BP's new presser

I'm sure Anne Womack-Kolton can reprise her work as VP Cheney's head of press relations, and make BP just as much the picture of wise, steady, and transparent leadership as was her former boss.

The Liz Cheney Experience

Steve Benen asks why "Liz Cheney is on my teevee."

Liz Cheney, who has no expertise in national security policy, continues to be given media platforms by outlets that prefer to pretend she knows what she's talking about.

He then answers his own question.

Take this morning, for example, when Cheney condemned the Obama administration on "Fox News Sunday."

She is on "Fox News Sunday" because "Fox News Sunday," like Hannity and a few other Fox News programs, is there to promote rising GOP brand names. The Cheney name is a major brand name and, as Mark Leibovitch pointed out in his profile of her last September, she's the rising, new and improved member of the Cheney product line.

When you think about it, the modern GOP is little more than a bunch of brand names without much in the way of substance behind the logo. Palin, Huckabee, Cheney, even the Tea baggers, are self-propelled marketing items. They don't bring ideas -- they have opinions but no real viewpoints -- they only bring their images and "personalities."

Posse comitatus?

The latest from Jane Mayer is definitely worth your time.

Holder told me that he was frustrated by much of the criticism over the handling of Abdulmutallab. “What we did is totally consistent with what has happened in every similar case” since 9/11, he said. “There’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.” Without exception, he noted, every previous terrorist suspect apprehended inside the country had been handled as a civilian criminal. Even so, critics such as Krauthammer were denouncing Holder for failing to send Abdulmutallab directly to Guantánamo. As a senior national-security official in the White House put it, “It’s a fantasy! Under what alternative legal system can Special Operations Forces fly into Detroit, and take someone away without court oversight?”

According to Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, in Washington, the military can’t simply grab suspects inside the U.S. and hold them without charge or a hearing. “It violates the Constitution, which extends to everyone inside the U.S.,” she said. “You can’t be seized without probable cause. You have the right to due process, and to a trial by a jury of your peers—which a military commission is not.” Confusion on this point may derive from the Bush Administration’s controversial handling of two suspected terrorists, José Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Both men were arrested in the U.S. by law-enforcement officials, and indicted on criminal charges. But Bush declared Padilla and Marri to be “enemy combatants,” which, he argued, meant that they could be transferred to military custody, for interrogation and detention without trial. (Neither suspect provided useful intelligence.) The cases provoked legal challenges, and in both instances appeals courts ruled that Bush had overstepped his power. The Administration, not willing to risk a Supreme Court defeat, returned the suspects to the civilian system.

For all the tough rhetoric of the Bush Administration, it prosecuted many more terror suspects as criminals than as enemy combatants. According to statistics compiled by New York University’s Center on Law and Security, since 2001 the criminal courts have convicted some hundred and fifty suspects on terrorism charges. Only three detainees—all of whom were apprehended abroad—were convicted in military commissions at Guantánamo. The makeshift military-commission system set up by Bush to handle terrorism cases has never tried a murder case, let alone one as complex, or notorious, as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will face the death penalty for the murder of nearly three thousand people.

The Bush Administration obtained life sentences in the criminal courts for two terror suspects arrested inside the U.S.: Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was planning a second wave of plane attacks. (Reid was read his Miranda rights four times.) When the Bush Justice Department obtained these convictions, the process was celebrated by some of the same people now criticizing Holder. Giuliani, after the Moussaoui trial, said, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.”

The hypocrisy is so thick you can smell it oozing from Giulini's pores. As Holder says later, if Giulini was still a federal attorney he'd be demanding they try the guy in civilian court in his district. But then there's this.

Holder tried to address his critics with lawyerly detachment. Dick Cheney had equated Holder’s approach to handling terrorism with giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”—the legal definition of treason. Holder said of Cheney, “On some level, and I’m not sure why, he lacks confidence in the American system of justice.” He added that he had seen documents making clear that Cheney’s office was the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s most controversial counterterrorism policies, especially those sanctioning brutal interrogations. He said of Cheney, “I think he’s worried about what history’s judgment will be of the role that he played in making decisions about everything from black sites to enhanced interrogation techniques.” Holder said that he doesn’t know Elizabeth Cheney, but noted, with a laugh, “She’s clearly her father’s daughter.”

