Cheney's Unspoken Words

I have a love-hate relationship with politics. I love what it can be. But at times, I hate what it is becoming.

I’m disturbed by our obsession with dissecting our opponents’ every utterance. We don’t stop at what they speak. We fault how they speak, when they speak, and why they speak. We even fault what wasn’t spoken at all.

Why?

Because politicos know the media beast puts conflict on page one, so we have to serve it up or get served in turn. Unfortunately, most political figures in divided government achieve little except managing the status quo, or the things they accomplish are supported by a majority of Americans, otherwise, they wouldn’t pass. That means all that’s left is to point to an opponent’s words (or lack thereof) in an effort to brand them as different from “us.”

Republicans have arguably pioneered “word dissection politics.” But even if you dispute this contention, as with most slash-and-burn tactics, they’re clearly employing it with more rigor than Democrats now, even if they often do so with intellectual dishonesty.

I’m thinking primarily of Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism after the Christmas bomber episode (though for another example, see Republican Congressman Peter King's request that Obama say "terrorism" more, as if repeating the word three times will make national security fairies appear and transport us all back to a pre-2001 Kansas).

Cheney excoriated President Obama for allegedly trying to hide the fact we are “at war.” Here is Cheney’s salvo:

[President Obama] seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war.

We are at war, and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe. Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency—social transformation, the restructuring of American society. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war.

What an asinine line of attack for people who have…what’s the word I’m thinking of here? Oh, right. Logic.

Does Cheney fault Obama principally for policy change? Absolutely not. His emphasis is on rhetoric. Cheney thinks Americans are stupid enough to fault our President for being less bellicose than George W. Bush. Whatever happened to the great American axioms “speak softly and carry a big stick,” “you will know a man by his deeds,” “let your game speak for you,” and “all talk and no action?” They’re apparently out the window with the VP, for whom talk even exceeds deeds.

As peeved as I am that the VP goaded the White House into a "war on war words," I respect the White House’s political smarts in responding. The conservatorati and the GOP galvanize their base attacking Democrats’ alleged lack of patriotism and military cocksureness, and the White House’s response demolishes Cheney. Here it is:

For seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq -- a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion -- Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda.

Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the president.

The White House added that the President knows we are at war, but "The difference is this: President Obama doesn't need to beat his chest to prove it, and -- unlike the last Administration -- we are not at war with a tactic ("terrorism"), we are at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent, extremist allies.

I don’t know how any objective observer can read the two statements and not think the VP really shot himself in the foot politically on this one. Of course, that’s an improvement over him shooting......over never mind. All I can say is he's the Conservative of the Year? Who else was in the running? Alan Keyes?!?

Cheney's Unspoken Words

The Sullied White House

A CNN poll today shows that American concerns about a new terrorist attack are at an all-time low. This is a great thing for Americans because worrying about physical security AND economic security is quite a psychic burden.

The thing I really appreciate is that the Republican Party has avoided stoking the fear of terrorism in a cynical effort to gain electoral advantage, as most polls in America shows Republicans have an edge in "combating terrorism." In other words, the more afraid YOU are of terrorists, the better THEY do.

Hold on a second. I just got an e-mail from the White House Press Office:

Patriot Day, 2008

- - - - - - -

By the President of the United States of America

a proclamation


September 11, 2001, was etched into America's memory when 19 terrorists attacked us with barbarity unequaled in our history. On Patriot Day, we cherish the memory of the thousands of innocent victims lost, extend our thoughts and prayers to their families, and honor the heroic men and women who risked and sacrificed their lives so others might survive.

Since 9/11, we have recognized the threat posed by terrorists to the safety of the American people and worked to protect our homeland by fighting terrorists abroad. We are confronting terrorism by advancing freedom, liberty, and prosperity as an alternative to the ideologies of hatred and repression. Our Nation pays tribute to our courageous men and women in uniform serving around the world and the devoted members of our law enforcement, public safety, and intelligence communities at home who work night and day to protect us from harm and preserve the freedom of this great Nation.

