Another Purported 'Conservative' Goes on Attack... on OTHER Conservatives

Apparently Ross Douthat's buddy Reihan Salam doesn't like former VP Dick Cheney. Salam's recent TheDailyBeast.com column calls Cheney "America's surliest pundit," and moans that the ex-vp hasn't "graciously kept his mouth shut" in retirement like Bush has. Like many of these circular firing squad leaders (think Douthat, Kathleen Parker, the McCain clan or David Frum) Salam is far more interested in shooting at folks on his own side than in trying to move ahead for the future of the conservative movement. It's obviously some sick bid to be "liked" by the Old Media establishment.

Salam charges that Cheney is too busy "mugging for the camera" and attacking Obama with his "macho snarl" to see that he should just go away. Blah, blah, blah, and such and so forth. In truth, Salam offers nothing worth debating and nearly everything he says in this screed is simply erroneous, so I won't bother with his self-hating blather against Cheney whose information is a must hear for any conservative looking to see where Obama is going wrong on homeland security and foreign policy.

But, the one issue that moves me to discuss Salam's carping is simply this: why should a former president or vice-president go off into the night never to talk in public again? Even more to the point, how often has it happened, anyway?

First of all let's dispense with Salam's idiotic contention that former vice presidents necessarily just fade away to the quite dignity of retirement. Of course, many VPs have subsequently gone on to run for president, so their keeping their mouths shut about policy past and present was simply not an option. But, we don't even have to wade through hundreds of years of history to look for outspoken VPs. We have one of recent vintage, the one just prior to Cheney, that has been taking global warming creating private jets all across the world to denounce those that took office after him. Everyone's favorite global warming snake-oil salesman, Al Core, has never shut his mouth from the second he steeped down. In fact, at an appearance in Tennessee in 2004 Gore unleashed one of his most famous tirades of all by screaming at the top of his lungs, "He betrayed this country, he played on our fears!!" (Click here for that hard to find audio)

Gore was and continues to be seen working up a faux lather in loud denouncements of Bush and Cheney. So I am wondering why Salam didn't seem to remember this wild-eyed version of "gracious silence" perpetrated by Al Gore when he was excoriating Cheney for his post-office punditry?

Secondly, this supposed ungraciousness on the part of Cheney is an outright untruth. Cheney has not once been seen bellowing like a gored oxen at campaign rallies. He has not been waving his arms like a lunatic spewing hot air like some former vps we could mention (and just did). In reality, he has been engaged in calm, serious and logical discussions of policy. Cheney has been the very model of dignity and seriousness. Yet, here is Salam, slamming Cheney as if he has somehow been untoward while giving an unhinged nut like Gore a complete pass.

So, why is Salam attacking Cheney? What possible reason would a conservative have to attack Cheney instead of Obama?

We all know the answer to that, of course. Likely his goal is to spur CNN to invite him on TV instead of to advance the conservative cause. Like his fellows on the mushy, moderate side, our cause is secondary to his hoped for TV career. After all, just look at the venue in which Salam chose to attack Cheney. Does this guy think TheDailyBeast.com is the place to help conservatives rebuild? Of course it isn't. Salam's choice of this venue to attack what is supposed to be folks on his own side was chosen specifically to show off to the left that he could be the next Kathleen Parkeresque pundit. He wants lefties to know that he can be a self-immolator, too.

Well, Salam, old fellow, mission accomplished. I am sure that CNN's bookers are rushing to their PDAs to note your name for the next time they need a conservative that is more interested in slamming his own than those on the other side. I'm sure congratulatory fruit baskets from The New York Times and MSNBC are winding their way to your door as we speak. Hooray for you.

But please don't imagine you have any legitimate criticism of Dick Cheney. Your delusional self-aggrandizement does not equate to salient analysis.

(Al Gore audio file link fixed.)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Here's a thought. Do a Google

Here's a thought. Do a Google news search for the first two years of Bush's first term in office. Search for all quotes or statements attributed to Al Gore referencing Bush's performance.  Now compare that finding to what we have seen from Dick Cheney to date.

I understand you are talking out of your ass but try doing just a tad bit of work before looking for other asses to blow smoke up into.

