Dumbass Quote Of Note - Dick Cheney

"Go fuck yourself." -  Dick Cheney

Coincidentally, Cheney's outburst occurred on the same day that the Defense of Decency Act was passed in the Senate.

From The White House

Never Seen Anything Like It:

A new day? I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like it. The White House has given over basically it's entire website front page to a merciless clip video of all Dick Cheney's most ridiculous predictions and Iraq and Iran nonsense.

Dick Cheney Still Makes My Blood Boil

I did not know that Dick Cheney has a new heart from a transplant. Metaphorically, he still seems to have his old broken down, almost non-functional, and part mechanical old heart.

This morning CBS Sunday Morning aired an interview of Dick and Liz Cheney by Lee Cowan, because they have a new book out don'tcha know:

He was an early critic of the Obama administration's national security policies, especially the troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cheney is renewing his criticism of Mr. Obama with the help of his daughter, Liz, a former State Department official and one-time Senate candidate. In their upcoming book, "Exceptional," to be published by Simon & Shuster (a division of CBS), they accuse President Obama of retreating from the world's problems, diminishing America's power as the threat of terrorism rises.

Let's go back in time. First where Cheney himself reminded us:

"That when he was Secretary of Defense under the first Bush administration, he was a warm, pleasant, lovable fellow, and he became more of a hard rock afterwards."

Second where George H. W. Bush withdrew from the Middle East before Obama did:

His ability to gain broad international support for the Gulf War and the war's result were seen as both a diplomatic and military triumph, rousing bipartisan approval, though his decision to withdraw without removing Saddam Hussein left mixed feelings, and attention returned to the domestic front and a souring economy.^[132]

I wish that Lee Cowan had brought all of that up in his interview.

Here is more from the interview:

Take, for instance, their criticism of the president's recent nuclear deal with Iran -- a country Cheney's boss famously included in his "Axis of Evil."

"You say of the deal that the Obama agreement will one, lead to a nuclear-armed Iran; two, lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and three, the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's a pretty daunting prediction," said Cowan.

"We say it may well lead to the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki," said Liz. "This deal makes war more, not less likely."

"Think about what kind of a regime it is," said Dick Cheney. "They've violated virtually every agreement they've ever been a party to. I don't think they can be trusted. I think they've demonstrated that repeatedly."

"We say it may well lead to the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki," said Liz. I don't know how she can say that with a straight face. Fear of the other seems to be a Cheney obsession. The heartless Cheneys have no empathy, no ability to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. If they did, perhaps they would understand that there is the possibility that fear could be a driving force for Iran to feel a need to defend itself, especially from the United States, the country who has attacked so many in the Middle East, as well as being the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons. The Cheneys, no brains, no heart, no face muscles.

"Think about what kind of a regime it is. They've violated virtually every agreement they've ever been a party to. I don't think they can be trusted. I think they've demonstrated that repeatedly." How can Dick Cheney say this with a straight face. I imagine many Iranians say the same thing about the United States. The Cheneys, no brains, no heart, no face muscles.

The book is an expanded version of an op-ed the Cheneys wrote for the Wall Street Journal last year, where they laid out an argument that many of the GOP presidential hopefuls are now campaigning on: that the rise of the so-called Islamic State is Mr. Obama's fault.

Cowan asked, "Are you really laying the spread of ISIS at the President's feet?"

"I think the spread of ISIS was the direct result of the vacuum that was created when the Obama administration withdrew all our forces from Iraq," Cheney said. "We turned our backs on Iraq. We had Iraq in good shape by the time we left office. Even Obama said as much."

I'll let someone else have a say about ISIS:

Bush’s eventual defense regarding the intelligence failures was basically “Look, everyone makes mistakes.” Which is perfectly true and perfectly reasonable, actually. But if the war was a mistake, even an innocent or well-intentioned mistake, any justification for staying on and on has disappeared as well. More than a decade later, why are we still there? Max Boot, writing in Time magazine, used the word “credibility” to explain why we had to stay somewhere we never should have gone. I thought that, after Vietnam, we had pretty much killed that notion. But no, it’s back.

