Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe 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.
100 Comments so far
Show AllFrom Harper's:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004500
"Question 4. You say that constructive, measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq is the only way forward. Barack Obama is putting the United States on a 19-month course to withdrawal, but he’s also saying this is only a draw-down from military operations and suggesting that there may be a long-term military presence behind enormous fortified military installations. Grade the Obama plan.
COLE: I give Obama an “A” on his Iraq policy speech. It seemed to me to hit all the right notes. He thanked the U.S. troops for their valiant efforts and sacrifices. He pledged to abide by the express wishes of the Iraqi parliament. He tried to reassure U.S. allies in the Gulf, who are worried that in the wake of a precipitate U.S. withdrawal, Iraq might collapse and that the resulting conflagration might engulf them.
I don’t entirely agree with the above characterization of Obama’s Iraq plan, however. He did not suggest that there may be a long-term U.S. military presence behind fortified military installations in Iraq. He said firmly and clearly that he would withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2011, in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement passed by the Iraqi parliament last fall. I am not sure why his forthright declaration to this effect has been missed by so many observers."
Jeremy Scahill has a less starry eyed take on this:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2009/0228obamaspeech.htm
COLE continues: "It is true that he hedged a little on adherence to a strict timetable, but that is only common sense. If all hell broke loose in Mosul, with guerrillas fighting off the Iraqi Army and then beginning a massacre of the Kurdish or Christian population in the thousands, WOULD THE U.S. PUBLIC REALLY WANT OBAMA JUST TO SHRUG AND LET IT HAPPEN? If so, then why the demand for intervention in the Sudan to stop massacres there? As for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to train and equip the new Iraqi Army, would that not be the only way to ensure that U.S. soldiers did not have to intervene to stop scenarios like the one I suggested at Mosul, above? The Iraqi military has demonstrated impressive new capabilities and esprit de corps in facing down the Mahdi Army in the past year, and that gives hope that the U.S. could HONORABLY leave Iraq without fearing a security collapse in that country in the aftermath.
I understand the public anxiety that somehow Obama will renege on his pledge to get out of Iraq altogether, and it is important that we hold his feet to the fire on this issue, since the military-industrial complex will attempt to push him to remain. But nothing in his speech justified a conviction that he is already backtracking. After years of outright prevarication and fantastic policy pronouncements on Iraq by the previous administration, this frank and realistic speech struck me as a breath of fresh air."
So the breathe of fresh air is that Obama is following the same Status of Forces Agreement agreed to by Bush. Ahhhh...
So will we get out? Sure, unless something makes us stay. Gee, Juan, I'm feeling "as nervous as a vegan in a butcher's shop".
"Butcher's shop", how appropriate.
Hidden?!?!?! The only time Cheney hides his hand is when it is down his shorts! There is nothing whatsoever 'hidden' about this perverted sadistic man.
Be nice to America or we'll bring Chenecracy to your country.
Juan Cole is generally an astute commentator, but let's get real: he's also aware that he's working in fascist state full to bursting with nasty cretins who idolize the likes of Cheney, Limbaugh, et. al., and a citizenry largely afraid of the wrong things, because of the fantastically shitty education system, deliberate and relentless mind-control, endemic ignorance and virtual hatred of reality in this country.
Mr Cole's statement that Afghanistan was the right war at the right time was clearly made to placate some force that might otherwise have screwed him out of a job, or Mr Cole simply belongs to the ranks of the ignorant and mind-controlled. Going into Afghanistan, like Iraq, was a goddamn criminal enterprise, as anyone knows who pays attention to what the agenda is that's apparently now being tended in many of its manifestations by Obama. Afghanistan was simply about getting the pesky Taliban out of the way in order to keep the opium on-line and to ram the pipeline down to the Gulf. Karzai was installed to facilitate this, and he obediently signed off on it the following day. Mr Cole or any analyst continuing to discuss American policy, foreign or otherwise in any fashion that gives even the slightest credence to all the horseshit about freedom and democracy and terrorism is a part of the problem. Telling the truth starts with opposing war, no matter how much goddamn noise about terrorism and geopolitics made by the politicos or your neighbours. This country has been constantly at war for all but - what is it.. twenty minutes? - since WWII and we all know IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY OR KEEPING AMERICA SAFE.
