Dick Cheney certainly isn't spending the first year of his retirement from the vice presidency growing a beard. Instead, he's playing a very clever game, exemplified by his latest "exclusive" screed released in written form to the apparently compliant folks at Politico.com.
In it, as is well known by now, he uses the case of the failed Detroit underpants bomb attempt to accuse President Obama of "pretending that the United States is not at war," thereby making us less safe. He can engage in this kind of rhetoric safe in two comforting assumptions: that the Republican base, and a certain percentage of independents, will eat this stuff up, and that the Democrats, in and out of power, will continue to not know how to respond.
The latter is because they, willingly or not, allowed themselves to be co-opted into the "war on terror" model in the first place, out of fear of being depicted as "soft" if they so much as emitted a peep of opposition. What should they be saying?
How's this: Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush, made the country less safe for eight years by pretending that this country was at war, thereby wasting vast amounts of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, while failing to achieve the basic aims of the enterprise. The problem with pretending we're at war, rather than understanding we're dealing with a criminal syndicate -- like the Mafia -- is that it gets our resources overextended and tied down in geographical areas, like Afghanistan, while the opponent is free to move and relocate (hello, Yemen!, hi, Somalia!). In fact, the war model weakens us, makes us less able to respond nimbly and quietly -- check the recent stories on the logistical challenges facing the Afghanistan surge here, here, here and here. In short, we lumber, they scamper.
But Obama can't say any of this, having just signed on to the AfPak surge. Nor can he bring himself to John Wayne it up, GWB-style. Therefore, he's always open to Cheney's attacks, and his response is always a stoic silence. What, then, would discourage Cheney from keeping it up, straight through next November?
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/letwits
There is no such organization as Al Qaeda (it is an umbrella term that refers to any muslims/arabs who oppose globalism). A kind of phantom menace.The war on terror is completely fabricated, as is everything we were told about the events of 9/11. Do your research.
You are all living in the Matrix when you talk about Dem's vs Repubs or the US vs Islamic militants etc. Both parties are controlled by the combined financial/energy/pharmaceutical cartel, the real terrorists, with the exception of a very few folks like Dennis Kucinich. We are being pitted against each other both nationally and globally to keep us distracted from what is really going on.
Huffpost's recent call to invest your money in small local banks is one of the only things you can do to make a difference right now. It matters very little who is president until we get campaign finance reform, take back the Fed etc. Obama is owned...period.
We are going to continue to be involved in pointless military quagmires because that is the real goal...prolonged conflict and multibillion $ contracts. The banksters don't care who wins or loses. They win either way.
While China continues growing their manufacturing base, we continue destroying everything that made this country great. Serial war has become a joke as the location continues to migrate as the terrorists move and regroup.
Great post, Harry.
I'd like to see him christened with a dismissive sobriquet and otherwise ignored. Surely we Democrats should decline to respond, shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes, and offer to discuss the real issues--and then do so.
Using Armies to stop 5,000 to 10,000 terrorist (when we started our war on terror , the estimate was around 2,000...thats success?), scattered over 50-100 countires is like trying to kill flies with a sledge hammer. Even if you manage to hit a fly, you knock down the wall.
This s/b an increased prevention, intelligence and police action matter. Thats works , cost far, far less and does not create the collateral damage that insures a new crop of terroist every year.
Regards
By what? Are you saying that Iraq was that good a vacuum cleaner that it sucked them up so they couldn't commit terrorist acts? It certainly wasn't all the money Bush was investing in port security--he thought that was less important than preserving an elitist tax cut that didn't really stimulate the economy.
It is true that the English language grants equal facility to liars and truth-tellers, but I don't see any other basis for that statement.
Otherwise, we are just hypocrites. America is waging a pesudo war but it is not just based on ideology, it is based on having access to resources and perhaps change the ways of life for Muslims--which one can not do gun point or through the use of violence (eg Iraq, Afghanistan). It is a complicated war that I think will only be won if and when America gets back to its ideals and principle, that is to respect others and deal with them as humans rather than as slaves to empire.
But I believe dialogue is the best strategy. The issue here is that violence that is committed by America is likely to give rise to groups like AQ in the future. Unless, other issues like treating others with respect and dignity are practiced all over the world, we will see more violence. More than 1 million innocent Iraqis dead and no one is accountable let alone the thousands maimed in Afghanistan. History will be harsh on us.
We can not declare it a war and do nothing because that again leaves us open to attack.
If we declare it is war and muddle about trying to fight it as a war we will lose, because, it is not in truth actually a war.
So we must declare it a new kind of war and fight it in surprising and new ways.
Perhaps such a war requires our army here at home? Perhaps they are required to beef up security and consequently the integrity and physical infrastructure of our roads and bridges, our damns and waterways.
Perhaps a Military that switches to a pre-emptive defensive stance here at home is somehow required for this new war.
It perhaps would amaze how once out of the middle east the war seems so easily won.
David Halberstam in his superb and final book, "The Coldest Winter," referring to General MacArthur in his later years.
I believe this applies to Dick Cheney as well. He has no possible chance at any further political career. He will never serve in any humanitarian function, as have many former Presidents such as Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton. Even the organizations like Fox News that give him a platform for his rants don't really treat him like a serious statesman, but more like an older more accomplished Ann Coulter---a pitiful state for a former Vice President. In short, Cheney is incredibly annoying to serious thinking people, but ultimately he is only disgracing himself.
How about the Alien & Sedition Act, which came into effect under John Adams's watch? It's never been used because Adams & co were squeamish about its seeming to curtail Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment. But it's never been repealed either.
The Dicky Ticker might prove to be a good test case.
http://myspace.com/virginiadem
We willingly stop short of what is required while our enemies are full-tilt in opposition to us, our methodology.
We can make a litany of your query.
But that said, I disagree with the point. When someone or some group conspires to do such evil, based upon our values/policies/majority religion/power/fill-in-the-blank, *all based upon us as a nation-state*, that is in fact such a bellicose act as to be an act of war (or insurrection, in the case of domestic acts, but that wouldn't apply here). In the horrible case of 9/11, this point is emphasized, I think, because (1) over a hundred people died and (2) a national institution (the Pentagon) was attacked. And would this article be written if we didn't "do" Iraq?
There seem to be plenty of lessons still to be learned from the shock of that day. How do you convince an ignorant people that you are NOT the enemy of their religion, or of their race, especially when there's carismatic people telling you day-in and day-out that we are? What is the best way to support a friendly government that does not allow the same liberties that we do? Is it always best to support or create democracries? And finally, what is the impact of globalization on terrorism, and what is the proper way to react to it?
http://myspace.com/virginiadem