ISIS is merely the most recent in a parade of horrible groups, Shiite and Sunni, religious and secular, murderous and even more murderous, to which we have been introduced through the years. They sometimes are our friends, though secretly helping the other side, or they are sworn enemies of the imperialist aggressor (that is, us), but still secretly taking bribes from the C.I.A. They are often splinters from some larger tree, either “brand extension” by the original group or its sworn enemy due to ideological or religious differences that are impossible to fathom.

Where did ISIS come from? What ever happened to the other Middle East groups we used to know? Where is al-Qaeda? How about the Taliban? Does anyone remember the mujahideen? If you do, you’re really showing your age. The mujahideen were the freedom fighters we armed and trained in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan—a shrewd bank shot, everyone agreed, until, after the Soviets slunk away, we counted the leftover Stinger missiles in the freedom fighters’ broom closet and realized that many were now in the hands of unfriendly elements. And a lot of the mujahideen had gone with them.

It may be hard to believe, now that the media are all-ISIS-all-the-time, but the first reference to ISIS in any major news outlet—at least the first one referring to the now notorious terrorist group and not to Lord Grantham’s yellow Labrador, on Downton Abbey—was in the summer of 2013. This is not to criticize the media for being late to the party, or to suggest that the threat to Americans posed by ISIS is currently being exaggerated. It is merely to note that the number of analyses pouring out of Washington think tanks and experts available to CNN about who the heck these people are and what they want is pretty impressive, given that almost no one had heard of them a year ago. And it is also to note how fast the cast of characters in this drama can change, amid the anarchy we helped create—which is another reason not to leap to the assumption that anything further we might do would be of help.

Twenty-five years of this! And we were almost out of there when ISIS came along, through a door we opened to them in the first place.

Back to Lee Cowan and those loveable Cheneys:

"While you talk about the problem being that there was no stay-behind force, some would argue that the real problem was that we went in to Iraq in the first place," said Cowan.

"Well, I'm well known as somebody who has strongly defended that as the right thing to do. And I still believe that," he replied.

"You wouldn't change anything?"

"No," Cheney said. "There was widespread support at the time, and it was justified."

Cheney hasn't changed his mind about waterboarding either:

"First of all, it wasn't torture," Cheney argued. "Waterboarding, for example, 'torture,' that was the most egregious thing we did supposedly in the enhanced interrogation program."

Someone who has never been waterboarded has no right to claim that it is not torture. The dark side of me wishes Cheney had been waterboarded before he had a heart transplant. The bright side of me would not wish waterboarding on anyone, including Cheney.

Speaking of the dark side, someone put a Darth Vader hitch cover on Cheney's pick-up truck. Cheney seems to think this is all a big joke. He seems clueless about the fact that it symbolizes that many of us view him as evil incarnate.

I think that Dick Cheney could use a brain transplant, Liz too.

Please don't buy their book, haven't we had enough of them?

He Really Is A Dick

If we really are at war, as Dick Cheney claims, one might assume that an ex-Vice President of the United States would be able to put aside petty political posturing and offer support and experience. Not our Dick. Instead, all we get from him is lots of piss.

Update:
A mature person (who was also the former Vice President) would probably take any disagreement or concern that he has with Barack Obama’s foreign policy directly to Obama. Privately. Bitching about all of this in public is purely a political ploy on the Dickster's part.

The Good News And The Bad News

The good news of the day:
"I have no aspirations for further office," Cheney said in an interview with Politico.

The bad news of the day:
Barack Obama seems to be morphing into Dick Cheney: Obama Sending 30,000 More Troops To Afghanistan.

Can A Dick Be An Ass All At The Same Time?

Why hasn’t Dick Cheney been investigated for crimes against humanity? At the very least, why hasn’t Dick Cheney been shamed into oblivion?

