Better than funerals.
The New York Times editors can breathe a sigh of relief. President Bush has finally figured out what it is that vice presidents are for. It's not setting energy policy in backroom meetings and then having his friends in the oil industry lie to Congress about the existence of those meetings*. It's not having aides leak classified info to reporters as part of a revenge strategy against ideological dissidents. It's not even lobbying hard for the president's God-given right to have torture performed in his name (possibly by lions, but Rumsfeld thinks that's "far fetched". Electrocution, then.) Today, Cheney sucked it up and did the job Bush actually chose him (or more accurately allowed him to choose himself) to do:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.
Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
..."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," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.
Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
See, when Cheney is too busy setting policy to do this partisan stuff, the president has to do it himself. And frankly, accusing Democrats of rewriting history and taking potshots at former rivals on a patriotic holiday just isn't that presidential. It might even get you attacked by skittish members of your own party**. It certainly doesn't do much to bump the approval ratings in a positive direction. And, on a symbolic level, it just isn't the sort of thing you'd normally expect from Osama bin Laden's nemesis.
Cheney's approval ratings, on the other hand, are much less relevant. That's why he needs to be out there spitting in the bucket, upsetting everybody's happy thoughts about the get-along "party of performance" on his boss' behalf. Today, he finally got on the ball. Better late than never I guess.
* As an aside, this was the fucking stupidest thing to lie about. Basically, they lied about industry reps meeting the "task force" to appease the Sierra Club and various green Democrats in Congress. But they could have accomplished that by just agreeing to meet with some enviros, as well as with industry reps, and then later ignoring the enviros' concerns. In fact, that would have made far more sense: whenever policy is made, everyone gets heard out and some people's concerns just get partially or totally ignored. Alternatively, if the Bushies blatantly didn't care what the enviros thought, they could have just admitted to meeting with the industry reps anyway, and screw you, your guy lost the election. Instead, they chose the single option that combined contempt for adversaries and corporate whoring with that administration fave: lying. It's like they just can't help themselves. They thrill-lie. It's lying as crack. The sheer contempt of it is just irresistible. And as always, their habit has come back to bite them in the ass. Again. Which just adds more support for my theory that this crew is the most incompetent bunch of liars the US political system has ever spat to the top. They lie without any apparent method. (For anyone who links through, I'm still hoping to be proved correct about Rove.)
** Blood-in-the-water watch. The last three paragraphs of the linked WaPo article (emphasis mine):
Rumsfeld [joining in the attack on Tuesday] described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.
However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.
Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.
Sadly, other media weren't quite as upfront about Rumsfeld's distortions, but at least the WaPo reporter got it about right.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a "dishonest and reprehensible" political ploy.
Cheney called Democrats "opportunists" who were peddling "cynical and pernicious falsehoods" to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
..."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," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program.
Cheney said the suggestion Bush or any member of the administration misled Americans before the war "is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."
See, when Cheney is too busy setting policy to do this partisan stuff, the president has to do it himself. And frankly, accusing Democrats of rewriting history and taking potshots at former rivals on a patriotic holiday just isn't that presidential. It might even get you attacked by skittish members of your own party**. It certainly doesn't do much to bump the approval ratings in a positive direction. And, on a symbolic level, it just isn't the sort of thing you'd normally expect from Osama bin Laden's nemesis.
Cheney's approval ratings, on the other hand, are much less relevant. That's why he needs to be out there spitting in the bucket, upsetting everybody's happy thoughts about the get-along "party of performance" on his boss' behalf. Today, he finally got on the ball. Better late than never I guess.
* As an aside, this was the fucking stupidest thing to lie about. Basically, they lied about industry reps meeting the "task force" to appease the Sierra Club and various green Democrats in Congress. But they could have accomplished that by just agreeing to meet with some enviros, as well as with industry reps, and then later ignoring the enviros' concerns. In fact, that would have made far more sense: whenever policy is made, everyone gets heard out and some people's concerns just get partially or totally ignored. Alternatively, if the Bushies blatantly didn't care what the enviros thought, they could have just admitted to meeting with the industry reps anyway, and screw you, your guy lost the election. Instead, they chose the single option that combined contempt for adversaries and corporate whoring with that administration fave: lying. It's like they just can't help themselves. They thrill-lie. It's lying as crack. The sheer contempt of it is just irresistible. And as always, their habit has come back to bite them in the ass. Again. Which just adds more support for my theory that this crew is the most incompetent bunch of liars the US political system has ever spat to the top. They lie without any apparent method. (For anyone who links through, I'm still hoping to be proved correct about Rove.)
** Blood-in-the-water watch. The last three paragraphs of the linked WaPo article (emphasis mine):
Rumsfeld [joining in the attack on Tuesday] described an evolution of U.S. policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.
However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.
Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.
Sadly, other media weren't quite as upfront about Rumsfeld's distortions, but at least the WaPo reporter got it about right.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home