EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Hidden Hand of Dick Cheney
Out of office, he continues to push his tortured version of reality -- and his vision of an imperial presidency -- and there are signs he is succeeding.
Dick Cheney is out there. He is defending torture, dissing Colin Powell, and genuflecting before radio personality Rush Limbaugh as the high priest of what's left of conservatism. His refusal to go quietly, unlike his much-reviled boss, is risky. He was a laugh line more than once at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner.
But the media's focus on the sheer spectacle of the ex-veep's antics, and on the Republican vs. Democrat feud he's stoking, underestimates the way Cheney's principles still inform many of the country's most crucial policies. Like the creatures in the "Alien" films, Cheney has planted some vicious spores in the bellies of his successors, which threaten to tear them apart as they mature. Can the new administration truly reverse Cheney's transformation of the United States into a 21st century empire, with the president an imperial figure above the law.
The former vice-president is now a more reliable laugh-getter than vote-getter. At the correspondents' dinner, President Obama quipped, "Dick Cheney was supposed to be here, but he's very busy working on his memoirs, tentatively titled 'How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.'" Guest comedian Wanda Sykes went further, saying she found Cheney positively terrifying. "He scares me to death. I tell my kids, I say, 'Look, if two cars pull up and one has a stranger and the other car has Dick Cheney, you get in the car with the stranger.'"
This week's news is about the grand old pit bull's struggle to continue to define his own party. Cheney emerged last Friday to warn on a North Dakota radio program that it would be a mistake for the Republican Party to moderate its message. (Does that mean it is now radical?) Then on Sunday Cheney told Bob Schieffer of "Face the Nation" that it was a mistake to stop using waterboarding and other forms of extreme interrogation, and that they did not constitute torture. He also poked fun at Colin Powell, questioning his credentials as a Republican and expressing a preference for the waspish Limbaugh as the party's leader.
But don't dismiss Dick Cheney as a fading punch line, or as tragedy reprised as comedy. While the Obama administration has adopted large numbers of policies that directly contradict Cheney's positions, it would be a mistake to overlook Cheney's continued influence on the executive branch through the precedents set by the Bush administration. Among the former vice-president's most important legacies is increased government secrecy. Obama's Department of Justice continues to rely on an alleged "state secrets" privilege. It has thus tried to block lawsuits by victims who alleged they were kidnapped and tortured by U.S. intelligence even though they were innocent of wrongdoing, on the grounds that such trials would reveal state secrets. The same state secrets doctrine was used by Obama's DOJ in an attempt to block investigations of Bush-Cheney warrantless wiretaps. Likewise, the DOJ has attempted to block lawsuits seeking the release of Bush-era e-mails and to prevent prisoners held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan from appearing before a judge to challenge their imprisonment.
Although the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated, it is just as committed as Bush-Cheney to spreading good cheer about the new government in Baghdad. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the bombings by Iraqi guerrillas this spring the "last gasp" of "rejectionists," seeming to channel Cheney's allegation in 2005 that we were seeing the "last throes" of the insurgency. Red Washington and blue Washington both want to tell us stories about how Iraq will be OK and is just bedeviled by a few unreasoning malcontents who are on their last legs.
On a trip to Afghanistan in 2004, Cheney told U.S. troops, "Your children and my grandchildren will live in freedom tomorrow because of what you're doing today." He warned them of continuing threats there, however, saying, "Our coalition still has important work to do." He added, "Freedom still has enemies here in Afghanistan. And you are here to make those enemies miserable." Obama has, likewise, tied the establishment of a stable government in Afghanistan to U.S. national security, and pledged to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida (even though there does not appear to be any significant al-Qaida in Afghanistan anymore). Both Cheney and Obama tend to amalgamate al-Qaida (a small, mainly Arab, international terrorist organization) to the Taliban (a form of Pushtun fundamentalist nationalism with local concerns). Cheney's war in Afghanistan envisaged no end, and neither, apparently, does Obama's.