From the current Say What? at the Doonesbury site:

"You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it."
-- Dick Cheney, on Richard Clarke

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (5/3/01)

"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (5/26/01)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (6/23/01)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (6/25/01)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (6/30/01)

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (7/02/01)

-- subject lines of Richard Clarke emails to Bush Administration prior to 9/11/01

I Refuse To Live In Dickworld

From Fresh Air Versus a Bunker by Eugene Robinson:

Which reality do you inhabit, Obama World or Cheney World? If it’s the latter, remember that storm clouds are always gathering. Don’t forget your umbrella.

In Obama World, it’s always morning. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping and the pollen count is low. In Cheney World, it’s perpetual twilight. Somewhere in the distance, a lone wolf howls at the rising moon.

In Obama World, human beings are flawed but essentially decent and rational. Most will behave in a way consistent with enlightened self-interest. In Cheney World, humanity’s defects are indelible and irredeemable. Absent evidence to the contrary, evil should be assumed to lurk in every heart. Better to do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you.

Read the rest here.

Illogical Dick

If Torture Stopped In 2004, How Is Obama Endangering Americans By Banning It?

Excuse Me Your Dick Is Out

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Excuse Me Your Dick Is Out
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Tiny Dick

From A Very Small Man by Josh Marshall:

Cheney's conceit is that he's tough enough, perhaps best to say, icy enough to make the trip to what he calls 'the dark side' to protect America. But the picture emerging even from his own comments is very different. It's of a small and paranoid man, a half-comic character off the pages of mid-20th century anti-totalitarian fiction, with a seemingly inordinate protectiveness for torture practices that seem to have been only marginally effective at best.

You start to get the sense that just as Cheney committed his historic goof of launching off into Iraq while forgetting about dealing with al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan he was doing something similar getting all wrapped up in the tough guy porn of torture that he remained ignorant of or just plain ignored the actual nuts and bolts of taking down or disabling terrorist organizations.

So by all means let him keep talking. As TPM Reader BH notes, he seems unable to maintain his famed self-discipline and indifference to public opinion as his own sorry record dribbles into the public record. The more that comes out about him, the more pathetic he seems. Paranoia, serial poor judgment, inability to distinguish desires from facts and an almost adolescent inability not to get drawn into the thrill of the 'dark side'.

Dick Denial

Does Dick Cheney really think that he is a righteous, moral, and just person? Does he truly believe his strange and twisted ideas of what is best for this country? Does the fact that the majority of this country think that he is not only wrong, but also evil, have any chance of changing his mind? Or is he simply in denial?

The Dark Dick

Dick Cheney was on Face the Nation on Sunday.

From Dick Cheney's Faux Arguments by Conor Friedersdorf:

This is confusing. One minute, Cheney is arguing that it is wrongheaded to abandon a tactic that works, never mind strategy, because it’s important to do whatever it takes to get the information needed to save American lives. So Schieffer asks, “what you’re saying here is that we should do anything”? And Cheney won’t defend that proposition. He implies that no, we should only interrogate in ways that are in accordance with American law and international treaties we’ve signed. Except he clearly doesn’t believe that — actions speak louder than words!

Even focusing narrowly on the words above, Dick Cheney is unable to defend any coherent position. It is difficult to refute him, as he isn’t saying much of substance directly — much of his arguments are implied. But I can say this: certain assertions he is definitely making are factually wrong — the Bush Administration violated domestic law and the Geneva Conventions, the OLC be damned — and the arguments he implies are inconsistent with one another.

If this is the best case that can be made for the Bush era interrogation practices, they’re even less defensible than I imagined.

What Has Changed?

As far as I know the Bush/Cheney administration is the only administration in the history of the United States to condone torture. It is the only administration to have its lawyers “fix it” so that torture appears to be legal. Even Saint Ronald McReagan did not officially condone torture.

We went up against Hitler without officially sanctioning torture. We went up against Stalin without officially sanctioning torture. What has changed? Is Osama Bin Laden worse than Hitler and Stalin? Or is it that the Bush/Cheney administration is worse than Hitler and Stalin? After all, Hitler and Stalin never succeeded in destroying the ideals that the United States stands for. Bush and Cheney have come too damn close.

