I'm Through With Dick -- Cheney, That Is.

Cheap headline, I know, but after my morning cup of ire and then the 70 minute commute / hard ass day at work / 60 minute commute day, it's all I got.  Headlines aren't really my strong suit anyway.

On topic.  This is what a reasonable reaction to Dick Cheney's terrorizing boogedy-boogedy looks like.  If I hadn't been so furious, I may have come up with a third of the elegance of this.  (Though in my experience, a hearty "Fuck You" also serves a solid purpose.)  From Joe Klein at Swampland, I post in its entirety.

Let's leave aside the fact that if Dick Cheney and his alleged boss had been more vigilant--if they had listened to the Clinton appointees like Sandy Berger who warned about Al Qaeda, if they had paid attention to their own intelligence reports (notably the one on August 6, 2001)--the September 11 attacks might never have happened. Actually, I can't leave that aside...but in any case, it is sleazy in the extreme for Cheney to predict another terrorist attack. For several reasons:

1. Some sort of terrorist attack is likely, eventually, no matter who is President.

2. Cheney has done here what the Bush Administration did throughout: he has politicized terror. If another attack happens, it's Obama's fault. Disgraceful... and ungrateful, since it's only Obama's mercy that stands between Cheney and a really serious war crimes investigation. Which leads to...

3. The means that Cheney has supported to combat terror in the past, especially "enhanced" interogation techniques, are quite probably illegal. He is criticizing the Obama administration for not being willing to defy international law.

4. Cheney's track record of mismanagement in Iraq and Afghanistan--his sponsorship of Donald Rumsfeld, the worst Secretary of Defense in US history-- disqualifies him from having any credible say on the security policies of his successor.

This is a man who should either be (a) scorned or (b) ignored.

My scorn is below.  I shall henceforth attempt to ignore Cheney, along with those uncooperative, unproductive partisan hacks at The Corner (except for John Derbyshire whose writing style if not content I enjoy reading).  He'll never again ruin my morning.

UPDATE:  Another sensible reaction from Coates.  Takeaway:

A man who knows he's right about something this serious, who truly has faith that history will vindicate him, who really doesn't care what other think (remember that "So?" moment) doesn't need to take to the papers barely a few weeks out of office. His conscience is clear in knowing that he did all that he could do, not simply to protect American lives, but to protect the American way of life. I'm not talking about gas-guzzlers and credit cards, but liberty and happiness. That man doesn't try to rehab his image. He knows that this country is freer and safer now, than it was when he came in. That man is secure in himself.

But that man isn't Dick Cheney...

Ta-Nehisi is always more generous than I.

Apparently, I am not through with Dick.

Out Of The Mire

Comparisons of Obama and JFK have abounded, based on his relatively young age, his ability to inspire, his relative lack of experience, and his message of change.  I've worried that the task at hand for any president given the abysmal state of the country, may be a task guaranteed to defeat the man and his popularity.  Joe Klein writing at Swampland at Time.com, taking from the example of JFK, alleviates much of my worry regarding my choice Obama's first (possible) year in office:

It's a good and sobering reminder about what happens when a young and relatively inexperienced man becomes President, but the remarkable thing about Kennedy's first year is that despite the Bay of Pigs disaster, despite the Vienna summit with Khruschev that probably was the first step toward the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy's popularity didn't dip--indeed, he had the highest sustained popularity ratings of any President (until Bill Clinton, believe it or not).

Why? Because Kennedy changed the American zeitgeist. He was a rebirth of American youth and vigor--or, as he pronounced, vigah--after a very hard midcentury slog. His arrival announced the coming of age of a new America: where most people owned their own homes, where a much larger number of people went to college, where the prejudices of the past regarding race and sex--and eventually sexual orientation--had no future. He embodied the return of prosperity, optimism and idealism (a bit too idealistic and optimistic, in fact--in Vietnam). He changed the way the world looked at America, and changed the way we looked at ourselves. He inspired my generation to join the Peace Corps, march for civil rights, get involved in politics. The nation became more adventurous, bolder, sexier, more prosperous and more powerful.

Emphasis mine.

My particular talent, if you can call it that, is to remember unique points in time and place, and forget the rest.  I don't remember a lot about my childhood, but I remember walking home from school on the last day before summer vacation and the dandelions coming up.  I remember Miss Quigley, my second grade teacher, who I ADORED (she was so pretty and kind).  I remember the tulips in the planters and the patient singing "Maaaaary" (ask me about that sometime and I'll explain it to you).  I remember drills to get under our desks in case of a nuclear attack, thereby guaranteeing my flesh welded to steel and wood.

And I remember how popular President Kennedy was.  He was the second president I was aware of, the first being Eisenhower because my little mouth loved saying the brilliance in the annals of advertising history, "I Like Ike."  But mostly I remember Kennedy.  I remember that even though the country was on the cusp of so many (unknown at the time) changes, how good and safe I felt with the presidency in the stewardship of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  I'm sure I got it from my parents.

That's how I feel about Obama.  I'm not so deluded as to think that he won't on occasion disappoint.  He disappointed me greatly on his vote on FISA.  I can't complain about public financing because if he had taken it, he wouldn't be all flush looking for ways to spend the money.  No.  He's got a hard row to hoe, and I'm going to be mad at him at some point and will probably write about it here.

But...and I really do believe this...Sen. Obama did not seek the presidency for self-aggrandizement.  If that was what he was after, he would have waited 4 years (or 8 if Hillary had won both the primary and the presidency), gotten all this experience that is touted as being necessary, and run then.  I believe Sen. Obama ran because he really does want to make the country better and now is the time, as proven by his surmounting seemingly insurmountable odds to get here.  He surmounted them bringing to bear the skill set that will allow him to accomplish something. 

Yes, I know.  Running a campaign isn't running a country.  GeeDub proved that.  But GeeDub didn't bring skill sets to the campaign.  He just stood there and mispronounced enough so that Joe Sixpack could feel that he had a say in his own defense as maniacs were flying planes into buildings.  Meanwhile, all these behind the scenes Dr. Frankensteins and Igors built the beast as figurehead as they carried out their nefarious plans, which had less to do with the good of the country and more to do with defense contracts, oil contracts, security contracts, and neo-con ideology.  Okay, a little far with the horror imagery, but just.  Wait...  To begrudgingly be fair, that PNAC cabal may have possibly perhaps felt that their evil plans to rule the world were for the good of the country...maybe.

I trust that Sen. Obama takes this stewardship seriously.  I trust that he's not in it for power or glory.  I trust that he's not in it for the library.  I trust that he's in it so that, vaguely echoing the taken out of context words of Michelle Obama, I can for the first time in my voting life (okay second time -- I loved Clinton -- damn him) say that I am exceedingly proud of what my country hath wrought.