What an amazingly stupid post

What an utterly ridiculous post by W.T. Huston! The following passage sticks out in particular:

 

> Cheney whose information is a must hear for any conservative looking to see where Obama is

> going wrong on homeland security and foreign policy.

 

In fact, the disastrous foreign policy judgment and incompetence of Dick Cheney and his cronies during the past seven years is the chief reason why Barack Obama is now President, the Dems control every branch of government and the Republican party's in its current disastrous state...  Before Cheney, national security and foreign policy were actually political winners for the GOP. No more.

Dick Cheney & co. have absolutely no credibility on this particular subject, period.

 

MARCU$

 

How does a movement move forward

...without having discussions on whether its current leaders are up to the job?  Sometimes, "shooting at folks on [ones] own side" is "trying to move ahead for the future of the conservative movement," especially when your own side is captive to the same folks who drove it into a ditch in the first place.

America does not torture

Cretins like Dick Cheney are not conservative, nor or they American.

A lot of Americans were willing to assume that the "enhanced interrogation" techniques legally straddled the line between legality and abuse, for the better good. The explicit content in the OLC memos, however, has shocked and outraged a lot of them to a different sense.

Bush's outright declaration that "we do not torture" is now viewed as an outright lie to the majority of Americans. Except, perhaps, for those few apologists who are willing to redefine the GOP as the "party of torture" as long as it helps stem losses in the right-wing base in 2010.

Any hope of a Bush legacy is in tatters. Cheney is done. It will literally take a presidential pardon at this point to keep him out of prison. 

It is really that bad and I am mystified at the number of "conservatives" who will continue to defend what have been plainly revealed to be war crimes committed by the previous administration.

I am 45 and considered myself a lifelong Republican from Reagan until mid-2003. The crimes committed by this administration are, by far, the most egregious abuses of executive power in this country I have seen in my lifetime.

The GOP is not going to recover from the taint left by the previous administration as long as they continue to defend its criminal actions. And when you try to deflect criticism of institutionalized torture as partisan, you are essentially telling 75-80% of the country that they are now Democrats and do not belong in the GOP. Good luck with that strategy in 2012.

with people like you willing to defend it

the Right has much less to fear than I feared.

When you rassle up enough of a posse to kick the traitors out, give me a call!

I do not long for one party rule... I want a damn choice in voting again!

(and have you considered running for office? you sound sane.)

I second that

Very well said, Ray.   

Excellent post, Ray!

The GOP 'leaders' who are claiming it would be inappropriate for an incoming administration to 'second guess' what they are characterizing as merely the prior administration's 'policies' are following this logic:

1.  Basic fact:  Every administration is followed by another administration. 

2.  GOP Position:  It is never appropriate for an incoming administration to investigate or prosecute potential abuses of power or crimes, because those are merely the previous administration's 'policies'.

3.  Logcial Conclusion:  Every administration is above the law.  

Except that now it looks like congress was in on it

Thats right Ray, your precious democrat party was a party to "torture". Cretins like Nancy Pelosi we breifed and registered no objection. Names are coming out and "the party of unintended consequences" will Palaxico themselves on this issue before it is all over.

For you see Ray, only parts of four memos have been released. There is a whole lot more information that will come out. If Cheney is asking that the redacted parts of the memo be released, you should wonder why. As you glibly Monday morning quarterback the former administration's response to a major attack on our hoimeland that killed almost 3,000 innocent American civilians, you'd best remember that we haven't been attacked again for the last  2,741 days.

And why doesn't Obama order a full investigation instead of leaving it up to Holder? Where is his leadership? Looking forward one day, looking back the next. Oh, thats right, OBAMA VOTES "PRESENT" ON THE ISSUE OF PROSECUTING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Weak, weak, weak.

first of all

It is not my "precious democratic party". The only reason I looked for political options in 2003 was because the GOP transformed itself into something I could no longer support after voting Republican for decades.

There are many Democrats I do not like and would not vote for.

You act as if we haven't had another 9/11 is a big deal. You forget that we hadn't had a 9/11-type event for 60 years beforehand and we gave Al-Qaeda easier targets when we sent our troops into Iraq for a fabricated war. You act as if the lives we lost in Iraq don't count. In addition, you forget about the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper attacks.