He's right about Cheney in most respects, of course. That filthy bastard is out there helping Obama look good, and of course the other fat, evil scum like Limbaugh know that America's greatest and most precious natural resource is the breathtaking ignorance and gullibility of its people, so, along with the filthy 'Christian' right, there's no shortage of support for scum like Cheney, Limbaugh, the Bush family and the rest of these cockroaches.
Ms.Jill May, you are correct that war criminals are running the government, and they're exporting their bitch offspring, like the anti-human Condoleeza Rice, to speaking tours. Rice belongs in prison, but such are the workings of power. But with all respect, there is no democracy, because if there was, Mr Obama would've spent Inauguration Day literally putting aside his lovely, high-priced and rhetorically first-class speech at the moment he was about to launch into it, and dead-eyed the American people and said 'RIGHT. NOW THE BULLSHIT, AND CRIME STOPS HERE. YOU WANT CHANGE? WELL HERE WE GO.' And at that moment federal marshals would've arrested Bush, Cheney and Rice on the spot and packed them off to jail, preparatory to lengthy court proceedings. Now of course, in what's left of this country, Obama would've pretty immediately taken a bullet for the AUDACITY OF REAL CHANGE, and that would've spoken volumes about how this place is working its way steadily down to the lowest depths of hell.
If there was any goddamn democracy, this Baucus puppet, and Obama, would not be arresting people for trying to put discussion of single-payer health care on the table.
Need I go on?
There is no bloody democracy. Just good folks all over the country, the heralded and public like Amy Goodman and Howard Zinn and the unheralded in their millions risking their lives by getting out of bed in a country which has become a sick and internationally hostile shadow of its former self. And maybe its former self wasn't much to crow about either, since it increasingly looks as though all who say that the 'conspiracy' or agenda was afoot from the moment the 'founders' signed the paper are right.
But this can all change. It's just that there's going to have to be a GREAT BIG REVOLUTION. All you people who never shut up about 'power of pride' and can't stop waving the flag are going to have to get ther fuck up off your cheeseburger and twinkie-eatin' arses and go burn some stuff to the ground. Sorry for the inconvenience.
"Mr Cole's statement that Afghanistan was the right war at the right time was clearly made to placate some force that might otherwise have screwed him out of a job"
What a lame excuse! He said it on his own blog. And if he was really constrained in that manner by the University of Michigan (his employer) then I doubt he would be able to state his more controversial criticisms of Israel on the same blog (to be clear, I completely agree with Cole's views on Israel/Palestine except that I favor a one state solution).
Why make excuses for him?
"or Mr Cole simply belongs to the ranks of the ignorant and mind-controlled. "
Yes, although he's very critical of our foreign policy, he is also very pro military and frequently calls them "brave warriors" on Informed Comment. After all, don't forget he was raised in a military culture as a self-proclaimed "army brat".
In Cheney's case, there's easily enough unhidden to prosecute.
Cheney's told U.S. troops that because of what they're doing over there our children and grandchildren will live in freedom? Good God, why didn't some rogue soldier with a brain and some knowledge of reality (though the fact that anyone signs up for the U.S. military argues against any of them having brains or knowledge)shoot that prick there on the spot and make himself a hero to those children and grandchildren???
They will grow up in FUCKING SLAVERY, at the rate it's all going. And I fear Obama's going to aid and abet that.
Juan Cole has found good in Obama over time in Informed Comment. I can relate to the erosion in his confidence in Our Leader. Fool me once and all that.
Could Cheney just Die? Please?
Might We Pray?
Dick Cheney and all the extreme right wing lunatics are the worlds most dangerous terrorists.
Read http://www.scribd.com/doc/4866520/Collateral-Damage-911-Covert-Ops-Funding-Targeted
The blood of over 5000 troops , 3000 9/11 deaths and a million Iraqs traded for laundering 700 billion.
THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS
The two articles 'Collateral Damage' have just been published and are a MOST DISTURBING read. Well researched and referenced (over 400! footnotes). The implications are UNIMAGINABLE.
