Colbert thinks troops first, politics second, on Iraq trip

If you lean to the political right, you are probably not a Stephen Colbert fan -- he's the Comedy Central comedian who analyzes the news and provides analysis in the character of an over-the-top, egocentric, conservative media personality (see his Comedy Central show site here). This week, he taped his four shows in Camp Victory in Baghdad Iraq as part of a USO tour.

Highlights from the limited deployment

The shows, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando," had a series of important and interesting guests and cameo "shout outs," touched on some thorny issues, and always seemed to have the common troops in mind (FYI: "going commando" is slang for not wearing underwear). For all shows, he wore a custom Brooks Brother suit made from the digital camouflage cloth now common with US military personnel (see this Boston Herald article about the suit).

Highlights of the Baghdad shows included:

• Pointing out that the media and the public seem to have forgotten Iraq, and thus, the 130,000+ troops still in-country. This was his primary week-long message, and central to the simultaneous editorial work he did for Newsweek (he was guest editor this week and chose to have the magazine focus largely on Iraq and US soldiers; read his intro to the issue here). He made reference to this point many times during his shows and it seemed well appreciated by the troops in attendance. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), otherwise known as the Afghan War, was once the forgotten war. Now it is center stage, or at least on a much more prominent stage than Iraq (officially called Operation Iraqi Freedom, or OIF). But for the many US military personnel still in that Middle East country, Iraq is still very much their reality -- and still dangerous, even if overall violence is down.
  
  
• Not shying away from touchy subjects for and about soldiers.
  
  The messaging focal point of his first show was to declare victory. He proclaimed that he, by the "power vested in me by basic cable, officially declare we won the Iraq war." His later guest, the top US commander in Iraq, General Ordierno, didn't concur, but the point was made to the troops. Unlike former President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" serious, official, and incorrect speech on the flight deck of a carrier back in May of 2003, the troops knew that the comedian was saying it in order to not only make a joke, but to also point out that they had done what was asked of them and should be heading home.
  
  In his opening monologue, Colbert noted the long, multiple tours in Iraq and likely future Afghan deployments of the very troops cheering him on in the former palace of Saddam Hussein. While told as a joke, it was most likely a bitter and truthful point to the soldiers assembled -- and obviously something always on their minds.
  
  In a self-debate skit, he discussed the issues of gays in the military, noting that valuable military personnel, such as Arab translators, had been dismissed because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
  
  Colbert even highlighted the issue of faulty wiring in US military facilities, substandard work that has cost the lives of soldiers.
  
  
• Keeping the regular soldier in mind.
  
  On one show, he interviewed two "regular" US soldiers: an Arab who enlisted in the Army and was planning to leave when the war was over (Specialist Tareq Salah) and a female soldier who corrected him for saying she had "won" a medal (Sergeant Robin Balcom). His final guest of the week, Command Sergeant Major Frank Grippe, the highest ranking enlisted man in the country, was also more about a connection with soldiers than about addressing policy or strategic issues. These two interviews contrasted with the heavy hitters in the lineup for the week, including General Ray Ordierno (Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq; profile here), Lt. General Charles Jacoby (Commanding General, Multi-National Corps-Iraq; profile here), and Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh.
  
  Besides with some of his guest choices, Colbert connected with the audience and the troops at large on a more basic level. His comedic take on basic training (he attended it for a day) still managed to highlight the challenges and realities new recruits face. His flight with the Air Force Thunderbird team in an F-16 also showed his willingness to make fun of himself while also displaying respect for the dedication and skill of the airmen. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he let his head be shaved (first by Ordierno but then finished by a stylist). If nothing else hit home with soldiers and cynical viewers, seeing a celebrity who obviously banks on personal appearance willingly get a crew cut was especially powerful.
  
  
• Having major, controversial "shout outs" from both aisles. It was obvious Democratic politicians would take part in his show, so seeing President Obama order Ordierno to cut Colbert's hair and watching cameos of Vice President Joe Biden, Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and former President Bill Clinton made sense. But unexpectedly, Colbert also had Arizona Senator John McCain, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and both George Bush's tape appearances thanking the troops (the most recent Bush is especially impressive given Colbert's inflammatory critique of Bush II at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner back in April of 2006; video here). It was a very impressive, bipartisan collection of shout outs that illustrated how all involved were willing to overlook political differences to send a unified message of support to the troops.

