bustardblog

Typical Dick

One can only be amused at the Brownshirts at places like Redstate and JulesChrittenden applauding an American government official launching vicious partisan political attacks at another government official while overseas.

But then concepts like obscenity on the Senate floor, the "water's edge," shooting friends in the face, are just not applicable to Dick Cheney.

Retreat is the Only Option

By issuing a partisan attack piece on the morning of the State of the Union Address,The Bush administration reiterates it's position on Iraq: no matter what is said tonight, there will be no real change in strategy or policy. Bush will leave office to crawl back to Crawford with a full complement of troops fighting, and dying in Iraq, and he will do everything within his power to blame the next President for his failures.

Liz Cheney doesn't even bother to make effort to disguise her op-ed in the Washington Post as an analysis.  Instead, she makes it clear what she's about when she begins with a childish smear about Hillary Clinton's ambitions. The following is a slur, not an argument:

Anyone who has watched her [Clinton's] remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency."

Cheney (fille) then writes a lot of garbage that defies  both historical and current reality in Iraq. One of her more outrageous assertions is that we must stay to protect allies like Pakistan's  Pervez Musharraf. Based on a lot of recent reporting, the N.Y. Times wrote in an editorial today:

Pakistan is now the third-largest recipient of American foreign aid. Yet more than five years after 9/11, the Bush administration has still not been able to secure Pakistan’s active and consistent support against the Taliban. The very least Washington should be demanding of President Musharraf is that he enforce an immediate halt on Pakistani military support for the Taliban insurgents who are crossing the border and killing American troops.

Frankly, I don't want to see a single U.S. soldier die to protect Musharraf, and his "support... for ...insurgents... who are... killing American troops.

Cheney writes that the recent rout of Republicans in Congressional elections did not show that Americans:

want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations., They did not say that they would rather fight the terrorists here at home.

They also did not say that they want permanent war. What their votes did prove is that they no longer believe the lies of the Cheney/Bush team, nor do they accept the use by this administration of fear, of terror, as a campaign tool.

Although I have strongly opposed to this war since before it began, I am concerned about our responsibilty to Iraq for the evil we have unleashed in that  benighted land.  I would welcome serious analysis or suggestions on what we should do next - but there is no way that these will come from an administration that relies on Dick Cheney or  Karl Rove.

These guys are poison to our body politic. They insult us by continuing to use slurs, lies and fear in lieu of arguments which would sway us.

(Thanks [?] to memeorandum)

 

Bombing Tehran

Bush, unfortunately, is not morphing into Willy Loman. Atrios recently linked to Joshua Mica Marshall, and they made me consider this possibility. But I don't see it.

W is perhaps even more divorced from reality than Willy, but he retains actual, real power.  They both seemingly lost their ability to sell ice in the Arctic, but while Willy realized it on some level, W had never in fact had such a talent.  W, always the cheerleader, exaggerated his contribution to the game's final score; but in fact losing the game didn't really matter very much to him.

Bush is also not becoming Hamlet any time soon. Seymour Hersh's article in this week's New Yorker evokes a tortured Prince, torn between options. I don't see this one either. In my opinion, Hersh uncharacteristically misses the character that is the man.

Marshall's post noted the lack of Bush's strident voice on Iraq in recent days. He feels that the in the last election the public has

now given Bush "the rebuke...And what is more than that he validated it, confirmed the rejection by summarily firing his Defense Secretary...With that admission out of the way, there's really no more cheer leading to be done for the whole effort."

Atrios wrote that he isn't sure Marshall is right, but speculates that Bush "might just check out."

When Bush got into office the only majority on his side were the members of the Supreme Court. Still, he claimed to have received a mandate from the voters. Bush holds democracy in far too much contempt to even recognize, let alone respect, the vote as a rebuke for his policies. Rumsfeld was not fired because Bush lost faith in him. He was merely cast aside as a sop to a country asking for change. But Bush does not intend to change.

Bush failed at selling a mythical vision of his policies. He remains the child furious at being caught with his hand in the cookie jar - but his concern is only about being caught, not about the behavior itself. He's still determined to get the cookie.

