Rogie Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Dick Cheney’s biography In My Time is apparently a waste of money! I have no intention of buying this book and doubt I'd read it even if it landed in my lap gift-wrapped. However, my impression (as a neutral Brit), is that Cheney is disliked by many of his kinsmen. So I shall try and be Mr Nice to attempt to counter the various Messrs Nasty, although I am not holding my breath I'll convert anyone! First of all, why do politicians when out of office, feel this urge to write a book? Well, in some cases there is justification for doing that, for example Winston Churchill (following quotes taken from the entry in Wikipedia): The Second World War is a six-volume history of the period from the end of the First World War to July 1945, written by Winston Churchill. It was largely responsible for his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953. The Second World War can still be read with great profit by students of the period, provided it is seen mainly as a memoir by a leading participant rather than as an authoritative history by a professional and detached historian. The Second World War, particularly the period between 1940 and 1942 when Britain was fighting with only the support of the Empire and a few Allies, was after all the climax of Churchill's career and his personal account of the inside story of those days is unique and invaluable. Actually Churchill started writing this before he was returned to office for one last time in 1951, although there was of course no guarantee he would win the 1951 general election, he just hoped he would. I suspect there is a category of politician who, out of office and suffering severe withdrawal symptoms, looks back fondly on his glory days and jumps at the chance of writing (and re-living in his own mind?) a book. In general this is a harmless enough activity, the book appears like a supernova in booksellers windows, only to end up in remainder bins shortly thereafter, the author retiring to a well-deserved obscurity. Then there are those like Cheney. Out to 'put the record straight'. These men, who tasted real power, are also suffering from their eclipse out of the limelight and will do anything to get the spotlight back on them. I went into Amazon just now to see if any readers have reviewed In My Time, but it's too early for that. Then I checked to see what other books had been written about Cheney. Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency, was published in 2006. Here is the publisher's blurb: Dick Cheney is the most powerful yet most unpopular vice president in American history. He has thrived alongside a president who, from day one, had little interest in policy and limited experience in the ways of Washington. Yet Cheney's relentless rise to prominence over three decades has happened almost by stealth. Now veteran reporters Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein reveal the disturbing truth about the man who has successfully co-opted executive control over the U.S. government, serving as the de facto 'shadow president' of the most dominant White House in a generation. Cheney has always been an astute politician. He survived the collapse of the Nixon presidency, finding a position of power in the administration of Gerald Ford. He was then elected to the House of Representatives and later served in the cabinet of the first Bush presidency. But when he became George W. Bush's running mate, Cheney reached a new level of influence. From the engineering of his own selection as vice president to his support of policies allowing torture as a permissible weapon in the 'war on terror', Cheney has consistently steered America to the right. With unique access to numerous first-hand sources, Vice provides an unprecedented expose of Cheney's career. Its startling revelations concern the war in Iraq, his relationship with the CIA and with big business, his involvement with Enron, his attitude towards Iran and his ruthless manoeuvering which today effectively puts him in charge of American policy at home and abroad. In the tradition of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward's All the President's Men, this powerful work of investigative journalism takes us behind the scenes in Washington, into hitherto secret meetings and deep into the heart of political decision-making. Utterly gripping, Vice chronicles and exposes the hijacking of the American presidency and illustrates the arrogance of power as never before. Source: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vice-Cheney-Hijacking-American-Presidency/dp/1845951115/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314709035&sr=1- I haven't read this book and I do not intend to. But even allowing for publisher's hyperbole, this still comes across as nasty stuff. No wonder poor Dick couldn't wait to get his own back! The following quote comes from In My Time: In those first hours we were living in the fog of war. We had reports of six domestic flights that were possibly hijacked, a number that later resolved to four. We had conflicting reports about whether the Pentagon had been hit by a plane, a helicopter, or a car bomb. We started getting reports of explosions across Washington, at the Lincoln Memorial, the Capitol, and the State Department. We heard there was an unidentified, nonresponsive plane headed for Camp David and another headed for Crawford, Texas; we also received word of a threat against Air Force One. At about 10:15, a uniformed military aide came into the room to tell me that a plane, believed hijacked, was eighty miles out and headed for D.C. He asked me whether our combat air patrol had authority to engage the aircraft. Did our fighter pilots have authority, in other words, to shoot