He may note that with a laugh, but what he's described regarding Dick Cheney sound like the grounds for arrest.

Negro dialect

Ta-Nehisi Coates on the great difference between Harry Reid's inappropriate and embarrassing comments and Trent Lott's segregationist leanings.

I think you can grant that, in this era, the term "Negro dialect" is racially insensitive and embarrassing. That said, the fair-mind listener understands the argument--Barack Obama's complexion and his ability to code-switch is an asset. You can quibble about the "light skin" part, but forget running for president, code-switching is the standard M.O. for any African American with middle class aspirations.

But there's no such defense for Trent Lott. Lott celebrated apartheid Mississippi's support of Strom Thurmond, and then said that had Thurmond won, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.'' Strom Thurmond run for president, specifically because he opposed Harry Truman's efforts at integration. This is not mere conjecture--nearly half of Thurmond's platform was dedicated to preserving segregation. The Dixiecrat slogan was "Segregation Forever!" (Exclamation point, theirs.) Trent Lott's wasn't forced to resign because he said something "racially insensitive." He was forced to resign because he offered tacit endorsement of white supremacy--frequently.

Claiming that Harry Reid's comments are the same, is like claiming that referring to Jews as "Hebrews" is the same as endorsing Nazism. Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling "Segregation Forever!" would have cured us of "all these problems."

Leaving aside political cynicism, this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease. Listening to Liz Cheney explain why Harry Reid's comments were racist, was like listening to me give lessons on the finer points of the comma splice. This a party, rightly or wrongly, regarded by significant portions of the country as a haven for racists. They aren't simply having a hard time re-branding, they don't actually understand how and why they got the tag.

These guys are lost. But Michael Steele's "off the hook" strategy will, presumably, point the way back. Not for nothing, I offer the wise and venerable words of my people: Negro, please.

Pete Hoekstra was surprisingly reasonable when he commented that the GOP should keep out of this. I think that's the right strategy, but Liz Cheney and Michael Steele are two of the dumbest and most transparently cynical people on the planet.

CHENEY: But, you know, can I just point out that I think one of the things that makes the American people frustrated is when they see time and time again liberals excusing racism from other liberals. And I think that, you know, clearly, Senator Reid's comments were outrageous. And the notion that they're being excused...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But in a private conversation that he thought was off the record...

CHENEY: I don't think racism is OK, George, whether you're saying it in private or in public. And the excuse of it by liberals, you know, is -- is really inexcusable.

But I do think, frankly, you know, he's given the voters of Nevada yet one more reason to oust him this -- this next time around, and I suspect that's what they'll do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: George, you're shaking your head.

WILL: I don't think there's a scintilla of racism in what Harry Reid said. At long last, Harry Reid has said something that no one can disagree with, and he gets in trouble for it.

CHENEY: George, give me a break. I mean, talking about the color of the president's skin...

WILL: Did he get it wrong?

CHENEY: ... and the candidate's...

WILL: Did he say anything false?

CHENEY: ... it's -- these are clearly racist comments, George.

WILL: Oh, my, no.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ... quickly, Liz, I -- I think it was certainly an indelicate comment, but, in fact, during the election, there were stories and there were people commenting on Tiger Woods, Adrian Fenty. I mean, I think it's very unfortunate, but I think there is an element that says that -- that -- that some -- some blacks do better than others because of appearance. I don't think that's right...

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: ... but I don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: ... this may be the way that liberal elites speak to each other in private. It is not the way that people that I know speak to each other in private or public...

I'll bet.

The Cheney foil

Adam Serwer argues that Human Event's "conservative of the year," Dick Cheney, provides a "convenient foil" for the Obama administration, which wants to distance itself from the previous administration on matters of national security without taking any substantive action to stop many of the abusive policies Cheney championed. While closing Guantanamo -- now another year delayed, at least -- is important, continuing to hold its detainees without charge makes the closure mostly symbolic. And one wonders if the Obama administration's stepped up use of drones in Pakistan isn't creating yet another generation of future terrorists. In other words, we only wish Obama's policies were as different from Bush's as Cheney heatedly and repeatedly claims.