Similarly, Hersh's piece speculates that Bush's next move in the Middle East will be tempered by the chastening he received in November for his aggressive, failed foreign policy. In fact, a lot of Bush's team is eagerly preparing and plotting our next attack.

It will piece of cake. This time they'll do it right. There'll be no occupation of Iran. We will simply do that bombing, that shocking and awe-ing thing, which we do so well.

That haven for neo-cons, The American Enterprise Institute, has recently assisted at the birth of the Iran Enterprise Institute. Richard Perle, one of the most influential and strongest supporters of the war in Iraq, will undoubtedly fight so the seat next to Laura Bush (aka the Ahmad Chilabi chair) at the next State of the Union address  be occupied by Iranian refugee Amir Abbas Fakhravar. (Laura Rozen expresses doubts about how well connected he really is in Iran, here.) Others present at the founding of the I.E.I include Reza Pahlavi (son of the former Shah) and the ever effervescent Michael Ledeen. One of it's supporters is Joshua Muravchik, whose piece in Foregin Affairs Hersh referred to, where he wrote that  "one should make no mistake" that Bush will bomb Iran before leaving office. He also wrote  an op-op-ed for the L.A. Times whose first sentence is "WE MUST bomb Iran."

Muravchik works with Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Michael Rubin, and Lynn Cheney at The American Enterprise Institute.  Michael Ledeen was the first executive director of a powerful Pro-Israel lobbying group, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, on whose board of advisors Muravchick also sits. (Former board members include Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle.) Although smaller than AIPAC, JINSA is an integral part of The Israel Lobby, as written about by Mearshimer and Walt in the London Review of Books.

The outgoing Ambassador to the U.S. from Israel is confident that Bush will do it, As Amb. Ayalon told the Ma'ariv paper "From his [Bush's] standpoint, ayatollahs with a bomb is unacceptable. ..he will not hesitate to go all the way."

If this seems like a tangled web -  it's because it is - and it is virtually the sidentical web which guided us into Iraq. Four of the most frequently used that Hersh and others employ to make a case that Bush will not bomb Tehran are as follows:

• He's chastened by the elections. There is no evidence that Bush has ever had an iota of respect for the electorate, or for democracy itself.
• He's learned from the debacle in Iraq. Sorry, but to Bush, there is no debacle in Iraq.
• Rice, at the State Department, is more influential with W than was Powell. This may be true, but there is no reason to believe she ever disagrees with Cheney or W in any serious way. (The Vice Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs is Elizabeth Cheney.)
• The new Sect'y of Defense Gates and James Baker will restrain him. This is the silliest of the four. Gates, after all, is the guy who wanted to bomb Nicaragua during the late '80s.  He's the guy who was a millimeter away from being indicted during Iran-Contra. Furthermore, Bush has made it abundantly clear that he does not consult with his father nor his fathers friends.  Remember, he consulted with a higher father when he led us into Iraq.

Tragically, Bush will bomb Iran with the next two years. After all he is merely a pawn in the hands of God, who selected him to bring democracy, and Western values, to the infidel.

Willy Loman's powerlessness meant his only option was his own suicide. Bush still is the most powerful man on earth. It's not his own suicide that worries me.

UPDATE:
It seems that Andrew Sullivan and I are on the same page when it comes to Bush's tenuous grasp of reality.

Republican Pain

It can't be easy being a Republican these days.

Gingrich and Osama agree that we are now in World War III. Are Gingrich and Osama really supposed to be on the same page?

Cheney tells Timmy that nothing we've done in Iraq was wrong - he wouldn't change a thing. Isn't he supposed to be on the same side as reality?

Reagan P.R. flack Noonan reports on what the giggling Laura and W. did on the night of 9/11/2001. (It had to do with his need to be well-rested - but they are zany, those two!) [H/T Attaturk] But I thought Noonan was supposed to help their image?

Bush P.R. flack Karen Hughes is outraged that there are "those who try to justify the violence [of 9/11] based on policy differences,[or] long-held grievances..."

Regan P.R. flack Dinesh D'Souza does just that - he blames 9/11 on policy differences; or as his publisher describes it in his new book

He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce,

If no-fault divorce is really to blame for 9/11, I suppose we should incarcerate one of the following: (Please vote on who you think deserves to hang)

1.  

