|
Does Cheney's assault hold risks for Republicans?
2009-05-24
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Dick Cheney, the most publicity averse US vice president in decades, is now the most outspoken former White House power broker of modern times after a stunning political transformation. Freed of the shackles of office, Cheney is now in the eye of fierce public debate, while in power he often lurked in the shadows. Leading the Republican charge against President Barack Obama on Guantanamo Bay and harsh CIA interrogation methods, Cheney is rocking Washington with a rare clash between past and present administrations. "Today, I'm an even freer man," Cheney said before his blistering assault on Obama's policies at the American Enterprise Institute last week. "A private citizen, a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose and no favor to seek." Cheney is surely however trying to write an early draft of history on the Bush administration. As outspoken as his former boss ex-president George Bush has been silent, Cheney's assault does however hold risks for a demoralized Republican party searching for direction. Leading lights of some administrations -- former vice president, later president Richard Nixon in the 1960s and ex-secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the 1980s, for example, have defended their actions once out of power. But Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer says Cheney's role, in the current political war with the Obama administration, is unusual. "There has been no one as vocal as Cheney," Zelizer said. Cheney did not flinch in a public duel with Obama last week, giving a forensic examination, in his trademark monotone, of how the United States has, is and should be fighting the global anti-terror campaign. He revived the arguments that the "war on terror" was a new kind of war and must be fought with new means, including, if necessary, harsh treatment of suspects. Associates of Cheney say that his motivation is not at all sinister -- he simply believes Bush-era methods kept Americans safe and is dismayed to see some of them dismantled. "Our defense is simple -- we were tough on the terrorists through all legal means and we were able to prevent an attack from happening again," said Dana Perino, Bush's last White House spokeswoman. "If a person is viciously attacked for years and he believes that that is wrong on the merits than he should take the opportunity to respond. "Why should we sit around and let them smack us around for years? And then when we defend ourselves, we're described as angry." Cheney's detractors argue he is playing an old game of politicizing national security. His approach holds risks for his limp party after electoral shellackings that many blame on Bush. "It is a high risk strategy for Republicans they are betting everything on an administration that lost control of both the White House and Congress," said Zelizer. Democrats seem happy to slug it out against Cheney, who is providing an almost daily reminder of the unpopular Bush years. Despite a slight rise in his popularity in recent days -- a 37 percent favorable rating in a CNN poll last week, compared to 29 percent when he left office, Cheney lags well behind the popular Obama. Obama had a 62 percent favorability rating in the same poll. A Rasmussen Reports survey this month found that just 38 percent of voters agree with Cheney that Obama's policies have made them less safe. Cheney's arguments may also not have the same hold on the public mind as they once did and some say they were ultimately rejected inside the Bush administration. "You know, watching vice president Cheney, it appears as if he's extending an argument that ... was had inside these walls for many years during the administration in which he served as vice president," jabbed White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Friday. While no one would accuse Cheney of wishing for another attack on the United States, his arguments are likely a preview of the political debate that would follow any subsequent incident. Cheney's contention is that the Bush-era interrogation methods, Guantanamo Bay, expanded wiretapping and other methods kept Americans safe in the eight years following the September 11 attacks in 2001. So by implication, if an attack did occur, Republicans might argue that it was because of the very policies that Obama rejected.
| 