The reason that Obama doesn't order a full investigation is because it is not within his political power to do so. That is the responsibility of the Justice dept. I understand this is different than the past 8 years because the Bush administration politicized and directed the Justice dept, but that is not how things are supposed to be done in our country.

Looney

How in the hell you can take my comment and come up with this inflamitory and stupid comment is beyond belief:

"You act as if the lives we lost in Iraq don't count"

You are beneath contempt, you ignorant turd.

 

 

 

 

because ignoring an blatantly terorristic attack on the

united states capital makes you what? an imbicile? deliberately prevaricating? a LIAR?

I don't know... what do you call yourself?

ignorant turd?

Let's see.. .al-Qaeda attacks the US, kills 3000 civilians.

In response, Bush manufactures a war in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of far more than 3000 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

That is the real travesty of the Bush administration and you and yet you want to make the insane claim that Bush kept us safe after 9/11? Why don't you tell that to the families of dead American soldiers who paid for Bush's political ambitions with their lives?

If caring about the lives of our soldiers makes me beneath contempt in your eyes, then maybe you should look in the mirror.

 

 

Even more stupid

If caring about the lives of our soldiers makes me beneath contempt in your eyes, then maybe you should look in the mirror.

Let me tell you this, you miserable little SOB, I care about the loss of every soldier and it has touched my life deeply. And a statement like the one above makes you and igmorant turd.

Your logic is so twisted, your soul so vacuous, that I think it best this conversation end.

you mean the vile miscreants that exist in congress

knew about it???? oh, you're just figuring this out, you dipshit. we've known about it for years, and we're planning revenge through primary.

What is this gibberish that

What is this gibberish that Cheney kept us safe from another terrorist attack?  The first WTC attack occurred in February 1993.  Cheney & Co. fell down on the job and allowed another domestic attack to occur on 9/11/01.  Why is he allowed to re-start the clock on 9/12?

But that's a minor quibble.  And your point is well taken on probable Congressional complicity.  If they were complicit, I say charge them too! 

isn't the DOJ supposed to handle federal prosecutions?

Actually

Clinton could have had Bin Laden years before and turned down the opportunity to bring him into custody. The highjackers came in and put the 9/11 plan in place under the noses of the Clinton administaration, so lets not get too giddy here.

My point is that people in congress were thoroughly briefed on the enhanced interrogations and did not object. Until now. Now that the fear of 9/11 has passed and it is politically beneficial.

Apparently the President of the United States does not influence the  direction of the DOJ. The only time that ever happened was during the Bush administration. So I don't know why reporters keep asking Obama whether he will pursue Bush officials, apparently he has no say in the matter.

I dont' think you can say that's the only time that's happened..

but it is certainly the most egregious incidents in my memory.

Obama is allowed to set policy, but it's in his best interest to allow the Civil Servants sworn to our Constitution to do their damn jobs, and decide whether we got a case here or NOT!

It is not cowardice to say "let's look at all the facts"

the memos are classified

They know about the procedures but can't comment because the memos are classified.

They could be charged with revealing classified information unlawfully.

 

Ummm

the point is they need to "declassify" all related memos, not just parts of some memos if the Obama administration is going to shed light on what really happened.

You don't say that out of thousands and thousands of memos and meeting notes and congressional briefings that "here are parts of four memos that show what happened". Not if you want credibility.

you mean all the thousand that they destroyed????

fuck me, they killed someone! they had one of the torturers commit suicide after bieng publically reprimanded for showing sympathy, empathy towards one of the prisoners!

And then they destroyed all orders on the subject!!!!!

those memos are gone, Lonestar. Just like they illegally destroyed the tapes of the interrogations.

I've gotta think that

there are more than four memos around. Pelosi is already squirming.

let 'er squirm. we'll get a better democrat eventually...

but she ain't nearly the weasel that Reid is (want a better majority leader first, actually).

yeah, sure there are mor ethan 4 memos about. there's jay's sternly worded letter saying hwo much he disagreed with the torture... yadda yadda.

I think my point is that you wouldn't be getting the full story. It was int he bush admin's best interest to suppress any dissention in the ranks, and they did so by willfully destroying Condi Rice's subordinate's memo in which he publicized his disagreement with the OLC findings. If that's not the herring that tells you the whole thing smells fishy, I dont' know what is.

drivel

You really don't want all the memos to come out. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

Dick Cheney's drivel about releasing memos is a feint. He doesn't want any memos to come out, because they will also release the ones that show how torture led to bad intel.