Liberals seem, on the surface, pleased with Cheney's reemergence -- but they shouldn't be. Cheney isn't running for office, and his low favorability may only enhance his ability to scare the pants off people. Since 2007, support for torture has increased, not decreased. The president also faced a drop in poll ratings on national security issues that the were likely due in part to Cheney's assault. With the departure of officials like White House Counsel Greg Craig, who was tasked with closing Guantanamo, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Phil Carter, who had been a prominent critic of the Bush-era human rights abuses, the administration's short lived stint as the hope of civil libertarians and human rights activists may have finally come to an end.

And that's important. Because unless Obama makes a clean break from the past abuses, we will someday find ourselves with another administration led by a party that has made torture a key plank in its platform. And no credible voice of opposition.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings"

I hereby invoke the bloggy tradition of "What he says:"

There's something really consistent about Cheney's criticisms, and it's that Cheney gets red-faced at the possibility that extremists might think they've beaten the United States. Indeed, whether it's the KSM trial or military strategy in Afghanistan, Cheney's strategic priority seems to be determining how the enemy "feels" and making sure he or she doesn't feel that way. That's bizarre. American policy should be based on furthering American interests, and part of that is going to be figuring out what Al Qaeda's objectives are and foiling them -- but how terrorists "feel" shouldn't be our priority. And if we're talking objectives, pulling us into an indefinite war in Afghanistan is one of bin Laden's, as Lawrence Wright has written.

Meanwhile, even if we're speaking on Cheney's terms, you have to wonder how Al Qaeda and the Taliban "felt" about gaining ground in Afghanistan over the past eight years while Cheney and his boss invaded Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, and whether their "world view had been validated." Oh, wait. You don't have to wonder at all.

If there's anything that frustrates me about the Cheney coverage, it's that his arguments are consistently reprinted without challenge or acknowledgment that Cheney is a stakeholder in these matters. After his administration consistently failed to develop a working policy in Afghanistan for the past eight years, Cheney has an interest in making sure the new guy looks bad. As someone intimately involved in approving torture, he has an interest in delegitimizing a civilian trial process in which the details of that policy will bear scrutiny in a court of law. He is a man furiously protecting his reputation. And yet, he is constantly presented as a dispassionate observer, a mere elder statesman.

The pet goat operations manual

What can you say, they were both incompetent and mendacious.

Lying liars

Didn't Martha Stewart do time for lying to investigators? Of course, that was for insider trading, not something as banal as identifying a covert CIA operative.

Who cares?

I'm late to the party, but I have to say, Vice President Biden speaks for me:

Mr. Biden shrugged off Mr. Cheney’s point that the old administration had left behind a review of Afghanistan.

“Who cares what — ” he said, and then stopped himself to find another way to put it. (“I can see the headline now,” said the famously free-wheeling vice president. “I’m getting better, guys.”)

But he went on to dismiss the Bush-Cheney review as inadequate. “That’s why the president asked me to get in the plane in January and go to Afghanistan,” Mr. Biden said. “I came back with a different review.”

Compare and contrast Joe Biden's disregard for the cranky crank, who single-handedly came close to destroying the reputation, treasure, and armed forces of the United States of America, with former VP Dick Cheney's disregard for the citizens of said USA:

US Vice President Dick Cheney says he is not concerned about the views the American public holds on the long-drawn-out war in Iraq.

In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, when the White House correspondent said polls show that two-thirds of Americans believe the war is not worth fighting, Cheney responded with a 'so?'

I report. You decide.

UPDATE for a wee bit more clarity

UPDATED again for link

David Broder's America

That answer would be, "yes."

