Anyone plan to read Cheney's book?

I know Cheney wasn't wildly popular with the left (that's the understatement of the century), but I liked him. A lot.

I heard him being interviewed about his book, and the reporter asked him repeatedly if he felt he was betraying Bush by sharing conversations where they disagreed. She was really baiting him, IMHO - and I realize that sometimes reporters have to push to get some controversy out there to up their ratings, so I don't begrudge her that tactic.

But I really appreciated his responses. He didn't feel it was a betrayal. He still feels firmly that the advice he gave was the best advice he could give. There is nothing wishy-washy or wavering about that guy.

Love him or hate him, what struck me was that he absolutely could care less about trying to kiss up to anyone to win popularity points. I think that is a rare and admirable quality. Most politicians try to make what they say palatable to as many people as they can, and then nobody is sure where they REALLY stand. You FEEL like you probably know where they stand because of their party affiliation, but you also know there is waffling room because politicians are always trying not to offend, lest they lose votes the next time around.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of this. Equally. They are masters of double speak... and I think that as a people, we have become jaded because we assume that regardless of what comes out of their mouths, they probably believe what their party platform wants them to believe.

One example - and I'm just picking this one of Obama's because it is an easy one - is Obama's stance on gay marriage. During his campaign he made statements about how he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman and that he wanted to protect that. But he never came right out and made strongly anti-gay statements, and I think deep down everybody probably knew that when push came to shove, he would be siding with pro-gay forces in whatever issues came up during his presidency once elected... perhaps with trepidation during a first term, and unequivocally during a potential second term.

But Cheney is the total opposite of that (not on the gay issue - I think he was always clear that he supported his lesbian daughter, which was not at all in lock step with his party). He has never been one to try to garner brownie points. He says what he thinks, and if it's not popular, so be it. At least you know where he stands.

I like that quality. I wish we had more of it in our politicians. There is something to be said for unvarnished opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

No intentions at all in reading his book, ever, really dislike him a lot...., Never once did I ever trust this man, in fact as much as I dislike Bush, I sincerely disliked Cheney far worst....However the only good thing I will say is that as a person who is pro-gay and will always support all gay rights, the fact that he supported his daughter ranks high on my list on likes..I am sure many people will love to read his book. To each his own....so enjoy your book Wowitsdark...peace and blessings in your reading..Catherine

Whenever I hear his name, this is what I think of:
Bob Rivers Show - Cheney's Got a Gun - YouTube

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Never liked him never will. Conflict of interest for a lot of money making entities was the main reason although there were no shortage of reasons to not like him.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Anna, I understand your skepticism. I have it too about politicians I disagree with on the issues.

But it really is a double-edged sword. If you've got experience - which is something politicians need - they also have friends in places that leave them open to nepotism.

Example: Obama, it is clear, had pretty much zero experience as an economist and he hadn't been in politics long enough at a national level to know any really good ones. In the past ten years or so, he's gone from community activist to state senator to US senator to President. It's a fast rise with no private sector experience. Who has he consulted? People like the guy running GE. The amount of perks GE got in the bailout is mind-boggling. From my perspective his lack of experience has equated to sheer incompetence. And Bush didn't really have a whole heck of a lot of experience in this regard, either - I'm an equal opportunity critic!

Cheney had practically a lifetime of experience in the private sector in the oil and gas industry. The region of the world that we ended up in conflict with after 9/11 is the region that - ding ding ding - is the center of the oil and gas universe. There were jobs that needed done in the wake of the wars that *only* Haliburton had the capacity, equipment, and experience to pull off because of their sheer size and global (though US-based) presence. They got the contracts for a lot of the cleanup work. Was it a matter of nepotism, or a byproduct of Cheney's working knowledge and years of experience in the industry that they were the only company that could handle the job?

We say we want people with experience, but when they HAVE it and USE it, we accuse them of nepotism. It really is a no-win situation where your political opponents are concerned.

I don't think it's a no win situation. It's a choice whether politicians behave ethically and they often choose not to. I also just happened to read an article in today's paper stating how Colin Powell says Cheney takes "cheap shots" in his book. His personality certainly didn't win him any friends.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

I wasn't there, obviously, and haven't even read the book, but my guess is that any time someone shares something that is coming from their own perspective, others who have a different perspective may very well feel like what is being said is an embellishment or a cheap shot or an out and out fabrication.

Not picking at you Anna - I am sure I do the same thing all the time - but you just said something that is not correct. You said that Powell says Cheney takes cheap shots in his book. The piece I just read leaves me to believe that Powell has not actually read the book. Is won't be released until Tuesday. I also just read a piece that has a headline that reads "Powell says Cheney taking 'cheap shots' in book". But the text of the article quotes Powell as saying, "From what I've read in the newspapers and seen on television it's essentially a rehash of events of seven or eight years ago."

In other words, I don't think Powell has even read the book, which isn't released until Tuesday. Reporters have quoted it because they had copies, but of course they are going to pick out the most sensationalistic quotes there are and use those in their pieces.

The headline is an example of reporters going for the "ZING!" more than simply laying out the story, and it's the zings that make impressions in our minds.

Personally, I don't think either man is lying. I think they are both describing the same incidents (war-related things, Plame-related things), and as is true in any relationship, working or otherwise, they're going to describe things from different viewpoints.

They don't like each other, so their views of the other's motives are naturally going to assume the worst about the other's actuions.

Evil man. Should have gone to prison over the Plame affair, along with a few others that escaped, and he is probably the main reason we are in Iraq. He lied over and over again about the so called weapons of mass destruction to get the ever gullible public behind him to get us into that war. He had experience alright. Experience in ignoring or shading the law to fit what he wanted to happen, (like his sudden residence change a few months before announcing his run for vice president, just to name one).

I always thought that if you liked the idea of waterboarding then you should submit yourself to the method several times and then make a decision as to whether it was torture or not. If you don't want to do that, then it's probably torture. I, unfortunately, have a poor memory, but those came up pretty easily. I suspect I could find more reasons to dislike him given some time and memory jogging.

I also remember that unlike any other VP, he still has his secret service protection, thanks to Obama, who he continues to bash. Talk about biting the hand that protects, er feeds you. Evidently he is so unpopular that he needs constant body guards. Maybe someone wants to subject him to enhanced interrogation. But that shouldn't bother him. After all, it's not like it's torture.

Wildwood I agree evil man, never liked him never will. His book as no interest to me at all. However I know many people who will enjoy it....Peace and blessings. Catherine

I saw Colin Powell talking about it on the news last night I only caught part of it but it seemed as though, at the very least, he read some excerpts, if not the whole book.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.