"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."
All the MSM attention he's getting might have something to do with it.
We quickly forget that Dick Cheney has been the primary advocate of US energy hegemony.
What of those closed door energy meetings at the onset of the Bush administration?
And what about Condi Rice's role in the Unical pipeline?
Read the Pepe Escovar article and insert Dick Cheney.
It's really convenient that we need to eradicate a bumper opium crop along the proposed route of the US pipeline.
It's really convenient that the Taliban is based in Quetta which lies along the pipeline.
I would not be surprised to find Irani nuclear facilities located near or above the South Pars gas fields in Iran. We could set back Irani energy ambitions with a few strikes to take out the nucular threat.
And the pipeline to China, and Korea and Japan ... from the Irani South Pars fields - right smack middle of the Northern Territories of Pakistan.
Most progressives should buy a map and learn world geography .. and draw better conclusions.
And if you believe we are in Afghanistan and now Pakistan to fight Bin Ladin and Alqueda - clap your hands three times
"What of [Cheney's] closed door energy meetings at the onset of the Bush administration?"
Senator Obama voted for the energy bill that oil company lobbyists wrote in those closed-door sessions. (Something I pointed out repeatedly in this forum in 2007.) Too many "progressives" need lessons in map reading, and also Senate voting records.
Keep your posts coming! Please.
Cheney is circling the drain. With any luck he'll take what's left of the Republican Taliban with him.
Added on edit: But it won't happen if Obama keeps empowering him.
I agree with Juan Cole's assessment that Dick Cheney's rants are too dangerous to be treated as a joking matter, but I'm perplexed why Cole leaves unmentioned the most pernicious, long term themes of Cheney's framing efforts upon the post-Bush public policy debates.
Cheney repeatedly and darkly claims -
(1) torture kept America safe for the last seven years of Little George's watch (waterboarding saved thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives that otherwise would have been lost in domestic terrorist plots that were courageously thwarted), and
(2) Barack Obama, and his wimpy, civil liberties loving cohorts, are therefore directly responsible whenever the next 9/11 style terrorist attack does take place on American soil, because the Democrats have abandoned torture and unrestrained militarism in the Muslim world as official US government policy.
The mainstream US media uncritically accepts both of these macabre, self serving assertions as constituting some sort of proven, immutable truth. Framing future partisan accountability for blowback from the Bush/Cheney GWOT policies in this fashion is really far more ominous than whatever cheap pot shots Deadeye Dick may take at Colin Powell or any other wannabe player in the DC beltway's ongoing theatre of the absurd.
Mark Danner wrote most eloquently in the April New York Review about the enormous risk of leaving unchallenged Cheney's claims about the utility of torture, and the sleight of hand pretense that when something next goes boom in the night courtesy of some jihadist, it's suddenly now all, solely, Obama's fault. If you haven't already done so, check out Danner's work.
I share professor Cole's concerns about some major perceptual drift on the new president's part. I knew we were in deep trouble recently, when President Obama quipped during an exchange with the press that he wished he didn't have to "fight two wars" as part of his White House job duties.
Barack Obama was not nominated, nor elected, to fight two wars. He was nominated and elected to end two wars - one in Iraq, another in Afghanistan.
Big difference. Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of semantics.
Bill from Saginaw
snydly
One of the few ways a terrorist could get a nuke is if C gave it to them.
What happened to the Barksdale nukes?
What deal did C make with Saudis about bases, pre nineleven?
What was the real reason(s) for torture?
Why did W call the FBI off the Sauds in country?
Why did C have an ADC exercise NE that day?
Too many questions. Too many gloves that could have fit C before they got soaked with blood.
"Although the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated, "
WTF!!! Juan Cole is re-writing history! Prior to Obama's election McCain, Bush (and therefore Cheney) were all supporting the exact same withdrawal plan as Obama. It was Bush who hailed the passing of the SOFA!
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."
Everyone should go back into the archives of Informed Comment and remind themselves that Juan Cole was a supporter of both the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and also has consistently argued against an "out now" position.