     2.

or #3.

Don't worry about which answer is right; it's a trick question. They are all Mrs. Rudolph Giuliani.  The first is Donna Hanover Giuliani, whose marriage to Rudy was her second, and lasted 16 years.  Number 2 was only married to Rudy for 14 years -  Regina Peruggi Giuilani, who was Rudy's first wife and third cousin.  Number 3, of course, is Rudy's third wife, Judi Giuliani, the former Mrs. Bruce Nathan.

Rudy's marital history might seem confusing, but to be a Republican these days you just have to become accustomed things being a little bit jumbled, and at odds with reality.

Attacking Those Who Serve

As I write this post, the institution that formerly functioned as the U.S. Congress debates a sham of a resolution. Once again, the Republican Party is using this war as a way to divide the country and gain partisan advantage. I only wish that this administration had tried half so hard to win this war as they have tried to win elections. The non-binding resolution now on the floor is an attempt to embarrass Democrats and to cast them as un-patriotic. It's only value is as a Republican dirty trick.  It  harms the war effort, as it advances Rove's strategy of polarizing the country. This, perhaps the laziest Congress in our history, is engaging in this farce, in lieu of functioning, on the day where the number of U.S. dead in Iraq top 2,500.

This Congress can compete handily with the one Harry Truman described as 'do-nothing', but in one thing: corruption. Republicans in Truman's day ran a Congress that actually did nothing. It did not spend the little time it met breaking House rules, incapacitating the Ethics Committee, and buying and selling votes on the floor like they were pork bellies on a commodity exchange. I haven't even mentioned  Duke Cunningham or Jack Abramoff, whose additional degradation of the institution was considerable. The damage that today's Republicans have done to our legislature is enormous. But I think it reversible. When the electorate finally tires of being robbed, it will want to clean House.

I am much more concerned about the destruction of a more fragile,yet more important aspect of America: the concept of service.  This week we have seen the minions of Bush and Cheney viciously attack, and mock, and demean the service of Congressman Murtha. He fought in two wars, received several medals and awards, and was with the Marine Corps for 37 years. Bush of course did not complete his National Guard Service. (Hell, Bush could not even stand to spend the full six hours he was scheduled to spend in Iraq on Monday. He was out in less than five. Think of soldiers redeployed, and redeployed again.) Cheney had other priorities and so he obtained five deferments during Viet Nam. Both Cheney and Bush have spent their time in that revolving door of politics and business.They have each made tens of millions of dollars this way, while Murtha is counting on his pension from his service with the Marines and in Congress.

The concept of serving our country is being attacked by this administration. Purple hearts earned during combat have no more meaning than little band-aids printed with hearts and handed out at a poltical convention.

A new generation of vets is now coming home. Several are running as Democrats in 2006. What message will Rove send to those still serving, or those contemplating enlisting, when he makes a mockery of service in Iraq?

There will be a guy leaving Walter Reed in a wheel chair who questions the planning of this war. How will his brothers in arms feel while Ann Coulter screams that it was his own stupidity that led to the loss of his limbs?

How long will people want to serve a country where the guy who went off to fight two tours in Viet Nam is called a coward, while the guy who stayed home and pursued his career is now rich and powerful. 

Jonah Goldberg, whose personal wealth and whose career trajectory have so benefited by this war in which he would not serve, decided not to go in order to provide his wife and infant child the life style to which they would like to be accustomed. Soon, the next soldier similar to a Jose Velez, father of two from the Bronx who was killed in Kirkuk this week, will realize that serving one's country is considered a game for losers.

At that time, all the chickens that Ann, Jonah, Karl, Dick and George are so energetically raising, will finally come home to roost. And we will be the lesser for it.

The Americans with Disabilities Act

No one can be surprised that a Hannity or a Limbaugh defended Mlle. Coulter for her vile smears, but frankly I am disappointed in Mary Matalin and John Tierney.
I disagree with virtually every word that comes out of Matalin's mouth, but I did think she had some common decency. I know that she was Dick Cheney's personal political operative and spin-meister for a while, but she is married to Carville; she does have children. Tierney, too, is someone with whom I frequently don't agree, but his defense of Coulter is shocking to me.
There is of course the absurd unfairness in the discussion of this issue. As Media Matters pointed out, Bush had three 9/11 widows speaking in prime time at the Republican convention and also made a television commercial using a child of one of the victims of that day. But expecting fairness from a Matalin or a Tierney would be silly.

