Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

I was struck by Cheney’s language in the following quote from a TV interview today:

Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Congressional Democrats were irresponsible for using a war spending bill to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. He said he was “willing to bet” that the Democrats would eventually cave in to President Bush’s demands for legislation with no strings attached.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday at a taping for “Face the Nation,” which was broadcast Sunday. The vice president said that Democratic efforts to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq were irresponsible.

“I think the Congress will pass clean legislation,” Mr. Cheney said in the interview broadcast on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” adding, “I do believe that positions that the Democratic leaders have taken, to a large extent now, are irresponsible.”

Which means that legislation containing a timetable must be ‘dirty.’ There’s only one thing that’s dirty around here and it’s not an Iraq timetable–it’s Dick Cheney’s increasingly unconvincing manipulation of the English language for political advantage. It doesn’t fool anyone anymore. Not even the conservatives who used to be with him on the war.

tags congressional-iraq-war-funding-bill, dick-cheney, iraq-timetable

From today’s Maureen Dowd column, Daffy Does Doom (TimesSelect required):

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Yes, Herbert Hoover. But the difference is that Herbert Hoover was a moderate Republican who actually cared about the people whom the Depression dispossessed. He just didn’t have a clue what to do about it. Cheney doesn’t even have that (being moderate or caring about the victims of his policies) in his favor. But he does share with Hoover the fact that he has no clue about how to deal with his ‘Great Depression,’ Iraq.

And I also ‘enjoyed’ this quotation from a Cheney interview with Wolf Blitzer about U.S. ’successes’ in Iraq:

“Bottom line,” Vice told Wolf, “is that we’ve had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.”

You bet. If you label 3,000+ American-and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as “enormous successes.”

tags daffy-does-doom, dick-cheney, great-depression, herbert-hoover, maureen-dowd, new-york-times, war-in-iraq

I’ve written my own critique of Bill Kristol’s It’s Our War, in which he posits that Israel’s war against Hezbollah should be but the first step in a long march toward regime change in Iran. Madison Guy of Letters from Nowhere pointed me to a telling speech delivered by Dick Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 2002, which laid the groundwork for war in Iraq. His comments about “regime change” regarding that country ring ominously true after reading Kristol’s “call to arms” against Iran. Who doesn’t read this and weep a little at how utterly delusional and bereft of sense and reason it was:

Another argument [against going to war with Iraq] holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror. I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab “street,” the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are “sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.” Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.

The nutjob actually believed that war with Iraq would LESSEN the troubles of the region. Then there’s the quotation from Fouad Ajami about Iraqis erupting in joy at their American liberators. That crackpot should hide his head in shame instead of raking in the bucks as a talking head analyst for cable news. How ’bout those “extremists” who’d have to “rethink their strategy of Jihad.” If they did rethink anything it merely reaffirmed and strengthened their determination to kill as many Americans as they could. And where are those Arab moderates taking heart? Probably in a bomb shelter somewhere as the bullets, fired by sectarian militants stirred up by Cheney’s adventurist foreign policy, whizz by their heads.

But of course the laughingest and bitterest laugh of all is reserved for the last sentence in which he touts our enhanced “ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.” Worked just like a charm didn’t it? Israel is sittin’ pretty. Peace is all around us. Oh, that must’ve been in Cheney’s alternate neocon universe.

All this is by way of warning that if anyone buys Kristol’s nostrums for solving the U.S.-Iran impasse, a few years from now someone like me is going to parse his stupidity and chuckle at all the people who had to die because some knucklehead thought he could impose some ridiculous neocon construct on an entire region.

Newt on Lebanon: ‘This is World War III’

And lest anyone say that Kristol is an army of one, Rightweb reports that Newt Gingrich told Meet the Press regarding the Lebanon conflict:

GINGRICH: …This is not the fifth day of the [Lebanon] war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran/Iraq/Syria—I mean, an Iran/Syria—was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced—Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.

…This is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it’s also a question of what is really a world war. Look what you’ve been covering: North Korea firing missiles. We say there’ll be consequences, there are none. The North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan. As I said a minute ago, the, the Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah alliance. A war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran. The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1200 terrorists in Britain. Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, and 18 people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian parliament, and saying they’d like to behead the Canadian prime minister. And finally, in New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York.