As Juan Cole has said,
Afghanistan was the "right war at the right time".
Iraq "would be worth the sacrifices on ALL sides".
"Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq wasn't having a civil war in 2002. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano." (August 22, 2005)
"The US military is killing a lot of Iraqis, but whether it is killing more than would die in a civil war would depend on how many died in a civil war. A million or two could die in a civil war, and that's if the war stays limited to Iraq, which is unlikely. THE US PRESENCE IS NOT AGGRAVATING IRAQI ON IRAQI VIOLENCE IN ITSELF, rather it is the new political situation in which Sunni Arabs are the low man on the totem pole, a situation that will not change." (September 23, 2005)
"So I simply disagree with Schwartz's main points:
'1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;
2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;
3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;
4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate. "
(September 23, 2005)
I've been reading Juan Cole since before the 2002 invasion of Iraq. Please provide references to any of his statements showing he "was a supporter of both the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan." I seem to recall the opposite.
Sure, Naturally, no problem.
I'm also a long time reader of Informed comment. Each quote has a date which corresponds to it's entry on Informed Comment. Just look through the archives.
The quote that Afghanistan was "the right war at the right time" was from Wednesday, July 14, 2004 on Informed Comment.
"Cole: The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time, and it did break up the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have gone on hitting the United States. But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first."
The quote that Iraq would be "worth the consequences on all sides" was from Informed Comment on March 19, 2003.
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides." - Juan Cole;}
Don't you think he should address these statements of his? It's pretty insidious. It's like something Christopher Hitchen's might have wrote. Cole has been quite critical of many aspects of these wars, of that there can be no doubt, but hidden away in his critique is the little known fact that he supported both wars and opposed "Out Now" for the past 5 years. I wish more people were aware of this. But unfortunately, you can't bring these issues up on Cole's blog. Go ahead and try it, he won't publish your comment.
The comments you have quoted don't make Cole a "supporter of both the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan." As you know, he has published thousands of pages of criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Two little, highly qualified statements of support don't change him from a critic to a supporter.
I must have missed his opposition to getting out of Iraq now. I thought he was one of the people who have been explaining how the occupation is detrimental. I'll have to look back over some of his stuff.
"Afghanistan was the "right war at the right time".
Iraq would "be worth the sacrifices on ALL sides".
What part of the above do you fail to understand? Yes, Cole has been a war CRITIC. But his support for both wars is right there on his site! How do you interpret those statements as anything but support for the wars?
"Two little, highly qualified statements of support don't change him from a critic to a supporter."
That's a false dichotomy. Many war supporters are ALSO war critics. I agree they are "highly qualified statements of support", but as you say yourself, they are "statements of support". Just because he says that we must be careful about the aftermath of the invasion and that it must be matched with a humanitarian mission does not take away from his statement that the INVASION, the illegal removal of a sovereign head of state, against all aspects of UN and international law would "be worth the sacrifices on ALL sides". That sacrifice that Cole said would "be worth it" is the very real death of over a million Iraqis. Was Cole right to speak on their behalf? Has he ever retracted his statements or apologized? NO. Should he? Yes. Should progressives know this about him? Yes.
Would Chomsky have ever said that the invasion of Iraq would "be worth the sacrifices on ALL sides" or that Afghanistan "was the right war at the right time"? Hell no. Chris Hitchen's would have. David Frum would have. A "progressive" no way.
"I must have missed his opposition to getting out of Iraq now. I thought he was one of the people who have been explaining how the occupation is detrimental. I'll have to look back over some of his stuff."
Yes, you clearly have some reading to do, as Cole has reiterated his disdain of "OUT NOW" for Iraq of Afghanistan many times on both his blog and in interviews.
In fact, I even quoted this:
"Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq wasn't having a civil war in 2002. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano." (August 22, 2005)
His view is now and has always has been that the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is keeping a lid on what could be a volcano. This is not to saw that he opposing getting out of these wars at some point in the future (even Cheney could agree to that). As Cole has said, "the issue is not so much the rate at which the United States withdraws from Iraq." Yeah, who cares if it's 2005 or 2011.
