That’s Not a Bad Thing

OswaldCheney

Dick “Dick” Cheney does not approve of the plan to downsize the military because obviously having a larger military is more important than feeding people. Or so I gather.

“I’ve obviously not been a strong supporter of Barack Obama. But this really is over the top,” Cheney said. “It does enormous long-term damage to our military, and they act as though it’s highway spending you can turn on and off.” [...]

“[Obama would] much rather spend the money on food stamps than he would on a strong military or support for our troops,” he said.

Cheney says that as if it’s a bad thing.

Maybe he isn’t aware that an alarming number of veterans and military families rely on food stamps.

A Defense Department review released last year showed that military families were more reliant on food stamps in 2013 than in any previous year, with over $100 million in food stamp spending at military grocery stores. “Food stamp usage at the stores has more than quadrupled since 2007 as the recession compounded the already difficult financial situation faced by military families,” ThinkProgress’ Deputy Economics editor Alan Pyke wrote last week.

This could be reading too much into it, but I’ll go out on a limb and opine that Cheney wasn’t merely deriding the value food stamps; he was deriding the president as a so-called “food stamp president” in the same racially-codified manner that Newt Gingrich referred to him.

It’s not as if Dick Cheney knows much about proper military spending.

Troops sent into Iraq were woefully ill-equipped and unprepared and billions of dollars were wasted, sometimes even vanishing into thin air or into someone’s pockets at Cheney’s former company.

“Support the troops” is bumper-sticker tripe for disingenuous gasbags.

This entry was posted in Ethics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Victor_the_Crab

    When people like Dick Cheney say “support the troops”, what they really mean is “support the military industrial complex that helps pump billions of federal money into the coffers of our pals for whom we have a cozy and very rich relationship with.”

  • Scopedog

    Yeah…what Obama is doing is soooo much worse than invading a country based on lies while fucking up the search for the man behind 9-11. Oh, and not giving those soldiers the proper equipment.
    Cheney’s the last person in the world who should shoot his mouth off–and besides, he’s the douche who cancelled the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Cheney is a vile person of the highest order without question.

      Curious about what he did to the RAH-66 you mentioned I searched for info. Knowing nothing about the helicopter other than what I’ve now I read in Wikipedia…

      In mid-1999 the Comanche came under governmental scrutiny, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported “serious doubts” about the program and noted that it would “consume almost two thirds of the whole Aviation budget by Fiscal Year 2008″. Army experiences from the Kosovo War had led to senior figures placing greater emphasis on unmanned platforms to conduct many of the same roles for which the Comanche was being developed.[26] By 2000, Williams postulates that the main reason for keeping the program was out of concern for the state of the helicopter industry—Sikorsky’s production and employment figures were at their lowest for decades and the contract was considered critical.

      … it would appear the helicopter had fallen out of favor with the military for various practical reasons.

      Actually looks like continuing to make it just to provide income to a military contractor, the kind of thing Cheney favored, would be a main reason for keeping it. If Cheney had a role in cancelling it, it seems counter to his usual path.

      • Scopedog

        Hmmm…I’m not the biggest fan of Wikipedia, but it seems that it was the proper thing to do (cancelling the Comanche). It was the result of the LHX project that started in the 1980s to build a light attack helicopter, thus resulting in the Comanche.

        Nearly twenty years before the Comanche was cancelled, the Cheyenne attack helicopter was also deep-sixed. Because of that, the Army went in search of another attack helicopter, and that led to the creation of the AH-64 Apache.

        Looks like I was too harsh on Cheney for that…but yeah, he’s still vile.

        (The only thing that really sucks is that the Comanche was featured in Ang Lee’s HULK!)

        • Christopher Foxx

          Thanks, Scopedog. Like I said, I’m relying on Wikipedia for this so that that as one will. (Although it’s more reliable than not.)

          Looks like I was too harsh on Cheney for that…but yeah, he’s still vile.

          And a hat tip to you for acknowledging the first part (most would dig in), and absolute agree with you on the second.

  • Christopher Foxx

    “Support the troops” is bumper-sticker tripe for disingenuous gasbags.

    Republicans mean “Support the troops” as in “Someone should do it, because I’m certainly not going to.”

  • muselet

    The only words I really want to hear from Dick Cheney are, “I throw myself on the mercy of the court,” said from the dock in The Hague.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    Of course he has no sympathy for beings who actually have to eat food, he’s Dick Cheney.
    And how is it that he is laboring under the impression that people want to hear what he has to say about anything?

  • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

    I always find it remarkably hypocritical that Dick Cheney is screaming about cut-backs in the military. More so than his usual hypocrisy that is. I remember that back in the 1990 to 1992 period that there were massive reductions in the military, along with slashed budgets. It was called “the peace dividend,” and the Secretary of Defense conducting it? Dick Cheney. I also remember that back in early 2001, there was an effort started to further reduce military spending and size, with a lot of comments about how this was “more efficient” from the new Vice President: Dick Cheney.

    Apparently it’s wrong for a Democratic President to cut the military, but if it’s a Republican President, Cheney is just fine with it.

    • FlipYrWhig

      Relatedly, wasn’t Donald Rumsfeld’s whole raison d’etre, at least before the Iraq War, advocacy for a “small footprint” for the U.S. military?

      • http://cendax.wordpress.com/ Norbrook

        Yes, it was. So any screaming about cut-backs you hear out of the Cheney camp is just “we didn’t get to do it.”

  • GrafZeppelin127

    “Support the Troops™” means “spend more on military hardware.”

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      And enriching your friends for political contributions in the process.

      • 1933john

        A good half of the Defense Budget
        is “Welfare for the Wealthy”.