Yeah, I really do

I want the congressional breifings to be published. I want to know what Pelosi and Reid knew and when they knew it.

Sorry but this is a Republicans-in-control-of-all-three-branches

Unfortunately for you this is a Republicans-in-control-of-all-three-branches-of-government clusterfuck.

Really? Republicans are in control of the Supreme Court?

Perhaps someone should buy you a Poly Sci 101 book.

Current court was appointed by

Current court was appointed by Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. So, in a word, yes.

Although Supreme Court Justices don't always

follow the political opinions of the President who appointed them, in the case of our current Court, as well as the Rehnquist Court that preceded it, Nando is right. 

Rehnquist - conservative (replaced by Roberts, conservative)

Scalia - conservative

Thomas - conservative

O'Connor - conservative/moderate (replaced by Alito, conservative)

Kennedy - conservative/moderate

Stevens - liberal

Souter - liberal

Ginsburg - liberal

Breyer - liberal

So right now there's a 5-4 ideological split (since Kennedy usually, but not always, allies with the conservative wing and, during the O'Connor area, she usually aligned with the conservative side on politics/national security and the liberal side on social issues).  Also, while Obama could realistically make up to three appointments during his first term as president, the only justices that are likely to retire due to age or health are Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter, all of whom are liberal.  Therefore, the Court will most likely remain a relatively safe conservative bastion.  

Oh, and here I thought the Senate had to confirm appointees

But you and NRN say that the president just sort of pick's 'em and puts them in there? Why does the name Bork come to mind?

I'll order two poly sci 101 books . . .one for each of you.

Easy, man

Of course the Senate has to confirm judicial nominations.  The Senate, however, is usually fairly deferential to the President's choice of nominee, with a few exceptions such as Bork (as you mentioned) and Harriet Miers.

Also, as I did point out, Justices don't always follow the ideology of the president who nominates him or her: Souter, for example, was nominated by the first President Bush but is a pretty reliable vote.

Even with that, though, would you agree that the Rehnquist and Roberts courts are generally fairly reliably conservative? 

I just think that it is ignorant to describe

the SCOTUS as "Republican" or "Democrat". Conservative or liberal, certainly, depending on thie issue. And I really don't see what role they had in the invasion of Iraq.

The comment from NRN showed a real lack of depth, especially consideing the court's stance on Gitmo.

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25117953

Is this a "Republican" court? It is absurd to try to paint "all three braches of government" as being in lock step.

as much as I want to tear my hair out

when the courts won't support the subpoena power of Congress against the Supreme Executive Theory...

Yeah, they weren't terribly involved in the Iraq war. However, they are complicit in covering up executive overreach. (this is why I think from a constitutional perspective, we'd be better off having Congress conduct an independent investigation, not the DoJ. The Executive has a fundamental conflict of interest here -- trying to protect the CIA)

Move on?

Ray said it before I could.

The MINUTE the GOP stops defending breaking the law and using torture, and admit it for what it is, then and only then can they 'move on'.

As long as you defend it, it deserves to be used as a hammer against you.

Maybe John Boehner is starting to figure this out - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/boehner-memos-outline-tor_n_190547.html.

But by him saying there shouldn't be investigations, maybe not.

For real

The Democrats won Congress in '06 with a platform of "War bad."

They then went on to win the White House in "08 running on a platform of "Bush bad."

What more does the Right have to lose before they finally get it?

How much more can they lose? 

RE: Cretins like Dick...

> Cretins like Dick Cheney are not conservative, nor or they American.

Let's consider the "achievements" that took place while Cheney's administration was in charge (via Andrew Sullivan):

A war launched on false premises,

a trillion dollar debt in a period of growth thanks to a combination of out-of-control spending and irresponsible tax cuts [Cheney: "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter"],

a destruction of America's moral standing thanks to Gitmo ,Abu Ghraib etc.

two horribly bungled military campaigns that have trapped his successors for decades,

the loss of one major city (New Orleans) and the devastation of another (New York City),

his own political party decimated for a generation,

etc.

 

Without these guys, there would be no www.thenextright.com ... there would be no need .