AMY GOODMAN: And the 50,000 troops that Obama says will stay through 2011, 100,000 private contractors?
JUAN COLE: Sure. Well, you know, for me, the issue is not so much the rate at which the United States withdraws from Iraq. I believe President Obama when he says he is committed to bringing the US troops out. And I think the Marines, the infantry, are going to gradually be brought out almost entirely.
But the question is, what do they leave behind? And, you know, if you had a civil war break out between the Arabs and the Kurds over Kirkuk, it could bring in Turkey, could bring in Iran, could destabilize the whole eastern Mediterranean, would have implications for the world economy, the US could get drawn back in. So I think the important thing is that Obama, before he leaves, makes some political arrangements, does some heavy-duty diplomacy with local people, tries to get some covenants amongst the groups about who gets what, as he goes out.
If his evil counsel is acceptable as the measure of America in 2009 then the country deserves the hubris which will inevitably envelope it. It will be ostracized from the company of civilized nations. It will be the evil empire reincarnated. American citizens will be the butt of angry demonstrations throughout the world.
Crouching Torturer: Hidden Dick
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Cheney has got a really messed up view of the world!
And he can't stand that he is no longer part of government and won't be again. The guy has been around Washington way too long and has really twiested views.
Why can't that asshole just freakin' DIE.
DIE, CHENEY, DIE <-- great name for a rock band, in the same vein as "The Dead Kennedys".
with all due respect; are you sure he left d.c. ? many believe he left moles in the state dept. and in the pentagon. his ideology lives on within the war mongers of america.
I found some of Hitlers antics quite sad and funny too....but I would still put a .45 in his head if I ever saw him walking around.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I got a cold empty feeling after reading that last line in the article. The author makes a very good point on how Obama is triangulating foreign and domestic policy to make himself look like the good guy.
I think the best option at this point is to Turn on, tune in, and drop out. We can create a better future, lets get a mass movement going, because its time. We mustn't let the divide and conquer tactics suppress any sort of movement. Personally, I'm going to root for the underdog(s) on this one. How to get something really real going is now the question.
On another thread a few days ago someone pointed out the link http://ni4d.us/ where there is a pointer to the possibility that the People might be able to influence legislation.
"After being wrong on everything you have said for eight years, why should anyone believe a single word that comes out of your mouth?"
Bad choice, lwhunt330. You've just ruined your chances of ever winning a Pulitzer.
And many thanks, as always to CBS, ABC, FOX and MSNBC for giving Cheney a platform to spew all of his lies and crap. He has been on every network with his family all trying to keep him out of jail and the MSM has given him the best platform surrounded by sycophants that a criminal could have. Nobody yet has asked him a tough question, or even a very simple question like, "After being wrong on everything you have said for eight years, why should anyone believe a single word that comes out of your mouth?" This would be a good start.
Obama protects Cheney by failing to prosecute him. Cheney protects Obama by serving as his verbal foil. Obama gets to "look good" by saying he's against everything Cheney stands for. In reality, he proceeds to follow or exceed Cheney's policies. The last report to leak out of Guantanamo was a few days ago (see al jazeera). Abuse and torture are still going on there. Our prisoners are denied habeaus corpus. We have rendition. We have the DOJ asking for immunity from prosecution for bushco at the 4th circut. We have unchecked spying. We're in three wars with a very high civilian body count. There's a dispute as to our use of white phosphorus on civilians. We have 9 trillion in off the books accounting transactions by the Fed. We have billions going to GS. Cheney and Obama work as foils. We must pay attention to what Obama is really doing and reject all forms of propaganda being put forth. This is a very dangerous time in our nation. War criminals are running our govt. This has no place in a democracy.
I agree. Thank you for your comments.
Sioux Rose
Maybe Al Quaida will find funders that allow it to put out a hit on the entire Chicago School since that seems to be the zone where a whole lot of misery was initially decided, and continues to get planned. Premeditated war, poverity and injustice are high on the list of protocols calling for remedial action.
Sioux R, it's Al Qaeda, or Al Qaida. There's no 'u' in it.
Sioux Rose
Ephraim: Thanks. I forget the spelling on that one.
Actually... It is spelled "al CIA da"...