I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war…

RUSSERT: This is World War III?

GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.

And he ain’t talkin’ ’bout Nazis or Commies either. He’s talking about a global war against Islamists and jihadis. ‘World War III!’ Wake up and smell the coffee people. These neocons are certifiable, dangerous lunatics who are ready to take us to full-scale war because of some hysterical notion that Islamists want to–and even more importantly–have the capacity to destroy our way of life. Somebody’s got to put a stop to this. I just hope it’s at the ballot box in November.

tags dick-cheney, iran-regime-change, lebanon-conflict-world-war-III, letter-from-nowhere, meet-the-press, neocon, newt-gingrich, overthrow-saddam-hussein, rightweb, william-kristol

Here’s how Maureen Dowd (TimesSelect sub. required) describes Lynne Cheney’s feeble attempt at political humor (at the expense of her husband) at the Gridiron Dinner:

…Cheney is a practiced speaker, but a bit tone-deaf on humor. At the Gridiron dinner here on Saturday, she said of her husband: “He has a great sense of humor. Just the other day I asked him, ‘Do you know how many terrorists it takes to paint a wall?’ And he answered right back, ‘It depends on how hard you throw them.’ ”

People laughed, but it felt creepy, the kind of humor that makes more terrorists.

Hilarious. And not “a bit tone-deaf,” but fully and completely tone-deaf. Or how about brutal, cruel, and sadistic? The kind of joke that the racist Tom Buchanan would’ve told to Daisy in The Great Gatsby.

In her column she touts Barack Obama for ‘08 and disses Hillary Clinton’s prospects. While I’m no fan of Clinton, I don’t think she can be dismissed so easily. But I have a far better suggestion: Russell Feingold. At least, the guy has guts in introducing a censure motion against Bush for NSA spying. And he’s not playing to the right gallery as Hillary Hawk seems to be doing.

tags dick-cheney, gridiron-dinner, lynne-cheney, maureen-dowd, political-humor

He’s finally done it. The Sphinx has arisen from his slumber to address the multitude clamoring for an explanation of how he shot a close friend last Saturday in a hunting accident. To his credit, in a Fox News interview (video and Fox News interview (video and transcript) Cheney took full responsibility for the shooting (as well he should) and did not hide behind the “blame the victim” rationales proposed by his friends who’ve been blaming Harry Whittington for the accident.

But I still have this nagging question: why did it take Dick FOUR DAYS to rouse himself from his bunker in order to tell the world what happened? And how can George Bush allow his presidency to be riven with discord and fragmented leadership by a gaffe such as this? How can a vice president essentially make up his own rules and have no accountability to the president’s staff? How does Cheney get away with leaving it to Scott McClellan to be his unwilling spokesperson while not providing any pertinent information to McClellan which he can pass on to the press corps? Doesn’t Bush realize this makes him as president look spineless and not in command?

But even in his “candid” mode, Cheney continues to show utter disregard for common sense:

He also said he thought it was the right decision to allow Ms. Armstrong become the only voice in describing what had happened.

“I thought that that was the right call,” he said. “I didn’t have any press people with me. I was there on a private weekend with friends.”

You come within a few inches of killing someone and you make the feeble excuse that you mishandled the incident because you had no press people with you?? As anyone can tell you who covers Cheney, the man has staff (even on a private hunting expedition) up the yin yang bristling with Blackberries, pagers, satellite phones, etc. None of them could’ve called his press people to discuss what to do? What’s more–you leave all communications decisions to your host rather than your professional staff? Pathetic.

We should note that in giving this interview to Fox News Cheney is still trying to spin the story. Just as Ms. Armstrong released the original story to a small obscure hometown newspaper in order to ensure it would be buried, so Cheney has fessed up to the most sycophantic news network when it comes to holding the Bush Administration to account for all its misdeeds. When Fox airs the entire interview at 6 PM today you can be sure Britt Hume will ask none of the tough questions the rest of the press has been asking since Sunday. Everything’s a ’set up’ with these guys.

UPDATE

The broadcast of the full Fox interview reveals some new utter cluelessness on Cheney’s part. This is from the NY Times coverage:

Mr. Cheney said that he delayed making the news public because “this was a complicated story” and that he would do so again. It was more important to contact members of Mr. Whittington’s family, he said, than to get the story out to the public immediately.

