The deceased US second-in-command Dick Cheney, who died at the age of 84, was seen as arguably the most powerful holders of that position in the nation's history. While countless second-in-commands were confined to marginal or symbolic functions, Cheney held enormous power during the presidency of George W Bush, to the point that he was commonly described as the "true president".
Bush resented such a characterisation and claimed the relationship was more complex. He observed that Cheney was respectful, consistently calling him in official appearances as Mr President, while he referred to him as Dick. Bush challenged even descriptions of their association as a partnership because it suggested that they were on equal footing. Regardless of such protestations, Cheney considered the laidback president pliable on a broad range of administrative determinations.
The Post-9/11 Era
At the head of a contingent of neo-conservatives that included military head Donald Rumsfeld and assistant defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, he strongly advocated the armed incursion of Iraq in 2003 in answer to the terrorist strikes on New York and Washington. At the time of the 9/11 assault, Bush had been taking part in a session at a elementary school in Florida. While Bush headed for a secret bunker in Nebraska, Cheney took command, ordering the destruction of any unresponsive planes approaching the US Capitol.
Cheney claimed the strikes altered his perspective, causing him to be focused on revenge. Together with other neo-cons, such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, he lobbied for a invasion of Afghanistan in an effort to capture Osama bin Laden. Cheney then vigorously pushed for the armed intervention of Iraq, even though there was no evidence of Saddam Hussein being involved.
Debated Decisions
He voiced no apologies about the armed intervention, in which an estimated 100,000 Iraqis died, and not about the harsh treatment of detainees captured after 9/11. He stated to CNN in 2015 that the Iraq military action, which was founded on misleading reports circulated by Cheney, was the correct path to take. "It was the right thing to do back then. I was convinced then and I maintain that stance presently."
But during that period, there were contrary opinions at a senior level about the poor management of Iraq. One of the White House's own delegates to the region, General Anthony Zinni (2001-03), was not reappointed from the position. "I saw, at a minimum," he later wrote "true dereliction, carelessness, and irresponsibility: in the worst case, falsehoods, unfitness, and dishonesty."
Broader Context
Cheney was not completely to blame for the Iraq campaign. Before 9/11, Wolfowitz had advocated for such action. He had composed a document outlining scenarios in which national priorities might be compromised (encompassing "access to crucial commodities, primarily Persian Gulf oil"). Wolfowitz had contended that "America should be positioned to operate alone when collective action cannot be arranged," particularly referencing defense operations against Iraq.
Bush also had arrived in the Oval Office somewhat determined on carrying out what his parent had famously refused to do in 1991; topple Saddam. Following he had been dismissed by the White House, the finance chief Paul O'Neill recounted how, at the initial gathering of the National Security Council in January 2001, Bush had stated his intention of lowering America's engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and proposed armed intervention against Iraq.
Bush bore a private grievance against Saddam, convinced he had been involved in a scheme to assassinate his predecessor, President George HW Bush, on a journey to Kuwait in 1993. He also resented that one of the biggest establishments in Baghdad had a ground design with a likeness of his parent's visage that each person had to tread upon.
Investigation Approaches
Yet it was Cheney who was among the most vehement behind invading Iraq, frequently quoting intelligence reports that were whether thin or completely misleading. He endorsed what the Bush administration indirectly described as "enhanced interrogation", the use of simulated drowning and torture.
Answering a Senate report in 2014 that determined that no actionable intelligence had come from the harsh techniques, Cheney rejected the findings as "loaded with crap". He stated to Fox News: "We requested [the CIA] to establish protocols and create procedures to capture the bastards who murdered 3,000 of us on 9/11 and ensure it never happened again. That's exactly what they did and they merit a lot of recognition."
Public Image
Cheney reveled in monikers imposed on him by opponents such as Darth Vader and The Prince of Darkness, and by the concept that he was a dark force manipulating Bush. In Peter Baker's 2013 publication about the duo, Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House, Cheney is quoted as saying: "Do I represent the malevolent mastermind in the shadows that operates invisibly leave his hole? That is a advantageous way to work, in fact."
Corporate Connections
Debate over his commercial relationships followed him during his tenure as second-in-command. Even though he had little experience in corporate affairs but established relationships in military, especially in Saudi Arabia, he was asked to become part of Halliburton, one of the world's most substantial petroleum companies, in 1995 as chairman and top executive.
In 2000 he became Bush's election partner for the executive branch. Controversially, during the conflict in Iraq, Halliburton was awarded US deals valued at substantial sums.
It greatly increased his wealth. His annual income during his time at the firm increased from his $258,394 when he was military head to millions. When he departed in 2000 he had a compensation package worth in excess of $20m|twenty