Knowing Right From Wrong, Knowing What Works And What Doesn't

The latest right-wing talking point is that torture is immoral, but the “big” question is: Does it work? Supposedly, the right-wing dunderheads think that it does, or that maybe it does. So it was OK that we did it.

What is the next step here. Stealing is immoral, but it works. Murder is immoral, but it works. They get the job done. By the logic of the right-wing dunderheads we all should be stealing and murdering. They get the job done. And that’s all that matters. Right?

Actually, stealing and murder make more sense than torture. They work. They are effective. Torture doesn’t work. It is not effective. No wonder Bush and Cheney like it so much. Remember the last eight years and how effectively they ran the country? Is it any surprise that that the king fuck-ups of all time actually prefer something that doesn’t work?

From Have we really sunk so low as to seriously ask, Does torture work? by P.M. Carpenter:

On the other hand, despite recent revelations that Bush-Cheney's architects were grossly unschooled in the historical background of torture's efficacy in wringing accurate information, they, as reasonably well-educated people, had to understand the simple logic of duress = gibberish.

Why, then, torture? Why extract reams of unreliable information which sends thousands of other operatives scurrying about the globe in futile attempts to nail it down, especially when actionable intelligence was already being extracted through other interrogative means?

Why? I can think of no reason other than nakedly brutal revenge -- a deep-seated animalistic urge to inflict pain for pain caused. True confessions, false confessions, good information or bad information -- all of it, to the architects, at their deepest inhuman level (scarier yet, perhaps all too human), was essentially irrelevant. They just wanted the emotionally primitive satisfaction of savage payback.

Maybe there are throngs of behavioral psychiatrists that would tell me I'm all wet. But I doubt it. So as committees convene and hearings commence in the bewildering pursuit of answering the staggeringly malignant question, Does torture work?, perhaps they should first ask: Why even ask? At its root is sadistic barbarity, which was not, last I looked, a founding principle of this nation to be defended.

Update:
From Reclaiming America’s Soul by Paul Krugman:

It’s hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn’t, now declare that we should forget the whole era — for the sake of the country, of course.

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

Join The Peace Team

"Extend the Statute Of Limitations on Bush and Cheney's Wiretapping and War Crimes."

"A grownup in a house overrun for too long by children"

From Adult Supervision by Bruce A. Jacobs:

At last: we have an adult in the White House.

The joy on The Mall, where a million-plus of us stood gleefully freezing our asses off to personally experience the transfer of power; the satisfaction that must now be felt by the Iraq vet who once told me that if Dick Cheney had paid a review-the-troops visit to his unit he would have shown Cheney his back and accepted the consequences; the calmly surgical tone with which the inaugural Obama politely dressed down the joy-riding Bush and challenged we citizens to heft the nation's instruction manual and begin repairs of the wreckage; the global relief and celebration at the moment of the inauguration. It all comes down, I think, to the same shared feeling: Whew. Thank God there is now an adult in charge in Washington.

That is what this is about. Beneath the crying need for new policy, for honesty and trust, for intelligent and well-informed governance, is our simple need to know that the United States is no longer being led by a child, a churlish boy who lied when it suited him and blamed others for his failures and who could not be bothered to think hard or to govern thoughtfully. And so off he trots now, back to his spread in Texas, grinning about his presidential frolic, joking about the good times he's had, high-fiving his half-ruined country and the smoking wreckage of Iraq on his way out the door.

Faith In Obama?

One reaction I have to the inauguration yesterday is to wonder how skeptical Americans actually are. I find it difficult to express the amount of adulation and unbridled joy that so many expressed. I am too skeptical for that. I will wait and see what happens before I even think about expressing joyfulness about Obama. Right now I am simply joyful that Bush is no longer president, and Cheney is no longer vice president.

Constitutional Accountability

Isn’t it our duty as citizens of the United States of America to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for violations to the United States Constitution?

From Memo to Obama: Moving Forward Doesn't Mean You Can't Also Look Back by Arianna Huffington:

In one week, the U.S. Constitution will be front and center as Barack Obama solemnly swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. Given all that has happened over the last eight years, that oath is not nearly as pro-forma as it used to be.

