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.

What Gaineth a Man?

In response to Sen. McCain's attack ads criticizing Sen. Obama for not visiting the troops wounded in Iraq and Afganistan, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor responded:

John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous.

If in this campaign McCain would rise to whatever character it took to survive while he was held prisoner-of-war (a feat worthy of respect and honor but really has nothing to do with running a country) I believe he might sleep better at night.  That ad is pretty reprehensible for someone who vowed to run a respectful campaign.  And it's a shame whomever is driving doesn't think McCain can win without it.

Also?  Kind of brilliant on the part of the Obama campaign.  They've taken the man out of the machine both complimenting and scolding.

UPDATE:  Chuck Hagel agrees with me that this ad is below McCain.