Nice one!
And to infuse the board with a little humor . . .
http://politicalirony.com/2009/05/13/cheney-kink/
and :
http://politicalirony.com/2009/05/05/dick-cheney-howd-he-do/
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.
"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?
"Is the above article all crap, in your opinion? Is your purpose to divert attention from it?"
No, it's not crap (it's nice to hear Cole criticize Obama) and (if anything) I am drawing attention to both the author, his article and his blog, not diverting attention away from them.
"You only point out the fraction of one percent of Cole's writing which is impure . . ."
Inpure? I don't care about "purity" whatever that is. And I agree that most of what Cole writes is interesting analysis. That's why I read his blog. But you don't want to acknowledge the few times he has revealed some of his more "controversial views". It's like you want to simply ignore his admittedly rare statements no matter how relevant they are to the topic of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do you agree that Afghanistan was "the right war at the right time"?
Did you agree that the Iraq war would "be worth the sacrifices on all sides"?
Do you oppose "OUT NOW"?
Or are these minor issues of little concern? Shouldn't Cole comment on them?
I read Cole everyday and have for years. Yes, Cole will criticize Obama. So will people like Katerina vanden Heuvel or Jon Stewart. However, I stand by my statement that they are "shamelessly pro-Obama".
For example, read Informed Comment Thursday, May 14, 2009. Cole goes out of his way to "imagine" (literally) some kind of legitimate reason that Obama won't release the torture photos. He "informs" us that it could be because Obama and his generals care so much about leaving Iraq that he's sincerely afraid that releasing the photos would jeopardize that.
I know, I know, I'm sure you want me to mention that at the end of his post he qualifies his statement with:
"If this consideration did drive the reversal of position, I think it is unfortunate. The US is more likely to get past the mistakes it made 5 years ago if it comes clean and seeks reconciliation than if it goes on trying to cover up the past even though everyone knows what happened."
Frankly, it's just insulting to suggest (in the first place) that Obama is withholding evidence of torture (which coincidentally he refuses to prosecute anyone for doing) because he wants to end the war (which he's not EVEN doing), than when Bush did the EXACT SAME thing. Cole did not offer Bush the same excuse he offered Obama. Cole always gives Obama the benefit of the doubt even when there's no reason to. And again, torture was and is a deliberate policy (still in effect) not an "unfortunate" "mistake".
"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?"
I don't think I'm actually trashing Cole. I value his writings on Informed Comment. The only reason I'm saying any of this, is because Cole is becoming a sort of Left-Wing celeb, yet very few people know what he stands for. I find his intial support for the wars to be a bizarre anomaly next to his frequent criticisms of those same wars. How many here would guess (wrongly) that he is an antiwar blogger who opposed both the wars he writes about? I'd be satisfied if he would at least offer some commentary on his earlier statements. Wouldn't you be curious?
"You only point out the fraction of one percent of Cole's writing which is impure . . . "
"Impure" are you serious? People have said that I'm being unfair for quoting certain opinions of Cole and juxtaposing them against his larger body of work. I think that would be unfair if I misrepresent him in these quotes or if what I was quoting was of little importance. But I don't consider supporting both invasions and opposing "OUT NOW" to be minor points of contention. I notice that people want to attack me for bringing his positions up, but no one cares to actually defend Cole's positions.
As for Cole's article:
"Although the Obama administration is pledged to withdraw from Iraq militarily in a way that Cheney would never have contemplated,"
This is what I first responded to. So why are you accusing me of ignoring the article?
"While the Obama administration has adopted large numbers of policies that directly contradict Cheney's positions,"
Like what? Following Bush's SOFA? The difference being our extremely vague troops levels (residual forces) for Iraq in 2010? What are these "large numbers of policies that directly contradict Cheney's positions"? Cheney supports torture program A whereas Obama supports torture program B? What?
"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."
Sorry, but I really don't see any reason to take Dick at his word. I seriously doubt ANYTHING Cheney did was motivated by a real desire to protect Americans. Do you buy that?
"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 "
I'd add that (except for obviously the Taliban) Obama/Cheney say the same thing about Iraq.