The reason that their reaction is so shocking is because the far right clearly has decided that the concept of sacrifice must be denigrated if they are to maintain their hold on power. Sacrifice is a thing to be mocked, not respected in the world of the neo-con. After the New Jersey widows, Coulter this week once again attacked the thrice amputated Max Cleland. We all remember the Swiftboating of John Kerry.

Neither Bush nor Cheney has ever attended the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq. As Maureen Dowd wrote a few weeks ago, the dead in Iraq, both American and Iraqi, are rendered invisible and faceless by this administration. In order to keep campaign donations flowing, no financial sacrifice can be asked of anyone, especially of the rich. For the first time in history, taxes were lowered, particularly for the top 1 %, in a time of war.

Analyzing military sacrifice by Republican Senators is helps one understand what is happening. Less than 10% of the GOP Senators have seen active combat. Of those, only two could be considered potential candidates for higher office. Senators Warner and Stevens served in long past wars, and can challenge no one's future.  The two Republican Senators who actually went to war in Viet Nam are Hagel and McCain: hardly the darlings of the right. McCain's service was demeaned before, and it will be again.  The Mitch McConnells , Rick Santorums, MikeDeWines never sacrificed a thing for their country.

The Democratic Party has a whole subgroup of candidates for the 2006 House and Senate elections called The Fighting Dems. They are young veterans who have been to war, many of them in Iraq.  Republican operatives cannot allow actual service to be admired, or they're out of a job.

Most of the current crop of GOP Senators, guys like Thune, Shelby and Sununu, have never had a job outside of government, let alone seen combat.

The American people should be grateful to the "Jersey Widows," who after losing their husbands fought like hell for the 9/11 Commission, hoping that if we could figure out what really happened that day, we could figure out how to make sure it never happened again. Today, the right gleefully insults them and their loss.

The Republican party has changed. When Bob Dole was fighting for passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, his withered arm, which had been destroyed in WWII, was seen as a sign of sacrifice, and his words were heard with added respect. To people like Karl Rove's friend Matalin, John Tierney and the despicable Ann Coulter, that same arm would have meant that he had to keep silent, or face derision.

Will we ever have our country back?

T.F.'s

It was just two TomFriedmans ago that Vice President Dick Cheney announced that the insurgency was in its "last throes." It was May 31, 2005 that CNN reported on his statement. Since then, 805 more U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
Today's NY Times reports that the Pentagon's quarterly report to the Congress yesterday said that the "strength of the insurgents 'will likely remain steady throughout 2006'" but "will begin to wane in early 2007." In other words, it will remain constant for a little more than one TomFriedman.  Assuming that the Pentagon is not being overly optimistic, Cheney will be proven wrong by more than three TomFriedmans, and over 1200 U.S. Dead.
Why can't he just go back to shooting friends in the face?
P.S. When did the U.S. Government decide to run on TomFriedman time.

Iranian Economic Immigration

Today, Condi Rice held a news conference in which she broached the idea of talking with Iran. The President has finally decided to appoint a person with intelligence, competence and backbone to the Cabinet. Recently, his speech on Immigration could be considered reasonable by thinking people.

Is this the beginning of the end for the Cheney and Rumsfeld?

1996

In 1996, one of our nation's leaders was opposed to sanctions against Iran, and noted that "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to ...get everybody else to live the way we would like."
That leader was then the head of Haliburton, Dick Cheney, who earned over 8 million dollars from his old company in 2005.

Hypocrisy

When it comes to the Bush administration, hypocrisy competes daily with incompetence as the most defining characteristic.

Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech today, in which he said that:

“In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties — the Government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people.”

This was no mea culpa. Don;t expect an apology anytime soon.This was part of an address that he made in Moscow today. Moscow, the capital of a country whose leader is Putin.  Putin, the leader of Russia. The man into whose soul Bush can see. Russia, an absolutely essential ally in any attempt to slow down Iran's production of nuclear weapons.