Many of Cheney's harshest policies were rooted in a conviction that small terrorist groups might well get hold of nuclear weapons or other very dangerous armaments, and that all necessary steps must be taken to forestall that eventuality, even if it has only slight probability of occurring. (Journalist Ron Suskind called this notion the "one percent" doctrine.) The Obama administration just forced the Pakistani military to invade the Malakand region and to displace hundreds of thousands of civilians in the course of shelling and bombing a few thousand Taliban tribesmen. Among its rationales for this massive application of force was that the Taliban had advanced too close to Islamabad, and, apparently too close to that country's nuclear warheads. (In fact, the idea that a small force of rural Taliban could take over the Pakistani government or get access to its closely guarded arsenal is fantastic.)
In the government's commitment to a doctrine of "state secrets" that protect the executive from the scrutiny of other branches of government, in the continued attempt to block lawsuits and release of important documents, and in the shielding of secret programs of torture, unlawful kidnapping and warrantless wiretapping, Obama is preserving policies to which Cheney is deeply committed. In configuring Pushtun fundamentalists in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan as a mortal threat to the U.S. and potentially even a nuclear power, the Obama administration is picking up themes from Cheney's old speeches and running with them. Cheney may or may not win his struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. If we are not careful, he will win the struggle for the soul of the country as a whole.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
100 Comments so far
Show AllApparently he has transmitted his delusions and psychopathy to his whole family. They're out there making the rounds of the TV shows proclaiming what a wonderful guy he is yada yada yada. I'm with Wanda Sykes on this guy. Get in the car with the stranger, although strangers don't come much stranger than Penis Waver 'I'm A Man, A Republican Man' Dick Cheney.
both the wife and daughter slurring their words and talking incongruently like thewashed up alcoholic bags they are
being around cheney is it any wonder they are both alkies
drink up girls
This article proves that Cheney and Rove have outdone Hitler as the best propagandists of modern times..
And much credit goes to the MSM ...especially TV...for giving them the time to spew their BS.
I wonder what the connection is between Dick Cheney and George H.W. Bush and the CIA?
Are they all part of the Bush Crime Family and how far does it reach into the U.K. and Israel?
yes
Here is your connection:
Read ‘Collateral Damage’ part I & II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
What will the next "False Flag Attack" be?
"They" are planning a bigger and better one to "Shock and Awe" the American People into total submission........Cheney will be called in to rescue American Freedom.
The "Torture" has been nothing but brainwashing people to carry on "The Official Version of 9/11".......Even Obama is willing to continue with Military Tribunals so that these illegal and immoral occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq go on and expand. Obama wants Military Tribunals to try the "Five Confessed 9/11 Planners" not "Give them psychiatric help to undo the evil." If Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed, then he should be able to explain how he got enough "Thermite" into World Trade Center #7 to bring it down.
"Lucifer" has won. "God have mercy on us all."
This article, though admirable in some respects, bizarrely neglects to mention that Robert Gates and Dick Cheney are perfectly allied on foreign policy, that Gates was Cheney's pick after Rumsfeld, that the alliance between the two go back to Bush Senior's term when it was Cheney/Gates v. Bush/Scowcroft/Baker in dealing with Gorby...
It's nice to see that someone else picked up on this. How Cole can assert that "the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated" is absurd. Obama is carrying out the exact SOFA as agreed to by Bush and endorsed by McCain.
I thought Obama was withdrawing more troops more quickly from Iraq than Bush or Cheney ever contemplated. Am I wrong?
Pretty much, yes.
"The White House has “gone from no timeline, to timetable,” said Susan Rice, Obama’s foreign policy adviser. “I think [the White House] discovered in terms of their negotiations with the Iraqi government that the Iraqi [position is] strikingly close to Obama’s position, if not identical.”