A history of supporting the troops

While Colbert obviously leans left in his political critiques and has never been a supporter of Bush foreign policy adventures, such as Iraq, he has a strong record of supporting US troops. For example, he works with the Yellow Ribbon Fund, whose tagline is "Welcoming Our Injured Service Members Home." He auctioned his cast, asked viewers to buy "wriststrong" bracelets, and links to the site from Comedy Central (article here). He has also been a strong supporter of IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) and its primary public speaker, Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff (read about how Colbert mentioned the organization on his show here; read about the impact of the support here). In addition, the comedian lends support to military-based education programs that "benefit public school students with parents in the military," projects managed by donarschoose.org (where he is a board member).

While anti-Colbert pundits and other detractors may claim that his Iraq trip was simply about publicity or ego, it's clear that it accomplished more than that. Obviously, his trip, and especially his haircut, generated tremendous publicity about US troops in Iraq -- far more than his usual nightly show would have done. In addition, his Newsweek stint further brought attention to the cause. So, in the end, does it really even matter what his motivations were? He did what he said he wanted to do: Highlight the fact that America still has over 130,000 of its soldiers, airman, sailors, and marines in the country. And whether you wear red or blue, at least you can appreciate the fact that he helped a country with short-term memory re-focus, at least for a few minutes, on the self-sacrifice of troops in that region.

Hopefully, if he ends up going to Afghanistan at some point in the future, he won't have to go as a reminder of a forgotten war, but rather as simply someone showing support. Hopefully.

With Iranian elections, the Bush idea of a caliphate seems ridiculous

During the recent Bush tenure, a common administration concern was about the rise of a new caliphate -- a united, regional, if not global, Muslim entity that could threaten the security of the West and the rest of the non-Muslim world. While many thought this fear was foolish at the time, the ongoing presidential election in Iran is a example of why that will never happen.

Islam has two major branches that don't see eye to eye

According to the CIA Factbook, Iran is a country of 66.4 million people, of which 98% are Muslim. However, of those Muslims, 89% follow the Shia denomination of the religion, while only 9% are Sunnis. Compare this to Iraq, for example. In that country of 28.9 million, 97% who are Muslim, 60-65% are Shia and 32-37% are Sunni. In Indonesia (the fourth largest country in the world by population and home to the largest number of Muslims), there are 240.2 million people, of which 86% are Muslims -- 99% are Sunni versus just 1% Shia (from the Wikipedia entry on Muslim demographics here). In terms of radical groups, the religious split trend continues: Lebanon-based Hezbollah are Shia, while Hamas is aligned with the Sunni branch. Overall, out of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the Sunni branch dominates (75%), while Shia account for just 10-18% (CRS report PDF here; Wikipedia demographic breakdown here; everyone agrees the figures are not 100% accurate).

The key point is that the Sunni and Shia have major differences, stemming originally from who would succeed as the leader of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad died (632 CE). Sunnis believe that the best leader should be chosen, regardless of his family, and initially settled on Abu Bakr (many use the analogy of Catholicism and the Pope when talking about Sunni leadership). Shia, on the other hand, believe that leadership should have stayed in the family, and that the son-in-law of the Prophet, Ali, should have been in charge.

[see this previous post that talks more about the Sunni Shia split]

Iranian election shows that Muslims care about regular Joe issues, too

The idea that Muslims could suddenly unite in government, despite massive divides such as the Sunni/Shia division, seems preposterous, and the situation in Iran should further dispel this notion. While the election is not about Shia versus Sunni, its major issues demonstrates how Muslims, when it comes to politics, government, and the economy, don't hold a single view in even one country, let alone a region or the globe. Imagine if you add in the issues of ethnic background, tribal affiliations, nationalism, and geography to the Shunni/Shia problem? A single leader is impossible.

An article from the New York Times today read more like a story about any election in the West, with issues about corruption, foreign policy, and economic stewardship cited as impacting voters:

Less than two months ago, it was widely assumed here and in the West that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s hard-line president, would coast to another victory in the elections on Friday.

...