"(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.)"
This point I agree with. I'm glad that he is becoming more critical of Obama (did you read Informed Comment prior to the election? Ra! Ra! Ra! He even defended Obama's association with Rick Warren). It's his support of Obama I have a problem with. But maybe that won't last.
I think you graduated from the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate. You make mountains of molehills, you find fault even where there is none, and you condemn when commendation is warranted. Who, if anyone, is beyond the reach of such criticisms? Let me know when you understand the meaning of the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees."
"You make mountains of molehills, you find fault even where there is none"
Do you really think that supporting the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan is a non-issue?
You accuse me of being like like Rush? What counter-argument are you presenting? None. You are defending Cole's support of the wars without so much as offering up a defense.
"Who, if anyone, is beyond the reach of such criticisms?"
Almost everyone who writes for Common Dreams! I do not recall, for example, Chomsky ever declaring that Vietnam was the "right war at the right time" which would be" worth the sacrifices on all sides".
Again, let me ask you fair and square, do you really think that supporting the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan is a non-issue?
"Let me know when you understand the meaning of the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees."
Indeed.
Do you really think that opposing "Out Now" since 2005 is a non-issue?
You said "non-issue." That's your word. That's called a straw man. You set him up, so you can knock him down. Another Rush Limbaugh tactic.
I'll stand by my word, "molehill." You acknowledge (oh so briefly) that Cole has written mountains of criticism of U.S. foreign policy, and then you rant endlessly about molehills.
Let's look at the molehill you reference repeatedly, Cole's July 14, 2004 statement that "The Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time." Cole said that in the context of replying critically to Bush's boast that his military action had made the world "better," and America "safer."
Cole acknowledged that yes, "the Afghanistan war was the right war at the right time [in response to 9/11], and it did break up the network of al-Qaeda training camps from which terrorists would have gone on hitting the United States. But..." Cole then launches into lengthy criticism of Bush's actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, including:
* He let Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri escape.
* Instead of rebuilding and stabilizing Afghanistan, as he promised, he put almost nothing into reconstruction for that country.
* He let the poppy growing industry come back with a vengeance.
* Afghanistan is on the way to becoming a terrorist's dream.
* The US invaded each [Afghanistan and Iraq] and installed a government of its choosing. That isn't democracy.
* The US was not in any danger from Iraq, and so cannot be safer because it was invaded.
* The American invasion of Iraq is a major recruitment poster for al-Qaeda.
* The US is arguably MUCH less safe because of the invasion of Iraq.
Cole concludes with this: "These are not achievements to be proud of. This is a string of disasters. We are not safer. We face incredible danger because of the way the Bush administration has grossly mishandled the Middle East."
You acknowledge having read all of this, yet you continue to characterize Cole as a "supporter" of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You say he should have to "answer" for this support. Yet, it's clear that he has already answered. He is not a supporter of these wars. Quite the contrary.
For the record, I agree with pretty much everything Cole says in his July 14, 2004 piece, including that striking al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan after 9/11 was the right thing to do at the right time.
If you were banned from commenting on Cole's blog I'm not surprised. Your arguments are essentially dishonest.
Naturally: "You said "non-issue." That's your word. That's called a straw man. You set him up, so you can knock him down. Another Rush Limbaugh tactic."
My apologies, certainly that was not my intention. I didn't feel like quoting you as saying "making a mountain out of a molehill" I thought "non-issue" was a faster way of saying the same thing. I suppose you aren't saying it's a non-issue, just that it "isn't a big deal"? Does that work or do I have to keep using the 'molehill" cliche? That's called splitting hairs. And BTW saying someone is from the Rush Limbaugh School of Debate seems more like a "Limbaugh" tactic than anything I've written.
"Cole concludes with this: "These are not achievements to be proud of. This is a string of disasters. We are not safer. We face incredible danger because of the way the Bush administration has grossly mishandled the Middle East."
I never said Cole was not critical of the conduct of the wars. I said the opposite. Let me say it again: he is VERY critical of both wars. You are attempting to argue that to be critical of Bush's approach negates Cole's support of the invasion. That's called a logical fallacy.