"http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/21/politics/politico/main4276532.shtml
It's true that initially both Bush and McCain opposed a "timeline" for withdrawal. But after the SOFA was signed (prior to Obama's election) Bush supported a "timetable" and McCain supported a "time horizon". The key point they made was that withdrawal must be matched by improvements on the ground and the advice of our commanders. They acted like that was a difference, but it wasn't, Obama had the same position. From that point on McCain's line of attack was to (falsely) charge that Obama was advocating a fixed rate of withdrawal, rather than listening to our commanders of the ground. And then there was that stupid rhetorical debate over "victory"...
Obama is basically withdrawing at the pace issued by the SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) that Bush signed in 2008. This is the same plan that was/is endorsed by McCain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Framework_Agreement
"(SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010."
"U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament."
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. "
Sound familiar? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Meet the new Sec. of Defense, exactly the same as the old Sec. of Defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html
"“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” Mr. Obama said. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
He added: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”
"Mr. McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who clashed sharply with Mr. Obama over the future of Iraq during the campaign last year, called the withdrawal “reasonable” and said he was “cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success.”
Former Bush aides called it the logical next step after his agreement to pull out by 2011. “The specific timing is only slightly different but consistent with the goal of helping Iraq become self-sufficient in providing its own security,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, Mr. Bush’s last national security spokesman. “This is possible because of the success of the surge.”"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/mccain-backs-obamas-iraq_n_170365.html
"Recently (McCain)'s been talking up his support for the "status of force" (SOF) agreement the Bush administration is trying to shove down the throat of the Iraqi government. It calls for an open-ended U.S. troop presence, 58 permanent military bases, legal immunity for all U.S. personnel, and sweetheart deals for U.S. oil conglomerates." - 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/john-mccain-and-the-proje_b_107940.html
"The agreement, which calls for U.S. forces to pull out of Iraqi cities in the middle of next year and remove themselves entirely from Iraq by 2011, reverses the entrenchment that President George W. Bush originally envisioned, and dovetails with the "withdraw-and-redeploy" plan that President-Elect Barack Obama pitched on the stump during his campaign."
""Politically it is significant. The Iraqis are telling us to leave and the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, has basically agreed to go. Kind of hard for the far right to call what follows surrender or retreat."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/newly-signed-sofa-to-spur_n_144890.html
Gates was Cheney's pick to replace Rumsfeld? Where did you get that? I had thought Cheney wanted to keep Rumsfeld, and was disappointed Bush wanted to replace him. In that context, would Bush turn to Cheney to pick Rumsfeld's replacement?
"Gates was Cheney's pick AFTER Rumsfeld"
This could be read as Gates was his first choice to fill the position AFTER Rumsfeld was forced to resign.
c'mon
cheney is a fascist nazi
wall street scum whose personal connections to haliburton and kbr have garnered him tens of millions of dollars right into his greasy little pocket
he ran like a scared rabbit when it was his turn to serve - he took at least 6 defererments from military duty
he was part of the cabal that armed saddaam
he was part of the cabal that created and then supported the taliban
he is a liar - remember his bullshit about wmd's being "beyond a doubt" in iraq
he is joseph goebells without the charm
he is a walking heart attack who has dodged death more times than dorian gray
he travels with a medical team - i guess he is so afraid to die - maybe he justdoesn't want to meet his maker and get sent to hell for eternal damnation - who knows
more tellingly - he is an evil shape shifting alien lizard - if you recall that awkward moment during bush's 2002 state of the union when he flashed out a 24 inch tongue ripping a hapless house fly out of the air
he then sat with the contented look of a well fed reptile
i say we tase him a few times and then waterboard him until he confesses that he has always been a chickenshit turd
that shouldn't take long
He travels with a medical team in case he shoots somebody when he's drunk again.
After recently seeing the video clip again of Cheney in a wheelchair at Obama's inauguration, it dawned on me that he was probably concealing a gun under that blanket. It's a variation on an old trick used by criminals. Given Cheney's paranoid delusions, he probably was expecting violence or even a coup attempt during the inaugural ceremonies, and wanted to come prepared to do his part. (Why would he NOT BE prepared to "defend" himself or his country at such a critical juncture? This is how the delusional mind works.)