Some say this is another aspect of the campaign that could remain important regardless of who wins. In April, a number of secular and conservative women’s groups joined forces and submitted a list of demands for greater rights from Iran’s next president.

On even a regional scale, the belief that Muslims from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine could agree on a unified policy makes little sense. And that is with more mainstream Muslims. The most radical, such as those in groups like al Qaeda, can't agree on virtually anything and would undoubtedly turn on each other and fellow Muslims if a caliphate came to be (for a fascinating look at how splintered radical groups are, read The Looming Towers by Lawrence Wright). Just look at what is happening in Pakistan with the Taliban for evidence.

No caliphate, no way

The Bush administration had a way of conjuring up scary images that justified its policies. The mushroom cloud over an American city. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons. Terrorists with atomic bombs in suitcase at Penn Station. And the idea of a united and anti-West Muslim caliphate.

Of all these, this last vision is the one that has zero chance of ever happening. It made a great sound bite, and some Republican supporters bought into the vision, but it defies all logic and history to believe it could ever happen.

...

Note: For further reading, there is a fascinating blog entry on topics such as the difference between Arabs and Muslims, Shia and Sunni, and other commonly mistaken terms and concepts ("10 Facts about Muslims"). Another interesting breakdown of the difference between Shia and Sunnis can be found at Religion Facts here.

Deliberate false movie marketing sandbags kids and parents ... again

For parents with young children, finding a movie that both the kids and adults can enjoy is a treasure. That formula of appealing to the young and old is what has driven Pixar's, now part of Disney, success. But while families are looking for entertainment, the studios are looking for dollars and profits. That's where movie trailer manipulation comes in.

It's never as good as the trailer

Movie trailers are designed to whet the appetite of consumers, and often the trailers are manipulated to create the most pre-release interest or buzz. For example, trailers often highlight brief but exciting parts of a story, making them look like central components of the movie. Usually the biggest complaint about a misleading trailer is that they show all of a comedy's funniest moments or all of an action movie's thrilling scenes, leaving the movie goers to suffer through an underwhelming or bad -- and expensive -- experience. But occasionally, very deliberate misrepresentation of a movie in its trailer and its overall marketing campaign can lead to major issues and a consumer backlash. In these cases, parents take their children to a totally different movie than they thought there were going to see.

No mention of the extended dying scene in the trailer

This year, the movie Marley & Me (official site here; IMDb site here) takes honors for having the most deceptive trailer -- a trailer that does not prepare parents or kids for the seriousness and sadness of the movie's ending. The studio, Fox 2000 Pictures, obviously knew that the movie's trailer -- and its other advertising vehicles, such as TV spots and billboards -- was not representative of the content of the film. The trailer emphasized a cute, family-friendly, dog-driven slapstick comedy ... a comedy that would appeal to children and parents. In addition, releasing the film on Christmas Day also made it appear as an excellent choice for the family.

However, for those unprepared for the film (and for those who did not read the book), it turns out while it has its comedic moments, it is a much more serious film than marketed. A major portion of it is dedicated to the death of Marley, the dog. While you could certainly argue that the film is, in fact, family fare -- if a little tough for many kids, particularly those unprepared by parents -- the problem is that the most emotional content is not even hinted at by the trailer. It's a classic case of false advertising.

For many parents, this deliberate concealment of the true nature of the film is similar to the experience of viewing 2007's Bridge to Terabithia (IMDb site here). That film's trailer stressed the wonder of a magical world while hiding the fact that the movie's content was dominated by the death of one of the young characters.

A trailer review process?

Trailer manipulation is not new and will not go away. But these blatant misrepresentations should not be continued. The downside for studios in this day-and-age is that such misleading marketing is quickly countered by cell phone-toting, email-using young Americans (as well as their parents). While the first wave of families may have entered the theater not suspecting the emotional bombs on screen, many in the follow on wave were soon alerted to the film's contents and avoided it. But not enough.

While it is certainly up to parent's to perform some due diligence on the films they bring their children to, this deliberate effort by the studio to attract more movie goers -- and thus more money -- is not acceptable. Unfortunately, both movies managed to generate enough money for their studios, so aggravated parents cannot rely on market forces to correct this behavior (Marley & Me holds the record for the highest Christmas day release take in the US; Bridge to Terabithia earned over $120 million).

