Sir Dick Cheney

I’ve heard it said that Dick Cheney thinks he’s a latter-day Winston Churchill (or was it that Scooter Libby thinks Dick is Winston Churchill? — too lazy to find the reference). Well, Dick, I’m sorry to break it to you: you ain’t no Sir Winston, so stop with the lame, apocalyptic, “war-rousing” rhetoric. It just makes you look desperate. American kids are not dying (or haven’t been dying — I accept that things are a little better now) because of the loyal opposition. They’re dying because you and your hawkish buddies had a great plan to defeat Iraq, but severely cocked-up the occupation. As one sage put it, “Dick Cheney, before he dicks you.”

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Sir Dick Cheney

  1. Strange Ronan. But I don’t see anything apocalyptic or “war-rousing” in this piece. I see a very defensible claim that Democratic leadership now impLYING that they were somehow mislead into war, charging (quite absurdly) that President Bush lied in making the case for war and forgetting that the most alarmist comments about Iraqi WMD were made by Clinton people like Robert Einhorn and Ken Pollack NOT by anyone in the Bush admin…that all of this constitutes “cynical” and “opportunistic” behavior. Yes. Tell me how it doesn’t.

    Like

  2. And while you’re at it, can you tell me where this Churchill thing comes from? I can’t really see Dick whipping out his Winston in public like that. Were you, perhaps, just looking for an opp to expose the “Dick Cheney before Cheney dicks you remark”?

    Like

  3. < HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9866494/site/newsweek/" REL="nofollow">From Newsweek on Libby<> (but you can dismiss this because it’s from the liberal media):“His [Libby’s] greatest hero is Winston Churchill. Talking to a NEWSWEEK reporter two months after 9/11, Libby pointed to the portrait of Winston Churchill directly behind his desk. When the hijacked planes hit the Twin Towers, Libby said, the portrait shook. He grinned to show that he was kidding—but he wasn’t, really. He felt an enormous spiritual kinship, he said, with the small band of men around Churchill who warned in the 1930s about the gathering Nazi storm, who were ignored and shunned—but then vindicated at England’s finest hour. <>Libby compared Vice President Cheney to Churchill<>—a born leader who was instantly aware, in the moment of crisis, that destiny had called him to defend his country.”And look, I admit that the Dems are playing politics. But get over it. That’s what politicians do. Some might argue that that’s what loyal oppositions do. But not in King Cheney’s world. What gets my goat is the notion that this is somehow endangering the troops’ lives. There are greater dangers in this world to American troops than Congress.Go HEADLIFE! This is awesome.

    Like

  4. And to add about those lying Dems, that liberal RAG, the <>New York Times<> (may it rot in hell with all other non-Fair-and-Balanced media outlets) suggested in a quite compelling < HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials" REL="nofollow">editoral<> that in fact, the current RNC talking point– that Clinton and the Dems had the same intel– is, to use a British term, rubbish.

    Like

  5. First off Lancer–if that claim is “rubbish” then you’d better tell Bill since it was he himself who said it in the Summer of 04. Or go read the article by his aide Ken Pollack from March 04 in the Atlantic Monthly (is this one fair enough and balanced enough?) and tell me what the Clinton Admin thought about Iraq. Second Ronan–please. It isn’t about the loss of American lives. It’s about cheapening of America’s public discourse when half of it’s elected reps pretend to have forgotten their former positions when they think they can hop the train to political gain. I promise you this–I will be (have been, always am) just as unsparing with Republicans who play this kind of game as I am with Republicans. But whatever your view of the decision to go to war in Iraq, playing the fate of 20 million Iraqis for a bit of tawdry political gain is pretty poor stuff.

    Like

  6. Said Cheney, KBE, in his speech:“There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat… that he had violated UN 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…”He’s right that there was broad, bi-partisan agreement that Saddam was potential threat who had a dodgy past. What’s revisionist about Richard’s remarks is that we weren’t told by Blair and Bush that he had a HISTORY of WMD programs. We were told he HAD a WMD program, period. Big diff.Look, I’m glad Saddam is on trial, I wish our troops in Iraq well, I want us to succeed, and I want Iraq to succeed. But Zarqawi and friends are not blowing people up because of Harry Reid, and suggestions to the contrary represent serious political playmaking.

    Like

  7. I’ll check out the Atlantic Monthly. But I’m sure Clinton wasn’t pimping the Al-Qaeda connection (or was he?) And I swear I never heard “mushroom cloud” with that administration. But perhaps it was different times, so the rhetoric was different.And I can’t wait for that scathing attack on Right Wingers/Republicans.

    Like

  8. Hey Stu– just checked, but I couldn’t < HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/index.htm" REL="nofollow">find<> anything. Is the reference right, or am I missing it?Thanks!

    Like

  9. And let me add here– in the end, I don’t mind too much about that war. Hussein was crazy and horrible. Get RID of him. I just wish someone smarter– a child, perhaps, or a small monkey– could have done the military planning for the post-war effort. And lacking that, I wish that our dumb-and-stubborn president would have the GUTS to fire the idiots who are/were doing the planning some the right things could be done.But Bush is cowardly/stupid/a stooge, (or all three!) and here we are. Hooray for the Far Right!

    Like

  10. And finally, here’s a nice < HREF="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.marshall.html" REL="nofollow">review<> of one of Pollack’s books (but a rather smart but liberal bloggers) with a favorable notion of the ideas expressed within.All told, Pollack (from what I gathered) argued for ousting Saddam, but for more complex and less WMD-NOW! reasons, but no less (indeed, given what we know now, much MORE) compelling.More importantly (unless you’re part of the Right-Wing echo-chamber of AM talk radio), he notes how we shouldn’t go to war. Too bad Rumsfeld didn’t listen. Oh well, perhaps Iran will greet us as liberators.

    Like

  11. That last comment is too funny Lancer (not so much yours but whatever blogger you’re quoting)–and all too indicative of the “don’t-need-to-check-my-facts-hell-don’t-even-need-to-look-at-the-title-of-Pollack’s-book” sloppiness that often shows up among the most desperate Bush haters. Pollack’s book is called “The Gathering Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.”

    Like

Comments are closed.