UPDATE: Broder's apologies for Dick Cheney's violation of the law reminded me of what might be called The Broder Pattern, as Erik Alterman wrote last year:

Sadly, Broder's decision to avert his eyes from the distasteful and potentially criminal actions of his government is not exceptional; it's how he defines his job. Forty years ago he scolded those in the Democratic Party who challenged Lyndon Johnson's lies about Vietnam as "degrading...to those involved." Twenty years ago he attacked independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's investigation into criminal wrongdoing in the Iran/Contra scandal. (Reagan had mused that he would likely be impeached should his extraconstitutional actions ever be discovered.) Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed "worse" than Richard Nixon's police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon's actions, "however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power." There is a pattern here, obviously. When a president abuses his constitutional warmaking powers, he can depend on Broder not only to defend his crimes but to attack those who would hold him accountable. This, in the eyes of perhaps the most honored and admired journalist today, is the proper function of the press in a democracy.

According to Broder, lies in the service of presidential power -- and torture! -- are acceptable means of Executive branch governance. A lie in the course of a civil court case that should never have been permitted to be brought against a sitting president is "worse" than Nixon's compiling of enemy lists, using the IRS to attack perceived enemies, covering up the break in of the Democratic National Committee, taking solicited and unreported cash in paper bags for his reelection campaign, and, oh yeah, secretly carpet bombing Cambodia and Laos, are essential tools of a wartime president. So Saith the Dean.

Dangerous politics

CIA director Panetta, on the rhetoric of Dick Cheney.

Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney's speech with surprising candor. "I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue," he told me. "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

He'll wrap us in his big, gun toting arms

He'll scare the asteroid away.

It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.

via Matt.

Conservatives need for a father figure is nothing new, but the adulation and longing for Dick Cheney is taking it to a whole 'nother level.

Duel in the sun?

Time's Michael Scherer is making sense.

If Ali had the Nation of Islam to back him up, Cheney has the Nation Of Rebublicans, such as it remains--a cavalcade of aspiring tough guys, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, the talk radio gabbers. In recent weeks, following Cheney's lead, they have settled on national security as their best card left to play against Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the bunch. (This, in itself, is an amazing admission, given Obama's dramatic expansion of domestic government.) And so they are hammering hard, trying to disrupt the cool of mister cool, President O, who I can now posit as Frazier, the workhorse, his head down, focused on the fight.

Such is the set up that is expected of me, a Washington correspondent, at a moment like this. For there is a showdown scheduled tomorrow--Obama and Cheney both giving separate speeches on national security. All the narrative elements are there to get America to pay attention, a top-billed clash, a battle, a contest of generations, of ideologies, of facts. This is the story line you will likely hear for the next 36 hours on cable and on the web, minus, of course, my strained boxing metaphor, which is imperfect, in part, because history has left far more Ali defenders than Cheney is likely to enjoy.

But instead, I pause. What is this all about anyway? How to distinguish the hype from what is happening? What battle is really being fought?

Exactly. Cautioiusly, pragmatically, Obama has shown little inclination to vastly change the policies of his predecessor when it comes to battling terrorism. And why should he, with members of his own part talking like blithering idiots.

Meanwhile, MoDo, characteristically, chose today to "move past" her little plagiarism episode from Sunday's column, and instead chose to write an old staple: Obama is a doe-eyed fawn intimidated by big ol' Cheney and Rumsfeld [no link, take my word for it, or find her yerself].

Not just "coddling" terrorists, now we're "recruiting" them

Wow. Just. Wow.

On the other hand, perhaps we should take Karl Rove's insights into the mindset of terrorists more seriously. Few men, other than Dick Cheney, have been as aligned with al Qaeda's goals of damaging America's reputation and self-esteem than Turd Blossom.

I do think it is good for the American people to see these two on TV as much as possible if only as a constant reminder that we put in office the most morally and intellectually bankrupt administration in my lifetime. Suck on that, America.

Al Gore is still fat, apparently

The Times engages in some fact-esque reporting:

Mr. Cheney has been a particularly fierce critic of the Obama administration and a defiant defender against critics of the Bush administration, including President Obama. While his remarks have been striking, they are not unusually outspoken by comparison, for example, to former Vice President Al Gore’s condemnations of the Bush administration when it held office.

That is, to a degree, true. But the nuanced reality is more difficult. Gore didn't begin condemning the Bush administration until the latter began "marketing" the war against Iraq. In a series of fierce speeches (as opposed to appearances on Fox News), Gore condemned the rationale for the war and -- correctly -- discounted the evidence that Iraq posed a threat to the United States.