During his final press conference yesterday, President Bush said that when it came time "to protect the homeland" he "wouldn't worry about popularity." He would "worry about the Constitution of the United States." It wasn't clear, as it hasn't been for most of his time in office, whether his concern was directed at upholding the document or circumventing it.

So as the Obama Years are about to begin, one of the questions facing the new president is what will he do about the transgressions of the Bush Years? Will his promise to protect and defend the Constitution include an investigation into the assaults on it perpetrated by members of the Bush administration?

Given the multiple -- and massive -- obstacles looming directly in front of him, Obama is wise not to be driving into the Oval Office looking in his rearview mirror. But I hope he will realize that moving forward and looking backwards are not mutually exclusive. Particularly if he isn't the one focused on the past.

There is no doubt that the economic crisis, Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, and the regulation of Wall Street should be the Obama administration's primary concerns.

But that doesn't mean we, as a country, should allow Bush and Cheney's offenses to accompany their perpetrators to a peaceful retirement in Texas and Wyoming.

Cheney's Can Of Worms

From Cheney's Legacy of Deception by Robert Scheer:

In the end, the shame of Vice President Dick Cheney was total: unmitigated by any notion of a graceful departure, let alone the slightest obligation of honest accounting. Although firmly ensconced, even in the popular imagination, as an example of evil incarnate--nearly a quarter of those polled in this week's CNN poll rated him the worst vice president in US history, and 41 percent as "poor"--Cheney exudes the confidence of one fully convinced that he will get away with it all.

And why not? Nothing, not his suspect role in the Enron debacle, which foretold the economic meltdown, or his office's fabrication of the false reasons for invading Iraq, has ever been seriously investigated, because of White House stonewalling. Nor will the new president, committed as he is to nonpartisanship, be likely to open up Cheney's can of worms.

Read the rest here.

Rules Are Rules

Rules are rules, unless you’re George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, of course.

I agree with Josh Marshall about the Blagojevich/Burris matter. You can’t blame Burris for accepting the appointment, however. It has given him much publicity. I wonder if it will come back in the future and bite him on the ass; say, the next time he runs for office.

I don’t understand why the media is giving this topic so much exposure.

From Alas, I Think She's Right by Josh Marshall:

But Blagojevich is the governor of the Illinois. And the Governor appoints senators to vacant seats. He hasn't been convicted of anything, which is no mere technicality. And I don't think anyone has seriously claimed that this appointment is tainted by corruption.

If there was a real belief that Burris's appointment had been bought, then I think more aggressive and expansive refusal would be justified. But as I said, I don't think anyone is really suggesting that. So as awkward and untoward as the whole thing may be, I really question the wisdom and possibly also the legality of not swearing him in. Rules are rules.

I could be persuaded otherwise. And I'm not losing much sleep over Burris's plight. But rules are rules. And I'm not sure what's being accomplished with this spectacle.

Why go after Blagojevich and Burris with such intensity while omitting Bush and Cheney from accountability? Why go after Thomas Tamm with such intensity while omitting Bush and Cheney from accountability?

From The DOJ puruses the "real criminal" in the NSA spying scandal by Glenn Greenwald:

That's America's justice system in a nutshell: the President who deliberately and knowingly violated our 30-year-old law making it a felony offense to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants has the entire political and media class eagerly defend him against prosecution. Those who enabled him -- in both parties -- block investigations into what was done. Ruth Marcus and Cass Sunstein and friends offer one excuse after the next to justify this immunity. But the powerless and defenseless -- though definitively courageous -- public servant who blew the whistle on this lawbreaking is harassed, investigated, and pursued by the DOJ's Criminal Division to the point of bankruptcy and depression, while the lawbreakers and their enablers stand by mute and satisfied.

We desperately need to hold the most powerful among us accountable for what they do. We will only be screwed over and over again until we do. Pardon me from the sins of the rich and powerful.

Here is the address of the Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund:

Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund
Bank of Georgetown
5236 44th Street
Washington, DC 20015.