On second thought, yes, I will tear Dick Cheney a new asshole

I’ve been going over Dick’s very highly anticipated and over-wrought ‘National Security’ speech at the American Enterprise Institute that played out opposite Obama’s terrific speech Thursday at the National Archives.

I was going to post and rebut the whole thing serially here, but then I remembered how boring he is and how pathetic the whole Bush Administration was, and I thought better of it.

But, ya know, I do take too much pleasure in beating on a lot of Cheney’s stand-in wingnuts, at places like Townhall.com, RedState.com and HumanEvents.com (..hey, internets like the fresh bread..). And Chuck Norris is so stupid that taunting him is akin to giving the People with Disabilities Act a wet willie.

So I’m thinking today that this speech is actually worthy of fresh scorn, for a couple of reasons: first, he’s desperately trying to lobby himself out of jail, which is dramatic. Since he’s such a personal coward, the only way he could prove his glorious ‘patriotism’ was through politics, but that legacy is crashing now. So the 68 year-old has taken to telling anybody who’ll listen what a Sensible Patriotic American he’s been, which is a war-whooping neon lie. Second, the swiss-cheese patriotism, raw stupidity and ‘tantrum’ psychology of the speech, which he and whatever professional speechwriters had weeks to fine tune, make for a shocking document of Dick’s true character.

Let’s only go through the last twenty ten paragraphs. If, like me, you sit a bit with the text of this 5500 word insult, which actually batters the crowd with ‘9/11’ 23 times (and, lord, why the hell would you?), you might come to the same conclusion I did. One of the great American disasters befell the nation when, way back on July 25, 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush chose this rank scumbag as his running mate.


…In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

Murat Kurnaz was on his way to the airport. A Turkish citizen living in Germany, he was detained by police and then abducted by us while visiting Pakistan. He was held in Kandahar and then Gitmo for five years, occasionally tortured, then released without explanation in 2006. Apparently guilty of nothing more than not liking Americans (gee, what an idiot he was), his detention and torture are a huge crime that remains unprosecuted.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.”

Can you believe this bullshit? What is this guy–five years old? By torturing anybody, killers included, we have fallen short of our values, and everybody understands that. You chose to do it, you champion it to this day, and you should be put in a penitentiary.

And this isn’t mantra–here’s one of the guys who tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: “I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” That excuses nothing, it’s just the truth. And you’re responsible for that brutal fact, Dick.

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Okay, Oh Solomonic Judge, name one American who sees terrorists as ‘victims’. Does he really think this elementary school level of argument is going to sway anybody?

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Yeah, why did we ‘spare’ all those imprisoned Nazi assholes in World War Two? We were such pussies back then. And I remember that huge national debate about ‘Should we lift a finger to defend ourselves against Al Qaeda?’ Thank you for coming down on the ‘Yes, I suppose we probably should’ side of that vexing puzzle. Obviously, the answer to my previous ‘level of argument’ question is ‘Yes.’

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

Good……gawd…

Where do I begin? How about I just ‘end’ with a quote from that same soldier and interrogator…”It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.”

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

That is an absolutely giant crock of hot horseshit and everybody knows it.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

The President hasn’t ‘reserved’ anything like what you’re insinuating, you’re lying. Obama said this at almost exactly the same second you trotted out the whopper above: “I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President.” I wouldn’t count on the American people, Dick, favoring you when they try to figure out which one of you is telling the truth.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.


Done, that’s it. I can’t insult you, Mr. Mariah Carey Vice President, any better than this bratty and foot-stamping language insults any residual notion of your ‘intelligence’ or ‘modesty’. You are a completely unhinged individual, and it was a crime that you ever came in to any power.

And look at what you’ve done! How many Americans died while you were mumbling the shots? More than seven thousand; it hurts to think of it. You have a chasm of nerve being angry with anybody, ever. Please soon sail off into a black fungal sunset and expire. And take the exploded gray matter and tatty shards of skull mementos of your wisdom with you.

Share

2 thoughts On second thought, yes, I will tear Dick Cheney a new asshole

  1. avatar rmf says:

    How dare you besmirch Mariah! Where would you rather be? In Mariahs depilatory room or lurking in the shadows, if you will, with Dick?

  2. avatar toma says:

    Ah, man, channeling douchenozzle. You try that act tomorrow, on Memorial Day, you go up in flames. I seriously doubt anybody else has ever gotten 5 deferments from the draft.

Comments are closed.