Posts Tagged ‘Vice President Cheney’

Iraq was not a “distraction”

December 1, 2009

Megan McArdle has a post up complaining about Dick Cheney schooling Obama. In it she compares Cheney to former President Jimmy Carter.  This comparison is as mindless as it is wrong-headed.

If President Reagan had gone around whining about the problems he had “inherited” from President Carter, she would have a valid point.  But he didn’t and she doesn’t.  When President Buttercup Obama decides to man up, face the fact the he really is President of the United States of America, and do his job, rather than whining about the problems he “inherited” (he didn’t inherit them, he lied, cheated, and stole in order to become President, and thus get to deal with those problems.  If he didn’t want to deal with the problems, he damn well shouldn’t have run for the office), then it might be reasonable to call for Cheney to stand down.

But so long as Obama is blaming everything on the previous Administration, members of the previous Administration have not just the right, but the duty to point out he’s full of sh!t.

One of her commenters gave the following whine:

Of course if the previous administration had done the job right and not turned their attention to Iraq President Obama would not have to worry about Afghanistan now would he?

My response:

Do you ever think for yourself? Or are you merely capable of spouting leftie talking points that have no actual connection to reality?

The US Military is logistically “heavy”. To put it another way: we like to burn through a lot of material, instead of burning through people.

Afghanistan is a lousy place to try to do that. Iraq was not (nearby seaports are wonderful things for heavy logistics). When we invaded Iraq, the Islamist nutjobs followed, and fought us on turf that was well designed for our style of fighting.  As such, we slaughtered them in droves, and their terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people turned the Iraqis against “global jihad”.

That’s called “win win”.  Or, at least it is if you actually want to see the US win.

Afghanistan was and is a generation long struggle.  If you don’t want to deal with it, don’t run for President of the US.

Advertisements

Wow, Cheney was right!

October 3, 2008

Over on Ace’s Blog, Gabriel Malor is beating up poor old “Slow Joe” Biden for his BS about Cheney. Biden said

“Vice President Cheney has probably been the most dangerous Vice President we’ve had in American history. He has the idea…he doesn’t realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States. That’s the executive. He works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

“And the primary role of the Vice President of the United States of America is to support the President of the United States of America. Give that President his or her best judgment when sought and as the Vice President to preside over the senate only in a time when in fact there is a tie vote. The constitution is explicit, the only authority the Vice President has from a legislative standpoint is to vote only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea that he’s a part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of the unitary executive..and look where it’s gotten us.”

The Constitution is available online, so I went and looked at it. Now, i should note that I always thought the argument that Cheney was part of the Legislative Branch was pure BS, but I think, now, that I was wrong.

Article 1.

Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Oops. Mister “Constitutional Scholar” doesn’t even know that the first article is about Congress, not the Presidency.

But, it turns out he was half right. Because every single power granted to the Vice President is granted in Article 1. Search the text for “Vice”, and see for yourself.

Section 3:

….

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside

So the VP is President of the Senate, gets to split ties, and presides over any impeachment except the President’s (and, presumably, his or her own).

Wow, you say, that’s a boring job. Does the Vice President have any other powers?

Article 2

Section 1

….

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President

Yep, she gets to sit around and wait for the President to die or be incapacitated. There’s only one other place in Article 2 (the article that details that powers of the Executive Branch) where the Vice President is mentioned:

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So we know that the Vice President is not a “civil Officer of the United States” (since if she was, it would be “all other“, not just “all”), and she is removable by impeachment.

A while back, Governor Sarah Palin was asked if she’d be interested in being McCain’s VP. Her response was something on the order of “I’d have to find out what the role of the VP would be, first.” This is what she was talking about. The Constitution does not grant the Vice President any executive powers. If she is to have any power, it’s because the President has agreed to delegate those powers to her. So her comment wasn’t one of ignorance, it was one of understanding: “I can’t say yes until I know what I’m being offered.”

As for Senator Biden, he’s an idiot. The only things he got right were things that proved the opposite of what he said they did. He’s really the best that Obama could find?