You forgot to mention Enron.
Except for a few House members,and judges the whole Federal Government should be imprisoned.
let's relocate them to the fema prison camps
"Except for a few House members,and judges the whole Federal Government should be imprisoned."
And replaced with what? The progressives who were stupid enough to pick Obama? A bunch of Ron Paul types?
Its interesting how this article neglects to mention that the media was afraid to mention Dick for most of his Vice-presidency, with the exception of John Stewart. All of a sudden the tide has turned and everyone is out for kicks and laughs unfortunately that psychopath of a VP set the stage for a bitter world angry and envious of the US populace. Fortunately we have a figure head in the white house that is charming and equipped with the best Teleprompters and writer’s money can buy not to mention comedians. Dick may have been insane but the worst is yet to come.
Yes, indeed. Obama has neutralized the left, neutralized the anit-war movement. Convinced the world that it's okay to stay in Iraq and it's okay to bomb some of poorest people on earth. As it turns out, Obama is one of the world's greatest champions of killing the poor, literally, and deporting, via the US Military, minorities. We are the ones we've been waiting for.
worse than that - obama is a nwo approved shill - blessed by the evil alien henry kissinger - who gave obama his first job and supplied him with his controller - i mean wife michelle
obama is a cognizant manchurian candidate
why though is he selling out his country - not birth country but country of choice
his answer may well be: hey man everyone was doing it.........
not a great legal defense but these boys are never going to be charged with anything so i guess they are not worried about legal ramifications
I'm with Fenner on this. Obama's grin is looking a lot like Bush's grin.
Last week I had Air America's morning show on the car radio and heard a conservative, former-military guy call in and complain that drone attacks were killing women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "progressive" radio jocks attacked and mocked him, claiming he was wrong and just another hateful ditto-head. I had to turn the radio off. How sad that progressives are now giving cover for many of the same war crimes they claimed to despise when Bush and Cheney were ordering them.
If Obama was truly the progressive he once winked he was, people like Juan Cole would have been offered senior positions in the State Department. Even though Cole could have gone further than he did in this article (as posters have pointed out) he is one of the best informed and smartest foreign policy experts we have.
I am ashamed...and yes the worst is yet to come...it all started the day the music died.
You're right on with your comment, Ailith.
And indeed it did die, and it's been downhill ever since.
peace, cm
Wouldn`t it have been wonderful if the loudmouth Dick had gotten worked up over the predicted attacks before 9-11 and helped to prevent those from happening? No one loves war and terror more than Cheney and he should not even be allowed on the media, as well as Rove, who also had a great hand in wrecking our country.
Only in the US would a guy who treasonously outed a CIA agent be given a corporate megaphone with which to continue to spew invectives wrapped in an American flag.
Interesting to see Dick out in the daylight now that he doesn't have his hand up the George W. Bush clown-puppet's ass. Without his favorite clean-cut codpiece-wearing cheerleader fronting for him he is just incredibly creepy and evil.
He was a laugh line more than once at Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner.
This is certainly part of Cheesedick Cheney's current problem. The Man Who Would Be Stalin cannot abide being the butt of so many jokes and no longer being the object of overwhelming fear. It drives him to fury. He would like to murder all the people who are belittling him. That would include George Wanker Bush who thumbed his nose at Cheney by "betraying" Scooter Libby.
Do you think it is possible Cheney had a hand in the federal prosecutor firings, perhaps in retaliation for the conviction of Libby?
One sure test: what would Cheney think if he were to be water-boarded. I realize it's very difficult for someone like Cheney to imagine anyone beyond himself and his ego structure, but what happens when the 'enemy' breaches his gates and uses 'extreme persuasion' on him and his? I am reminded of a man called Hitler, who was so single minded in his delusions that he blamed the entire German nation on the failure of his creed. Too bad Cheney and Hitler weren't able to get to know each other--they have so much in common.