Perhaps just as films are rated for their content, trailers and advertising should be screened-- at least in the case of family fare -- to ensure unsuspecting families are not hoodwinked in the future. But don't hold your breadth. In about a year, we will probably be discussing the next chapter in the saga of deceptive trailers.

With an Iraq troop reduction and additional soldiers being added, where will they all go?

With the American military stretched thin with deployments in Iraq (150,000 troops; see this article) and Afghanistan (30,000 troops), the addition of 92,000 more troops to the military seems to make sense (Defense Secretary Gates recommended this increase in January of 2007; see his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee). But with the likely drastic draw down of the American military presence in Iraq as the Obama Administration takes over (and the Iraqi government demands it), and even with the proposed escalation of 30,000 or so troops in Afghanistan, a question that does not seem to be discussed is what will the US do with all its newly deployable -- but not deployed -- soldiers?

Troops by the numbers: What to do with all the soldiers post-Iraq?

Currently, the Army has about 546,00 active duty troops today while the Marine Corps has around 199,000 active duty Marines (see the 10/08 Armed Forces Strength report from the Pentagon; these numbers do not include reserve soldiers and Marines). Assuming in a few years a force of 60,000 troops (see remarks by Admiral Mullen in this article) in Afghanistan and perhaps 10,000 in Iraq (see this New York Times article that estimates that number), the US will have thousands of more troops that are not deployed but are based largely at home. Doing some math, there would be roughly an additional 202,000 more available than there are today.

While many are and will still be deployed abroad in other bases and hot spots, without another major conflict, these troops will most likely be residing in US bases. Certainly, for soldiers that have faced extreme deployments -- the Army upped its active duty tour to 15 months due to personnel shortages -- and multiple deployments in quick succession, this addition of soldiers will be appreciated. The stress of deployment will be decreased with shorter tours and the time between tours will benefit the individual soldiers (more time with their family) as well as the military in general (allowing for increased training and rebuilding of units and refurbishing equipment degraded over long deployments). But the soldiers will need places to live, training, updated equipment, and things to do.

While it is a good idea to have a large, trained, and tested military that can deploy relatively quickly in case new conflicts break out, it is tough to think about how they will be used and where. For example, should the Pentagon plan for a major clash with Iran, more counterinsurgency operations in third world countries, or a full scale battle with probably the only remaining superpower (China) that can challenge the US? In addition, and perhaps more important, how will the country pay for them?

More troops in the face of an expected defense budget cutback

While security considerations are critical, the reality is that as the recession continues and the US debt grows well over $10 trillion, the country can't afford to do everything with its armed forces that leaders in the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House may want. Already, while there is still support for troop increases, there is considerable talk about cutting military spending. Often cited weapons systems on the potential chopping block are the expensive F-22 stealth fighters for the Air Force, the troubled Osprey plane-hybrid aircraft the Marines are deploying, and the Virginia-class attack subs the Navy is building. Other cuts are discussed. For example, some have said the Navy should reduce its current aircraft carrier fleet from 11 to 10 (for more on possible cuts, see this New York Times editorial). And on top of this, there are several military programs the Pentagon still must undertake, from the relatively obvious need of the Air Force for many new KC-135 refueling tankers, to the desire by the Air Force to design and deploy a "5th Generation" new bomber (see the Air Force 2008 Posture Statement).

The Pentagon knows that while high-priced systems like the $1.2 billion stealth B-2 bomber will not fly anymore, people costs -- to train, pay, arm, and support them -- are one of the biggest items it must pay for. The Navy, for example, hopes its next-generation carrier will be so automated that it can reduce the personnel required to operate it from the 5,680 needed on today's carriers (ships crew and air wing) to somewhere around 4,500 -- a significant operational savings. But the Army, and to a lesser extent the much smaller Marine Corps, is going in the opposite direction, adding more people -- and their costs -- to the country's defense budget.

Politics, not just budgets, will play a central role in troop numbers

Cutting the military is always a risky endeavor, for both real security and political reasons. Democrats already are accused of being weak on defense, and Republicans, eager to reverse the last two electoral losses in Congress and the fall presidential election, will surely make it hard for Democrats to cut defense spending. And politicians of all stripes are never eager to close bases and cancel programs in their district, further hampering attempts to reign in spending -- no matter how logical the proposed cuts are.

