Did you watch Frontline on PBS last night about Cheney and his lawyer Addington (executive power)?

Question

Yes, believe it or not this is coming from a conservative.

You can watch the full program online here (highly recommended):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_3_frontlinebrcheneyslaw_2007-10-17

Do you believe that Cheney and Addington’s push for more executive power is purely altruistic in consideration of the fight we face or do they have darker objectives?

(I am aware of The Big lie and the history of Hitler and the Nazi party’s techniques in gaining ultimate power in Germany.)

one_for_... - You obviously don't know me here at YA.

Crabby_b... - No sir - according to all that I have read, neo-cons are actually liberals who have realized that pure liberalism is not beneficial to the political elites. Some have said that they give 3 shouts for capitalism instead of 4.

cvq3842, Mele Kai, PFO your answers are all greatly appreciated.

As a veteran of the US Navy in Electronic Warfare intelligence this answer really strikes home with me.
In consideration of Smart Guy’s answer these is my take:

Answer 1

Thanks. I will review it.
What frightens me is that Cheney has also been quoted lately that, speaking for Bush, they do not feel confident leaving Iraq/Iran in the hands of the next President. Then Putin warns about usage of the Caspian Sea. I'm with you, conservative and he's a worry. But, you know when you watch Pelosi maneuver the Congress, play with this Turkey vote, she won't push anyways? I wonder. Perhaps taking away some of these powers may be responsible given the way personal agenda has clouded the Senate & Congress voting increasing bias. Plus the pork spending?
With the concept of a volatile Clinton/female in office what legacy will they be leaving ? I am not sure if taking swift control just as we change administrations is wise either.
Each day we watch as these world leaders strut their stuff.
Here's a EU newspaper for you from Germany after Putin's wrangling. Have a nice day! ( still Lonewoff here looking for a name more like home & stuff - it's my dog's name actually. )

http://eupolitics.einnews.com/germany/
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/43649.html

Answer 2

Interesting, Cheney's dead wrong. His interpretation of the constitution is the most liberal I've ever seen. Conservatives are supposed to be strict interpreters, and we clearly have a constitutional system with checks and balances, three branches of government capable of usurping each other in various ways. I don't believe that should be changed because of human nature. Cheney likens the presidency to a dictatorship, and he's dead wrong. If any good can come of this, perhaps he'll push executive privilege so far that it will be constitutionally challenged, so once and for all we can set precedent on how this power won't be abused in the future.

Answer 3

Thanks for the link!

If Cheney and/or the Bush administration have ulterior motives, or if their beliefs (whether sincerely held or not) are harmful to the country, then their very BEST friends and allies in this (unwittingly, of course) are the leftist politicos and media.

Seven years of " Bush lied," "Bush is evil" and even "Bush planned 9/11" have made me automatically skeptical of any sweeping criticisms from the left.

Witness the General Sanchez story. All the comments criticizing the conduct of the war were trumpeted on all outlets, and it was only days later that the portions of the speech severely critical of the media and NOT fitting the "Iraq is a disaster" template trickled out. Why on Earth should the American public stand for this, especially in wartime? WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON?

And I find Moyers extremely suspect. Forty years of his record are all I need to cite for this.

Frankly, I am more receptive to criticisms of this administration I read in National Review. Yes, it is biased, but there's plenty of criticism. I am biased too, and have criticized Bush a great deal as well.

Again, I am biased - but very honest about it. Which is much, much more than I can say for Moyers.

So I'm glad people are paying attention to this. But almost a decade of "crying wolf" by trying every conceivable smear of Bush, Cheney, Republicans and our troops (remember the Korans down the toilet story?) means that I start off disbelieving Moyers and his ilk and giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.

So I will wait until I hear the other side. I call it my "three day rule." Usually, the story looks much different by then.

Again, the Howard Dean/MoveOn.org crowd have played perfectly into Cheney's hands. He couldn't have planned a better "cover" if he had tried! These stories often have the OPPOSITE effect on me than intended. It's not logical, but it's often proven right.

Sorry for the screed - it's not directed at you at all. And my frustration may be totally misplaced.

As always, I could be wrong! I'm just some jacka** posting on the internet. :)

PS My biggest concern about Bush and Cheney is to ask why they bother to continue to do their jobs to protect this country so enthusiastically, given the "thanks" they get - the constant brickbats and slanders. If I were them, I might be tempted to just throw up my hands and coast, by avoiding the tough issues and hoping to kick the problems down the road.

It worked for Clinton - he is still very popular! And the 3,000 Americans incinerated and pulverized on 9/11 are no longer polled, so they're not going to drag down his numbers.

So yes, I suppose it IS easier to believe that they are taking all this abuse out of some dark personal motives - what else would be worth it? Love of country, and desire to see it preserved? Don't they know patriotism is out of style?!

I know it's unfair to add this tangent to your question, but again I'm not directing it at you. All the best.

Answer 4

His intentions have _some_ National nobility, though not devoid of personal objectives - and entirely devoid of International comity. His actions, on the other hand, have been entirely clouded and solely guided by 911. Frontline disclosed a man whose modus operandi and political agenda (exective power) took off entirely in one direction b/c of 911.. He seems unable and unwilling to look behind him, to his left, or right, or the in-betweens... Addington, on the other hand, is a Duke law school graduate who, b/c he is Not Harvard or Yale, needed to find a way to channel some influence in an effort to convince himself that he is a worthy, powerful intellect. Yoo was then a newly minted top-of-the-line Yale/Harvard product who, b/c of his Korean ancestry, sought to prove to the post-911 America that he is a true American - that goal entirely clouded an otherwise impressive mind... He was so focused on the details, that he failed to look at the big picture - he was like a kid with a new toy.

Answer 5

the easy fact that the evolution section had each and each element stacked against them -- they have been the plaintiffs, subsequently had the load of evidence; the go with became an exact wing Bush appointee -- the top result's superb. the easy fact that they could set up that clever format isn't technological tips and is in actuality faith became dazzling. interior the main suitable, the id proponents ("cdesign proponentsists") had a important credibility hollow -- sufficient that perjury became investigated.

Answer 6

For your information, Hitler was referring to Jews and their use of the "Big Lie".

Answer 7

Yes--I saw it.

But one correction--Cheney is not a conservative; he is part of the extreme right ("neoconservatives")--there is a world of difference.

Answer 8

"Go F. yourself Mr Cheney"