Dick Cheney has been out of office since January 20, 2009. Why are we bringing him up again and again? The burden of responsibility lies on Obama/Biden now. Obama has the power to undo Cheney's hardline policies but why isn't he even trying and why is he adding to it?
That's a very good question. The Democrats had two years to try that SOB while he was in power and yet they let him go. The more days that pass by, the more I regret my vote for Obama/Biden. We can hammer Cheney on this forum all we want but our pols in Washington are supposed to hold him accountable in the end. Cheney may be guilty but Congress is just as guilty for letting him get away with it. It's often easy to invent boogiemen when the party in power isn't doing its homework. I was already sick and tired of the Republicans blaming Carter on everything for a decade after he lost and yet they did nothing to repair the damage they carped about. I'm afraid that the Democrats are doing the same thing just to get a grip on power.
Welcome to the Empire.
I agree with you, but offer a couple of modifications. It's Obama, more than Congress, who is letting Cheney off the hook . . . as Juan Cole points out in this article.
As to Jimmy Carter, the Right undermined his presidency and caused many of the conditions that brought Reagan to power. Then, not only did they not "repair the damage," they went on the biggest destructive spree the country had ever seen, until George W. came along and topped them.
Looks like an act of desperation from a man with a guilty conscience.
Hitler would have done the same thing if he had survived WWII, I believe. Cowards are all the same regardless of the century. By the way "enhanced interragation" was coined in Nazi Germany, right out of the Nazi's handbook, I am serious! View "The End of America" video by Noami Wolf on YouTube.
Did chainey take his man-sized safe with him when he left the oval orifice....?
Or does he practice "catch & release" with his sex slaves...?
Does he get to keep his assassination squad along with the secret service detail...?
The key point Cole makes here is that Obama is carrying out (moving forward) the most important policies Cheney pushed for years, with or without waterboarding. Stirring up the hornet's nest in Afghanistan and Pakistan is exactly what Cheney would order if he still held power, so Obama is essentially moving forward into Cheney's own favorite kind of war criminality: bomb defenseless villages, dictate to your puppet governments in these undeveloped lands exactly how and on whose behalf they are to "govern", and tell lies every day about why you're doing this. Ignore all critics, just push ahead with your imperialistic agenda and babble about "progress" when civilian casualty counts increase daily. Feel good about being World Robocop, Barack, just as Dick did for 8 years.
" ... bomb defenseless villages, dictate to your puppet governments in these undeveloped lands exactly how and on whose behalf they are to "govern", and tell lies every day about why you're doing this."
This is known as "winning hearts and minds".
Sioux Rose
EKATON: Good satire. Notice how Cole makes it seem that Obama just naturally equates Al Queda with the Taliban as if they both hold the same beliefs and constituents. Sure, this educated man doesn't know or recognize the difference? He's becoming such a front man for the make-war (and other) corporations that it's embarassing to watch.
Hey 'cuz',
You are on "target" there---
If you remember one of my postings ---awhile back----you responded with a "chuckle"
Mr. Obama, "came to the ball" (in his best gowns)---to offer his services as a "prostitute", and he sings the songs they who make the highest bid want to hear ("oh baby, its too big" is one all time favorite for them, I'm sure)-
Now, the solution is for the "others" to "outbid" the "others" and see who gets to hear their favorite song(s)------sung by the "Prostitute in her best gowns"----
For most of the Native Americans I know: we don't "go to the ball in the first place"; and "we don't listen to the songs being sung anyway"----"you could catch some terrible diseases that way"----------
And besides, we will be riding our horses through their empty cities soon---after they empty them----------would you like a Pinto, or a Bay?
Good Luck America, you really need it...