His critiques (the ones you list) are of the way the invasions and occupations were handled. These are post-invasion critiques.
His next sentence (after "right war") which you omit, is:
"But the fact is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not want to fight that war after September 11. Rumsfeld sniffed that "there were no good targets" in Afghanistan. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all wanted to leave al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and attack Iraq first."
He is chastising them for neglecting to fight the "right" war in Afghanistan! And yes, by 2004 Cole had grown much more critical of the Iraq War, I know because I've the blog since it's inception. His statement of support for the invasion of Iraq was made on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, and he never repeated it again. That's why nobody knows about it.
Cont.
JUAN COLE Wednesday, March 19, 2003:
"My mind and heart are, like those of so many Americans, focused on the Gulf and Iraq tonight. I am thinking about all those brave young men and women in the US and British armed forces whose lives are on the line, and send them my warm support. And I am thinking about all the innocent Iraqis in the line of fire, who fear what awaits them. I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides. The rest of us have a responsibility to work to see that the lives lost are redeemed by the building of a genuinely democratic and independent Iraq in the coming years. "
Call me a liar all you want, but that is a pretty strong statement of support. For anyone reading this, please don't take my word for it, go to Informed Comment and read the damned entry yourself.
Like I said before, it is a strange anomaly. I just want him to "comment" on it, rather than sweep it under the rug.
"You acknowledge having read all of this, yet you continue to characterize Cole as a "supporter" of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You say he should have to "answer" for this support. Yet, it's clear that he has already answered. He is not a supporter of these wars. Quite the contrary."
When has he commented on his earlier statements? Please show me the same courtesy that I have shown you and support your statement with a link to Cole commenting on the quotes I've provided.
Because, once again, I completely agree that Cole is very critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am asking for him to "comment" on his initial statements of support for both wars. How many war supporters eventually turned against it? In case you haven't noticed, everyone from Colin Powell to David Frum to Richard Perle is also critical of these wars.
I am only pointing out the FACT that he has always opposed "Out Now", and has stated the rate of withdrawal does not concern him ("so much"), and that he does not believe the presence of US forces in Iraq fuels sectarian violence. I am pointing out that in both wars he feels that the US military is actually keeping Iraq and Afghanistan from falling into larger Civil Wars (which is laughable). If you have read his blog, then why would stating his positions inflame you so much?
"For the record, I agree with pretty much everything Cole says in his July 14, 2004 piece, including that striking al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan after 9/11 was the right thing to do at the right time."
Well, here we have it. Can you not see your hypocrisy? We never just bombed "al quaeda training camps" (whose very existence is questionable). Nor is there any reason to believe that "terrorists would have gone on hitting the United States" unless we invaded. To claim that the invasion of Afghanistan automatically prevented another 911 is Cheney territory (i.e because there have been no attacks under Bush, Bush prevented attacks -it's another logical fallacy)
You seem to think that bombing Afghanistan after they offered to extradite Bin Laden was not an act of war. That to support bombing and invading Afghanistan was not "supporting" the Afghan War. Unbelievable. No wonder you defend Cole.
Would you mind responding in you agree with these other statements?
Do you also agree that the invasion of Iraq was "worth the sacrifices on all sides"?
I'm sorry. Is the question of no importance? Is it making a big deal out of nothing?
Have you also consistently opposed "Out Now" since 2005?
I've already said your arguments are dishonest, and they continue to be so. I tire of your nonsense and no longer wish to enable it. That's the last I have to say to you.
You call me a liar and have no desire to support your claim or even respond. What a waste of time and effort.
" ... 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.
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.
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...
I will be riding a Palomino myself.
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.
Hidden hand?
I don't consider his hand to be hidden when it spends most of its time with the middle finger wrapped around a shotgun trigger.
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...?
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.
Looks like an act of desperation from a man with a guilty conscience.
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.
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.
Welcome to the Empire.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Except for a few House members,and judges the whole Federal Government should be imprisoned.
"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?
let's relocate them to the fema prison camps
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
You forgot to mention Enron.
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.)
He travels with a medical team in case he shoots somebody when he's drunk again.
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...
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.
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.