it according to his wishes. In the process of mishandling the war, the country and congress became aware of just how misleading the president and his administration were in seeking to gain approval for the war. Now that Bush is out of office, internal DOJ memos are casting a far more sinister light on the former president and vice presidents insatiable appetite for war.

In an attempt to counter the recently declassified memos, the former vice president has embarked on a media tour to justify the torture detainees while other Bush sycophants echo the same flimsy rational. They claim that water boarding is not torture and even if it is, it was necessary to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. The bottom line is that where we go one as a nation, we go all as a nation, and if we facilitate our own Hanoi Hilton, we have no moral ground to stand on should American soldiers be subjected to torture in the future. NONE WHATSOEVER!

When George H.W. Bush was ramping up to the Gulf War, Jimmy Carter sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council urging them not to rush into war without exploring a negotiated solution. The first President Bush and other Republicans in Washington considered this treasonous, a former president trying to thwart a sitting one, lobbying foreign diplomats to oppose his own country on a war resolution.

In 2002, when George W. Bush was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror.

Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich himself said that the former vice president Gore asserting that President Bush was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”

“I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief,” Gingrich said flatly.

Now, however, Gingrich backs Dick Cheney when he asserts that President Obama has made America less safe. What was once treasonous is now ones civic duty in the minds of many republicans that fear for the demise of their party. Asked by Bob Schieffer on Sunday how America could torture when it made a mockery of our ideals, Cheney blithely gave an answer that surely would have been labeled treasonous by Rush Limbaugh, if a Democratic ex-vice president had said it about a Republican president.

“Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.

The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who’s “SO WHAT?” line was the usual response to public opinion is now whining at nausium about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public. Cheney, who had five deferments to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow an oxy-cotin addict like Rush Limbaugh who has had three divorces and who also avoided Vietnam, than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.

“Bush 41 cares about decorum and protocol,” said an official. “I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate Cheney acting out. He is giving the whole party a black eye just as Jeb is out there trying to renew the party.”

Cheney unleashed, egged on by the combative Lynne and Liz, is pretty much the same as Cheney underground: He’s batty, and he thinks he was the president. Bush admired Cheney’s balls, but grew increasingly skeptical of him, the more he learned about foreign policy himself, and the more he got pulled into a diplomatic mode by Condi in the second term. There were even reports of W. doing a funny Cheney imitation and that it dawned on him that Cheney and Rummy represented a scofflaw, paranoid Nixon cell within his White House.

“Toward the end, 43 was just as confused as anybody about what makes Cheney tick,” said a Bush family loyalist.

Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans. He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable. W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scow croft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.But with W., “Back Seat” — Cheney’s Secret Service name in the Ford administration — clambered up front. Then he totaled the car. And no amount of yapping on TV is going to change that when history is written. On the other hand, I have become so frustrated by President Obama's soft stand on holding those responsible for these war crimes accountable, that I am on the verge of regretting my November 3, 2008 for one Barack Hussein Obama. Was Sean Hannity right all along?

Chico Brisbane