Sioux Rose
Hello again, "Cuz." Just want to give the nod, and bear witness to the fact that the universal truth delivers in that all things come full circle. I recall reading the prophecies of one of the Sun Bears that stated eventually the White Man's children will return to ask the Indigenous Americans for help when the tasks (ways and means) of sustaining life became nearly impossible. Many will need to learn basic survival skills. So much top soil gone, so much pristine water tainted by hundreds of chemical effluents, the very weather systems out of joint and this is only the beginning of a very different kind of rapture. More like a stirring of the winds that will deliver the blowback apparatus of karma.
I would love to ride across the open fields on a wild horse. I believe it would summon the soul memory of that experience in a former sojourn.
It must be strange to live in a time where your people can see things finally coming back, full circle. Viewing the American hubris, as if any tribe is immune to the law of karma? Raising so many weapons, misusing so many resources to build the agents of destruction without the spiritual realization these are impotent in the face of all that matters. As I often share in this forum, Mars alone can neither make nor sustain life. So for all his attempts to enslave nature, turn her seedbanks into sterile children lined up in rows, take the joy and nurture away from animals in their never knowing a day of freedom or (as a result of cloning) the capacity to connect lovingly with another of their kind. The very LIFE has been expunged from living systems! How many scientists have convinced themselves the dumb animals (and in earlier times it was one presumed-dumb race or another) cannot reason and thus know and feel nothing. Amazing disgrace for all its unapologetic and globally destructive arrogance. Yes, the winds of change have begun to blow the false strucrures down. The upcoming Transition will not be a pleasant one.
I would like to know why most presidents (of either party) make the same horrible transition after entering power. Are they bribed? Are they threatened? Are they simply brainwashed? There seems to be a third, corporate way, that they all follow. Fascism? It's what's for breakfast. The question is whether the people can stop this before it destroys both the country and the planet. It’s not looking good. Where are the riots, strikes, and demonstrations? By the time these happen, I fear it will be too late. We need a revolution now.
"The key point Cole makes here is that Obama is carrying out (moving forward) the most important policies Cheney pushed for years, with or without waterboarding."
Actually, contrary to what you are claiming Cole asserts this obvious falsehood:
"Although the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated,"
What complete BS!
I know what you are saying, but if you look at the statement closely Cole is saying the Obama administration is "pledged." I think that is technically correct. Obama has made many pledges --- few of which he every intended to keep --- including this one. So, is it a "distinction without a difference?" Pretty much, except that Cheney would not have even made the false pledge in the first place.
But, give Juan Cole some credit. Except for small quibbles, his analysis is accurate, specific and highly critical of Obama's policies. We need a lot more of Juan Cole on the national stage.
"except that Cheney would not have even made the false pledge in the first place."
Actually, he did, Bush agreed to SOFA. Do you know what that is? The Status Of Forces Agreement. Read the historical record. They all had the same withdrawal plan. There is no actual distinction.
If you follow Informed Comment I believe Cole's position is that the Iraqis forced Bush into the SOFA, but that Obama wanted it all along. His point could be true, although it is still pure speculation. But regardless of that, how can it be said that "the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated" when they are simply following the same plan as agreed to by Bush and Cheney?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Framework_Agreement
"But, give Juan Cole some credit. Except for small quibbles, his analysis is accurate, specific and highly critical of Obama's policies. We need a lot more of Juan Cole on the national stage."
I agree that his analysis has value, that's why I read him. But why should he be let off the hook for supporting the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, opposing "Out Now", and being shamelessly pro-Obama to the point of re-writing the historical record? After all, how many on the Left even realize that this famous "war critic" was also a "war supporter"? I don't think issues like those are merely "quibbles". They are of primary importance.
" . . . being shamelessly pro-Obama?"
This is where you go off the beam. Did you read Cole's "The Hidden Hand of Dick Cheney?" It's a litany of Obama criticism in which he provides multiple examples of how Cheney's positions have been adopted by Obama.
Yet, you don't discuss the content of this article at all. You only point out the fraction of one percent of Cole's writing which is impure . . . as if to undercut the article by trashing it's author. Is the above article all crap, in your opinion? Is your purpose to divert attention from it?