It's the "Old Executive Two-Step" -- when you have screwed up, gut-shoot the other guy; raise air-raid sirens about someone else's mistakes in order to distract attention from your own. That's Management 101.Dick Cheney has been one of the leading voices of misinformation on behalf of the Bush Administration. He is lead assassin in the death of whatever skewed, malformed, and grotesque "honor" system may exist in Washington, D.C. But for him to stand up and charge others with "reprehensible" actions is truly beyond the pale.
There has been no more self-serving, morally void, black-hearted, humanity-impaired occupant of American public office than Dick Cheney. For Dick Cheney to stand up and say anything other than "I have sinned!" is an exercise in bearing false witness to thy brother (on his part).
The following remarks of Dick Cheney's are enough to make Christ himself dyspeptic, make the Devil himself envious, and any sense of justice and rightness in our human arena shrivel and gasp its last.
How interesting that someone with the same moral compass as Saddam Hussein was able to preside over Saddam's downfall. If this is the pattern of tyrants being taken down, I hope I'm fortified by distance, liquor, and nubile women when Cheney's nemesis arises.
... perhaps it's already slouching its way toward Bethlehem...
Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney* What amazes me most is the lack of gall and outrage the American public seems to feel over the fact that the vast, vast majority of politicians who pushed for this illegitimate, wrong-headed war in Iraq not only never served their country in uniform, but actively avoided such service.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: "As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.
In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.
And the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.
They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn’t afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.
Those are facts.
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.*
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.
We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.
6 comments:
I'm not convinced Cheney is quite as bad as you think. He does have a point about members of congress who voted to go to war trying to jump ship and then blame the President for 'making' them vote for war. A while back we discussed the blame game in politics, that's what's going on now. The house and senate members are trying to get re-elected by not supporting an unpopular war, where as Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election.
Saddam was a 'bad guy', though we shouldn't forget that he was an American and British made bad-guy, something that Cheney never mentions in his 'those are the facts' dragnet style speeches.
Dick Cheney was one of the chief manipulators of intelligence in finding a pretext to go to war with Iraq. The fact that the people in Congress who should have known better than to trust this jackal caved in to BushCo's wishes does not exonerate him from his highly irresponsible and inaccurate charges. I genuinely believe Dick Cheney is an even worse human being than my grasp of language can describe.
From his non-service during Vietnam (explaining -- honest to God -- to an interviewer that he "had other priorities" at that time) -- a war he lustily supported -- to his realpolitick approach to business and government, to his unbelievable invocation of the troops he helped send to languish in Iraq, Dick Cheney represents the charnel depths of humanity.
Saddam was/is an absolute cretin. It's a testament to the man's evil that his entire nation had to be destroyed in order to facilitate his removal.
Could he have been removed in less harmful, destructive and deceitful manner? I'm sure the Dallas Cowby cheerleaders could have engineered a smoother regime-change in Iraq, than the dagnastic-duo, Bush and Cheney.
Matt,
I disagree with your assumption that Americans are not outraged. Don't fall into the same media-spun trap that has created so many of our problems today; there is a healthy movement afoot to counterbalance the freak shows on the right, and its success has been clearly measured by Bush's recent 36% approval rating, coupled with a 52% disapproval rating.
The proliferation of alternative media such as Air America has provided a forum to organize this movement for the first time in a way that mirrors what the conservatives have mastered for decades.
It is to one of these bastions that I turn to in order to second your disgust with Cheney's duplicity: the surprisingly erudite Al Franken. I don't normally do this, but I just had to share this tidbit as I'm sure you are one person who would truly appreciate it!
In his latest book, The Truth (with Jokes), Franken continues to use the facts to expose the lies by the conservative agendists. He notes Dick Cheney's speech to the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium on April 29, 1991:
"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have had to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have to put another government in its place. What kind of governement? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or a Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have to stay in Baghdad to keep the government in place? What would happen to the governement once U.S. forces withdrew? How many causualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stabilitity in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a president to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the president got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."
Funny how things change once you get the Haliburton stationary. Even scarier are Cheney's comments that you posted about the lies circling whether there were reasons to invade Iraq after 9/11. Condi Rice, on July 29, 2001, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer,
"In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
And yet, in less than two months Bush would describe Iraq (looking for someone to fight after 9/11) as having "the most lethal weapons ever divised."
Franken refers to this as, "an accomplishment that put the Manhattan Project to shame."
Excellent points, Robert, and you definitely caught me being entirely too vague about my belief that the American public appears unmoved by the fact that men who never went to war were so earnest about launching this war. My comment was a slap at the mainstream media -- but I now see that no one would guess that without ESP. I was entirely too vague in criticizing the means by which outrage would be displayed to the rest of the world.
Great quotes from Cheney. Slate has an interesting article on him coming out swinging.
As mentioned before: I am a Canadian citizen, and am open to being criticized for writing about the goings-on in another country. I reiterate my defense that since Bush/Cheney are a global problem, I speak of them as such.
And you're right, it's been very heartening to see how BushCo has been floundering of late -- floundering in meaningful, long-lasting ways. Support for that cabal is definitely waning.
Hilarious point you make about Cheney's ideas about Iraq changing once he was writing on Halliburton stationary.
I can honestly say that after my reading about McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran/Contra, et al, I never thought I would see such tyranny in my life occupy the oval office in America. I cringe at how naive that makes me seem, but it's the truth.
Matt, I am completly okay with Canadian citizens(and many others) criticizing American politics and social structure.
In November of '04 I was France. I had never been in a foreign country for the Presidential election before, I realized then what a world event it is. That the American President becomes the world's problem. The French were throwing parties complete with Uncle Sam Top Hats and red, white and blue bunting..all in support of Kerry. The vibe in Paris looked like mass suicides were imminent by the time it was clear Kerry lost.
As for Cheney, you could be right. Unfortunatly the more I read and the more I try to educate myself on just what the hell is going on/down there on Pensylvania Ave the more confused I get. Misinformation has run rampant, including stories from NBC and CBS. And when it's not misinformation 1)you don't know if it is or isnt and 2)All the good stuff is ommitted.
So the only things that are really clear to me is that somebody, somewhere(possibly a lot of bodies) royally fucked up a lot of shit and the press is not really the press, they're just another money-making capitalist slave organization with little morals and principles. I really do wish I could be more specific.
That's why we need you on that wall, Matt! Keep posting!!
Post a Comment