Dick Cheney's quote of the week

Maybe I'll start a new weekly feature!

“Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think,” Mr. Cheney said in an interview on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.”

"I'll be here for three more nights...try the veal!" he did not go on to say.

Wet blanket

Ha ha ha. That Dick Cheney is such a card. Imagine criticizing an attempt to determine if authorizing the torture known as water boarding is, ya know, illegal, by saying it would put "a wet blanket over the government's willingness to be bold." You can't get more comedy gold than that.

Unless, of course, you take it further and say that investigating torture is "abhorrent," but authorizing it isn't.

These guys are amazing.

This day in clusterfucks

In celebration of March 19, 2003, the day the Bush administration launched what would be the overwhelming representation of its "greatest hits," if you will...

• launched with brazen mendaciousness that made the lies about his tax cuts look like gentle fibs
• an utter disregard for foresight -- and a malicious disregard for those who would suggest foresight is needed
• a "shit happens" response when lack of planning turns into a military, financial, and/or humanitarian disaster

...traits that would apply again and again as these evil fools careened from one foreign, domestic, and economic disaster to another, leaving us with two ongoing wars, a drowned American city, $trillion in deficits, and criminally rich AIG executives...

I give you, "Interview with a Vampire"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Interview With a Vampire

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

How dare you say that to...the Vice President

I find it amusing that reporters and pundits can laugh and laugh at Joe Biden's "gaffes" yet gasp at the very notion of being "disrespectful" of the former Vice-President (and future war crimes defendant at The Hague).

How bizarre that Cheney can accuse of Obama of the most heinous acts (and, in my view, Cheney is perfectly within his rights as a citizen to do so), and the glorified gossip columnists who play the role of journalists on TV (what Walsh calls "prissy hall monitors") can hardly contain their anger over Gibbs' far more mild response.

More to the point: imagine what things might be like if TV journalists had shown just a fraction of the interest in, and outrage over, Dick Cheney's torture and chronic lawbreaking as they have for these petty offenses to his honor and good name.

Oh, and here's Cheney on Biden back in December.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney offered an unabashed defense of the Bush administration's claims of broad executive powers Sunday, mocking criticism from Vice President-elect Joe Biden and saying the president "doesn't have to check with anybody" before launching a nuclear attack.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," Cheney fired back at Biden's contention that Cheney was probably "the most dangerous vice president" in U.S. history. He also ridiculed Biden for mistakenly citing Article I of the U.S. Constitution, rather than Article II, in talking about executive branch powers during an October debate.

"If he wants to diminish the office of the vice president, that's obviously his call," Cheney said of Biden.

Hardcore

"The worst of the worst," according to Dick Cheney.

The tale Mr. Bismullah’s lawyers assembled was one of complex tribal loyalties and evident confusion by his American captors. Sher Mohammed Akhundzada, a Karzai ally and member of the Afghan Senate, described in a sworn statement that he had known Mr. Bismullah and his family for years. When they fought the Taliban, he said, “Haji Bismullah was with us.”

After the fall of the Taliban, Mr. Bismullah became an official of the pro-American regional government in Helmand Province, where tribal loyalties had brought assassinations and other brutal infighting, according to sworn statements. His job as chief of transportation was coveted by a rival clan, whose members had held the position under the Taliban. Mr. Akhundzada said the rival clan members had demanded the job, and when they did not get it, they told American forces that Mr. Bismullah was in league with the Taliban.

Though the accusation worked, the rival clan’s candidate was not appointed transportation chief. It was then that Mr. Bismullah’s car was seen being driven by one of his accusers, who, according to Karzai officials, were themselves tied to the Taliban.

At Guantánamo, Mr. Bismullah insisted he was innocent. He told military officials to contact his brother to vouch for him. The officials concluded that the brother was “not reasonably available” as a witness. At the time the brother, Haji Mohammad Wali, was the chief spokesman for a pro-American provisional governor who regularly gave news conferences, legal filings say.

The "fog or war" should have cleared years ago.