 

MARCU$

Amen

Seriously.  This is the legacy.  In fifty years this is what people will remember.  They'll be movies where Bush/Cheney ordered the CIA to torture people to concoct reasons to go to war in Iraq.  Bush/Cheney will be the bad guys in the this movie you understand.  And you know what...it will be true.  Let me repeat this for clarity.  The American public will think, I mean know, that Bush and Cheney illegally tortured people to concoct a rationale for a disasterous war.

And you sniveling apologists can go cheer at the movies.

The rest of us will remember that the war was entered into with the broad support of the congress and the American people in a time of great uncertainty. Yes Kerry and Clinton were leading the charge. 

Let the rewriting of history begin.

Nothing to cheer about.

See title of post.

no, he's right

This administration was the FIRST American administration in history to condone the torture of prisoners. This is assuredly a defining moment for this country and its citizens, but in a tragic way. You and your ilk will certainly be remembered as being on the wrong side of history. The "dead-enders", as Cheney would call it.

Who is the sniveling apologist here? You are the one defending the torturers -- those who sanctioned acts that warranted execution for war crimes after WWII. Are you so politically craven that you would sell your moral integrity in the name of partisanship?

I haven't sold out

Bush manufactures a war in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of far more than 3000 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. -Ray in Texas

You have sport. I'm not a partisan, but I do try to keep a perspective of history in mind. And I remember who voted for the war and the temperature of the country at the time. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but for all of its faults the Bush administration will be remembered for preventing attacks on the homeland. You can use your twisted logic to say otherwise, but, as a partisan hack thats what we expect from you.

You are correct.

There were many, many Democrats leading the charge.  But you're confusing something, THEY WERE WRONG TOO.  You see what I did there?  I don't just assume everything the Republicans do (or Democrats do), because they did it, is correct.  At the end of the day, however, the Democrats did not authorize the illegal torturing and the false testimonies and the trumped up evidence and the war justification.  That makes them either guilty for believing the administrations lies or going with the flow by saying nothing or actively cheering it on with the Administration (see Joe Lieberman).

Did you watch Watchmen?  It would be like the audience blaming Dr. Manhattan for not stopping the Comedienne from murdering his pregnant ex-girlfriend.  Did he stop it?  No.   Could he have stopped it?  Yes.  Does that make him culpable?  Yes.  Does that make him responsible?  NO

Afterwards, the Comedienne tries to actually make Dr. Manhattan responsible for his murder by making that very claim.  At least Dick Cheney hasn't gotten to the point of blaming Congressional Democrats for not stopping him from torturing people.

 

 They'll be movies where



They'll be movies where Bush/Cheney ordered the CIA to torture people to concoct reasons to go to war in Iraq. 

Really? I've never read this allegation in the most hazy left wing blogs. Who did they torture? What was their reasoning?Did they torture people to get them to say that there were WMD's? I think your timeline is a bit off.

There were many, many Democrats leading the charge.  But you're confusing something, THEY WERE WRONG TOO.  You see what I did there?  I don't just assume everything the Republicans do (or Democrats do), because they did it, is correct. 

I guess I missed the part in your original post that said democrats who voted for the war would be vilified. Near as I can tell they are seantors and cabinet members.

Two options

Two options about the Democrats who knowingly did something wrong as opposed to just taking the Administration's word at face value.  If they did something illegal then they should be punished and prosecuted.  If they didn't do something illegal, but unethical nonetheless, they should be voted out of office.  See Harman, Jane under the second one for sure and probably the first option as well.

So you say a vote

to go to war can /should be punished and prosecuted? Unless the information they had before that vote can be deemed misleading?

Interesting, to say the least.

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's

"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said. McClatchy 21 Apr 2009

 

This has been extensively chronicled:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/23/723565/-What-We-Know-So-Far:-A-Torture-Timeline-(Updated)

There is a big difference between deciding to fabricate evidence through torture, and being FUCKING TOO STUPID to read the fucking National Security Report before authorizing a war. One is immoral, the other is... unethical conduct.

 

From Andrew Sullivan

Thanks for the OPINION piece

What else ya got? Any info on the torture methods used by Bush/Cheney before the Iraq war? I'd really be more interested in pursuing that theory of yours. You know. The one they'll be making movies about . . .