For “this was a complicated story” read “we knew we were gonna get killed over this and we had to figure out how to minimize the fallout.” Aren’t you also touched that the vice president so selflessly cared about Mr. Whittington’s family more than his own professional responsibilities. Besides, I’m sure there was no way Cheney and his staff could’ve multi-tasked by simultaneously contacting Whittington’s family AND releasing the news to the major media.

And ol’ Dick just can’t stop himself, in the midst of his press woes, from sticking a finger in the eye of those mangy lib elite reporters who spare no effort to personally embarrass him every chance they get:

He suggested that the outcry about his failure to release the news, and then just to a local newspaper, reflected the unhappiness of the White House press corps that they were left out of the first reports.

“They didn’t like the idea that we called The Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times,” Mr. Cheney said. “But it strikes me that The Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.”

Gee, I guess the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is the most logical media outlet to use when the vice president of the United States has shot someone. After all, that story can’t be of much interest to anyone outside Corpus Christi, now could it?

In my last post about the accident, I wondered why Cheney’s party was still hunting in the dying light of a winter day when visibility could not help but be reduced. Cheney confirms my point in the Fox interview when he says:

Asked to explain how the accident occurred, the vice president said Mr. Whittington, dressed in orange hunting gear and wearing protective glasses, had been standing in a slight gully with the setting sun directly behind him. “That affected the vision, too, I’m sure,” Mr. Cheney said.

The interview also raises new questions about the account of the incident relayed by Ms. Armstrong, the host who adamantly insisted that no alcohol had been served to the party. In fact, Cheney reveals that he had had a beer during lunch a few hours before the incident. One wonders what she thinks will be gained by being less than candid about this particular part of the story; especially considering it is such a potentially huge news event. Attempting to midlead the press only serves to exacerbate the damage. When are those people ever going to learn that? One wonders if members of the hunting party have fibbed about this point what else may they have fibbed about or simply not revealed?

tags britt-hume, cheney-shooting, dick-cheney, fox-news, hunting-accident, whittington

I'm glad to hear that according to the NY Times the press is in an uproar over the 24-hour delay in announcing that Buckshot Dick had plugged one of his hunting companions. The shooting happened on Saturday and apparently it wasn't even until Sunday morning that Bucky got around to thinking about releasing the information to the press: In an interview, Ms. Armstrong said that it did not occur to anyone in the hunting party to make news of the shooting public immediately, but that no one, including Mr. Cheney, had called for holding it back. She said Mr. Cheney participated in discussions on Sunday morning about disclosing the incident, agreeing that it should be made public but deferring ...

Cheney's got his gun (photo: Informationblast.com) This has got to be a first: has any sitting vice-president ever shot anyone? H. Ross points out below that Aaron Burr was vice-president when he challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel and killed him all because the latter led forces which successfully derailed his effort to become president. So Dick doesn't get a historic first on this one (shucks). But he's only the second to do so (Burr's political career was NOT enhanced by his little escapade). It was an accident of course. But still. Does anyone think wielding a loaded shotgun is advisable for a guy ...

If I were Condi Rice right about now, I'd start wondering who was making U.S. foreign policy--her or Dick Cheney. And I'd also wonder where that policy was being made--at the State Department or in the studios of obscure cable TV drivetime shock jocks like Don Imus. Both Cheney's appearance itself and his comments were startlingly candid: Dick 'pokes a stick' at the Iranians on Imus in the Morning (credit: MSNBC.com)Don Imus asked [Cheney in reference to getting Iran to dismantle its nuclear program], "Why don't we make Israel do it?" It was a ...

Until now, I've followed the 9/11 Commission hearings both with rapt attention and also with tremendous admiration for the tenacity and frankness of its members in their questioning of hitherto untouchable government bureacrats. I've also admired the Commission members' use of the media to advance the Commission's goals. They, and those 9/11 survivor families supporting the Commission's work, have realized that the only way to goad balky bureacrats into cooperation (remember Bush refused to authorize the Commission for over a year!) is by going "over their heads" to the American people. And the only way to do that is through the media. But the Commission's negotiation with President Bush about his testimony allowed him to pull the wraps over his ...