While the massive cost of the Iraq conflict in terms of money (nearly a trillion dollars, though there is no official estimate) and lives lost and soldiers wounded helped drive Americans to support withdrawal (and the election of President-elect Obama), the threat of terrorism, pirates, and other non-state actors and hostile states (e.g., Iran, North Korea, and potentially China) will simultaneously cause citizens to support a robust military. The question is, with so many troops and no huge commitment in Iraq, what will they do and will they really be needed? In most wars, the cessation of hostilities has led to an overall troop reduction, such as after World War II and Vietnam. But with memories of post-Vietnam military weakness and the widespread understanding of the inability of the military to deal with multiple conflicts, a drawn down seems unlikely.

Like so many issues, the soon-to-be President Obama Administration will have no simple solution. And without a crystal ball that can determine future conflicts and military needs, the government will be unlikely to figure out an overall plan that both sustains a large military and also tries to jump start the faltering economy.

As usual, the soldiers and Marine won't get much say, and they may find that the troop increase is only temporary. Of course after seven years of combat in Afghanistan and five in Iraq, they might be too exhausted to care.

Cheney, if nothing else, is a man of conviction

Vice President Dick Cheney cannot be accused of being a man of little conviction. In an interview with the Republican-friendly Fox News (on the Fox News Sunday program with Chris Wallace), the current but soon to be former VP did not back down on many of his strongly held beliefs -- beliefs, such as the power of the executive in times of crisis, the role of the Vice President, and the legitimacy of harsh interrogation techniques -- that have caused tremendous controversy during his eight-year term.

This steadfast refusal to change his mind and unwavering support for policies and people that have been largely discredited is nothing new. For a previous look at Cheney's views, see this post and this post.

The Fox News Sunday interview: Final thoughts while in office?

In the interview (read the full transcript here), Cheney made several comments that are sure to encourage his supporters as well as outrage his detractors. Notable among his statements were comments about:

• Keeping America safe -- no mention of the cost to US military men and women. When asked about the Administration's low public approval numbers, the VP noted that, "We set out to do what we thought was necessary and essential for the country." The primary accomplishment he focused on during this answer was about security. He said, "I think the fact that we were able to protect the nation against further attacks from al Qaeda for seven-and-a-half years is a remarkable achievement."
  
  This "no attack since 9/11" view has been the one pushed recently by President Bush and administration supporters. And, it would seem correct on the surface as there has been no known al Qaeda attack -- big or small -- on US soil since the mass murders on September 11, 2001. However, supporters of this view fail to mention the resulting blood toll paid by US military personnel during the seven-year war in Afghanistan (known officially in the Pentagon as Operation Enduring Freedom, or OEF) and the over five-year conflict in Iraq (Operation Iraq Freedom, or OIF).
  The most recent Pentagon casualty figures -- including civilians from the Department of Defense -- for the conflict available today are (view the always-updated report here): 4,211 killed, and 30,879 wounded in Iraq; 625 killed and 2,606 wounded in OEF, mainly in Afghanistan. If you follow the logic that the efforts in OIF and OEF helped defeat or destroy al Qaeda and deter attacks in the US, the total loss to US forces would be 4,836 killed and 33,485 wounded. So, while the mainland and its inhabitants have note been attacked, many thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded fighting against al Qaeda.
  
  
• The role of the VP according to the Constitution -- lecturing on the role of VP without basis. In the sole VP debate in the fall, VP-elect Joe Biden famously made the statement about Cheney (read the debate transcript here): "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. 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 Branch." When asked about this comment during the Sunday interview, Cheney responded:
  

  Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution. Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature, which provides for the executive.

  According to the Constitution (read it in full at the National Archives here), Article I does mention the roles of the VP: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." Beyond some mentions about the election process and impeachment, that is all the actual Constitution (not amendements) says about the office.
  