down an American commercial airliner believed to have been hijacked? “Yes,” I said without hesitation. A moment later he was back. “Mr. Vice President, it’s sixty miles out. Do they have authorization to engage?” Again, yes. There could have been no other answer. As the last hour and a half had made brutally clear, once a plane was hijacked it was a weapon in the hands of the enemy. In one of our earlier calls, the president and I had discussed the fact that our combat air patrol—the American fighter jets now airborne to defend the country—would need rules of engagement. He had approved my recommendation that they be authorized to fire on a civilian airliner if it had been hijacked and would not divert. Thousands of Americans had already been killed, and there was no question about taking action to save thousands more. Still, the enormity of the order I had just conveyed struck all of us in the PEOC, and a silence fell over the room. Source: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44290381/ns/today-books/t/cheney-we-were-living-fog-war/ So, what's my reason for quoting that? Simply that, in times of great upheaval, whether it be war or a terrible 'Act of God', every country needs strong leaders. Cheney was Vice-President of the US: in the absence of the President, he had some hard decisions to make - quickly. Decisions I for one wouldn't want to make. That doesn't make him a hero or anything sentimental like that, but world history is full of leaders who were found wanting, who failed the ultimate test. Assuming Cheney's account of what happened is true, in my opinion he showed good leadership on that occasion. Quote
Bob Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 First of all, why do politicians when out of office, feel this urge to write a book? I'd suggest that it's mainly the same thing that motivates a lot of people, i.e., money. When somebody dangles 5-10 million dollars up front and you've got a bloated sense of your importance in the first place, that'd be almost impossible to resist for most people. As for Cheney, I'm sure he probably exercised good judgment much of the time but, for me, he remains a petty, twisted, conservative that did more to harm the country than to benefit it. It was him and a couple of the neocons that led the charge into Iraq, he has utter contempt for anything considered progressive or liberal, and he's the father of the present-day Republican party (and that's not being kind at all). Quote
Rogie Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I'd suggest that it's mainly the same thing that motivates a lot of people, i.e., money. Trust me to overlook the obvious! Yes, I agree money talks. Britain's ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair received a £4.6 million ($7.4 million) advance on his book A Journey. It sold extremely well, probably owing to an agreement that that all proceeds from the book (including any advance) will be given to the Royal British Legion, the armed forces charity. The money would be used to help injured troops returning from the front line. However, Blair is a wealthy man. . . . Blair has been active on the after-dinner speech circuit. Signed to the Washington Speakers Bureau for £500,000, Blair typically commands up to $250,000 for a 90-minute speech. He is widely believed to be the highest paid speaker – commanding even more than former US President Bill Clinton – and has reportedly earned over £5m for his speaking engagements. Last year he earned almost £400,000 for two half-hour speeches in the Philippines. Since leaving Downing Street in 2007, Mr Blair is estimated to have made £25m from lectures and lucrative consultancy deals. Claims that he has earned up to £60m have been dismissed by his office as 'simply ludicrous'. The true figure for Mr Blair's wealth is impossible to pin down. He has set up a complicated web of companies through which he channels his earnings without having to declare them publicly. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1693540/How-rich-is-Tony-Blair.html#ixzz1WXUNbADh ______________________________________________________ Having just re-read what I wrote I am struck by that reference to the Philippines. Blair earned £400,000 ($640,000) for one hour's work. If you haven't already seen the Manila and its Slums topic in the Gay Asia forum, check this out: http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/7291-manila-and-its-slums/page__pid__52077#entry52077 Edited August 30, 2011 by Rogie Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Blair is a wealthy man. He is also a man with a job. More than four years ago, he was appointed the Middle East peace envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU. His admittedly successful activities in helping bring about peace in Northern Ireland must have made him seem competent for the job. Blair himself said the Middle East job required "huge intensity and work". And the effect of the "huge intensity and work" Mr. Blair has been putting in? Zilch! It would appear Mr. ex-Prime Minister Blair has been spending a good deal more time on his lucrative speechifying, his web of companies to hide his wealth and his constant tanning by someone's pool than the job he is, I assume, paid to do. And re The Philippines, yes, he converted to Catholicism immediately after leaving office. Wonder if some of that wealth is channeled to charities in that impoverished country? Quote
Bob Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 There was an editorial cartoon I saw earlier today (not sure where, either a local US paper or perhaps the CNN website) of Cheney sitting at a table trying to hawk his new book to people standing in front of him. One woman looked at him and said: "No thanks, I'd rather be water boarded." Quote
