Hypothetical: Cheney as Commander in Chief? Thoughts?

[chookie]

Yes yes yes, I KNOW Unka Dick is really running the show behind the scenes already, and that the only difference if His Chimperial Majesty would become incapacitated (more?) would only be that we'd have to see his ugly snarl on tv all the time instead of the goofy visage of George W.

A LTTE today gravely asked the question: ooooo.....if Iran exploded a scary nuclear weapon, who would you want as Commander in Chief -- "Prettyboy" Edwards or good old Dick?

Of course, the *assumption* behind this question is that although Dick is no movie star (although let's be honest he is MUCH prettier than his wife Lynn, who is a true Jurassic monster), but that he is smart and he knows his way around the military.

I will allow that Unka Dick is smart, but only in the same way that say, Wayne Gacey or Ted Bundy were smart -- that is, sociopathic. You give him facts, figures, numbers, and his brain will invariable compute that these variables add up to "An Enemy Which Must Be Destroyed, with Great Profits for Halliburton, " whether you were showing him photos of Iran, or Bambi.

Sure, we can't be sure what "PrettyBoy" would do -- but Dick DOES have a record to run on. And what is that? Uh -- he's no Napoleon, is he? Maybe the crazy megalomaniac side of Boney, but certainly not the strategic genius, right?

So, given the Iranian scenario, we can suppose that in response President Cheney would invade, say, Venezuela. Or perhaps he would conduct himself as Bush has done with, say, the very real nuclear Korea, i.e. nothing and hope people forget this is a big problem.

Given that the Bush adminstration ignored the advice of the best military and regional strategists in regards to operations in Iraq, and chose to instead enlist the counsel of less capable but ideologically compatible "experts", who have bungled American operations against this third rate military power whose people utterly despised their vicious dictator, it is safe to assume he will bungle any operation in Iran in exactly the same manner, as he is incapable of admitting any error or changing course regardless of the consequences of his actions.

Given the perchant for secrecy, distortion and deception by the Bush adminstration, it is safe to assume that America could never sure President Cheney was being forthright about the outcome of military operations in a hypothetical Iranian war. Indeed, given the fact that military goals in the War on Terror are fuzzy at best, and almost abstract for the most part, it will be hard to really tell if things are going well or going badly. So it has been the case when Iraq has exploded into horrific violence, and many Americans have died, that we are told that this is a good sign that we are gathering all the terrorists to us to destroy neatly in Iraq -- gathering them together rather in the manner that pheasants were gathered together on a Pennsylvania country club to ensure Cheney had a successful "hunt."

Finally, hypotheticals aside, it is more likely than an invasion of Iran will also be a war of choice rather than a reaction to an event, as was the invasion of Iraq. An invasion of Iran has long been the goal of the NeoConservatives, of whom Cheney is a member, who hold that the only way the US can prevail is to have it all out militarily once and for all with the "enemies" of the Middle East.

Anyway, dear friends -- I would like to respond to the LTTE and dispel the myth that Dick Cheney is a competent leader with clever ideas that the American people would be better off with than Kerry. Can you add any more talking points to the ones I have raised here?? Thanks.

[mike_c]

1. shoot me now....

Otherwise I'd probably die slowly and horribly in the American Gulag.

[smirkymonkey]

3. That was my response exactly!

You beat me to it.

Why, God, why?????????????? :nuke:

[salib]

2. Shoot me too, but I think he would be less effective

He is way too obvious. Never get a thing through.

[JanMichael]

4. Hell. It would be hell. Honest, decent, people could not in any WAY...

...remain sheep.

[MichiganVote]

5. If I ever need someone to play executioner for me with

my enemies, Cheney is my man. Trouble is, he has me working, payin' and worrin' about the guys he claims are his enemies. Hope for a quid pro quo? Hardly.

[unblock]

6. why do people assume that the president needs ANY miltary familiarity?

the fact of the matter is that the founders very deliberately wanted a CIVILIAN to be in charge of the military.

if they had thought that military credentials were oh so important, they would have made at least 1 year's service mandatory.

in fact, i would almost argue that the LESS military experience and familiarity, the better. the president should, by and large, decide which wars are in the public interest, and leave the execution of the actions to the military. where does knowning your way around the pentagon enter in to that?

as a point regarding shrub's awol, i don't object to his pathetic military experience. what i object to is the character his displays by lying about his military part which criticizing kerry's. plus the awol demostrates the same type of cowardice and callous indifference in the face of emergency that he displayed on 9/11.