  In fact, you could argue that the amendments to the Constitution diminished the role of the VP. For example, originally, the No. 2 vote getter in a presidential election became the VP, regardless of party. The Constitution originally read: "In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." The 12th amendment (Amendment XII, 1804) dealt, in part, with separating the Electoral College votes of the President and Vice President (the No. 2 candidate no longer would become No.2, or the VP, in the executive branch; eventually, states took over the role of choosing electors, and the one-party winning ticket we expereince now was cemented in place). Perhaps the most powerful role assigned to the VP was the 25th amendment (Amendment XXV, 1967), which made it clear that the VP became the actual President -- already in practice but not clear in law -- if the President died or resigned.
  
  
• Strong executive power in times of emergency -- still supporting questionable intelligence gathering practices and harsh interrogations. When asked about the role of the Executive Branch versus Congress, Cheney continued his consistent view that the President has broad powers in times of emergencies:
  

  Well, I think in wartime, when you consider his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, clearly that means command of the Armed Forces. It also, when you get into use of forces in wartime, means collecting intelligence. And therefore, I think you're fully justified in setting up a terrorist surveillance program to be able to intercept the communications of people who are communicating with terrorists outside the United States. I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high-value detainees.

  These powers he is talking about resulted in domestic surveillance programs that the President was forced to abandon, as well as harsh interrogation techniques -- that critics call US-sanctioned torture. To Cheney, all of the criticisms -- and forced changes to these programs -- are a kind of arm chair quarterbacking enabled by the peace those very programs enabled:
  

  Now we've had a lot of time pass over it and so we've had -- I think more people are more complacent, perhaps, than was true some time ago. We've also had a lot of our critics who want to score political points who've made what I think are outrageous charges.

  Given that the intelligence programs have been altered, and that the "harsh interrogation" methods are likely to immediately be abandoned by the incoming Obama Administration -- with plenty of support from current and former military and defense specialists -- Cheney's continued insistence that these were appropriate actions leave him with very few supporters on these topics.
  
  
• Rumsfeld's forced resignation -- not backing up his boss. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a lightning rod for critics of the Bush military policies, particularity in Iraq. He made news for seemingly not caring about the lack of armor (body and vehicle) for US troops in Iraq. He was admonished by many for using a machine to sign his name to notices sent to family members of deceased troops. Soldiers during his tenure managed the Abu Ghraib prison and the Guantanamo Bay facilities. He presided over the Pentagon as the Iraq situation worsened post-invasion and as the Taliban reconstituted in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. He was in charge when the scandal over treatment of returning troops at Walter Reed and other facilities was occurring. Overall, he was seen as a polarizing figure even by supporters, and a disaster by many critics and even Bush supporters. But Cheney continues to support his friend:
  

  Obviously, I did disagree with the decision. It wasn't my decision to make. The President doesn't always take my advice ... But I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us.

• The historical view of Bush -- not much of an endorsement for Bush II. When asked to name his favorite president in the last four decades -- largely time he spent in Washington as a public servant (as President Ford's Chief of Staff, a Congressman representing Wyoming, Secretary of Defense under the first Bush President, and now as VP) -- Cheney only talked about two, Ford and the current President Bush. But he did not give the current Commander in Chief much of an endorsement:
  

  He's been, in my mind, a very consequential President, a guy who made very tough decisions and never looked back.

An earlier interview offered similar responses

In an interview with ABC News the week before, Cheney had held a similar, steady course (read the transcript here). In that interview, of particular interest were his comment on torture and the invasion of Iraq.

Regarding torture: On the question of so-called "torture," we don't do torture, we never have. It's not something that this administration subscribes to ... Did it produce the desired results? I think it did.

...

On invading Iraq: [Saddam Hussein] was a bad actor. And the country is better off, the world is better off with Saddam gone. And I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] was off in some of its major judgments.

A place in history

For the seemingly few public and vocal Cheney supporters, the VP's responses in both interviews were classic Cheney -- he didn't admit wrong, and he didn't give an inch. For his detractors, they perfectly represented the hubris and inability to change that many see as a hallmark of the Bush two-term presidency.

However, when all is said and done, this powerful VP will likely be studied nearly as much if not more than his boss, for many believe it was his thoughts and opinion, and his power by connection to Bush, that shaped the most important and influential decisions about US security, military, and intelligence affairs during the last eight years. Love him or loathe him, Cheney has left a major mark on America and the world.