Seven years ago, ordinary citizens rose to the challenge, united in prayer, and responded with extraordinary acts of courage, with some giving their lives for the country they loved. On Patriot Day, we remember all those who were taken from us in an instant and seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world. We must not allow our resolve to be weakened by the passage of time. We will meet the test that history has given us and continue to fight to rid the world of terrorism and promote liberty around the globe.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2008, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half-staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Wow. Our nation wanted to recognize the victims of 9-11 and the people who tried to save them, and instead of leaving it at that honor, our President interjects our ongoing fight against terrorism to stoke the flames of fear. Instead of Heroes Day, he calls it "PATRIOT" Day. This is a carefully scripted word that subtly links our alleged need for ongoing military action in Iraq (and elsewhere) with that tragedy. It is undoubtedly true that if you don't have a plan to combat terrorists, they can hurt you. But don't trounce on the graves of the victims of 9-11 to make your political point, President Bush. This is not an expanded "honor the military and intelligence services day," Mr. President. Today is for the victims.

Mr. President, look again at how your proclamation ends. "...to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

If you weren't making a political statement, wouldn't you have JUST said that we want to honor those who died on September 11, 2001 without referring to the terrorism? Are these people special in your eyes ONLY because of how they died, Mr. President? Is that our national lesson? That the more horrific your death is at the hands of America's global enemies, the more worthy of honor you will be in the eyes of the White House? By this measure, people who died after Katrina had insignificant deaths because, Mr. President, your colossal ineptitude caused those deaths, not terrorists. Where will be the memorial for people whose deaths do not further your political agenda?

I've heard Rush Limbaugh repeatedly bash the attendees at the funeral of the late Senator Paul Wellstone for turning that funeral into a "political rally." I've heard the same criticism about the funeral of Congresswoman Julia Carson locally.

But, Mr. President, those funerals were for individuals. You, in contrast, single-handedly politicized our country's NATIONAL funeral. Thankfully, all of the ceremonies at the Pentagon and at Ground Zero today were ONLY about the victims, Mr. President. Apparently, tact and honor exists in places other than in your White House.

The Sullied White House

McCain Proves Facts are Impolite

I’m going to bash McCain, so hang in there because I first have to bash conservatives generally, and then rag on some oversensitive liberals.

Political correctness is killing facts, folks.

I say this, not because I delight in giving ammunition to people who use "facts" for malicious purposes, but rather, because if anything should be sacred, it’s the idea that we know some things to be true, and we’ll admit to the same, whether it helps or hurts our position and whether it tells the whole story or not.

Conservatives frequently crow about how liberals distort the teaching of history by being part of a “blame America” crowd. Instead of talking about how great Columbus Day is, those silly, unpatriotic liberals focus on an indigenous people inflicted with unintentional disease and intentional genocide and subjected to rampant thievery. Sorry to rain on your Columbus Day liquidation sale, conservatives, but these are facts.

Native American immune systems were not capable of fending off European disease, and hundreds of thousands died. Native Americans were killed, often wantonly, by Europeans who wanted their land. And as for the thievery part, Native Americans lived here before Europeans, never sold the land to Europeans (except for a few deals that we ignored), and now Native Americans only “own” a handful of small reservations and some casinos. If you never bought the land, they never gave it to you voluntarily, and you live on it now, how do you THINK you got it?

Does that mean American is not the greatest country ever? I say it still is. But that’s an ARGUMENT I would make based on weighing or analyzing facts in a particular context. In my argument in defense of America, I would weigh the following positive “facts”:

(1) staggering prosperity (average income);

(2) overall health (low infant mortality rate and high life expectancy);

(3) unprecedented freedom (nobody gets killed by the government for speaking out in America…though you will sell fewer Dixie Chick CDs);

(4) Democratic government (see constitution); and

(5) Improvement in inclusiveness (see Obama, Clinton, gay marriage in California)

…against the following negative facts:

(1) America’s mass land grab;

(2) America’s obesity;

(3) American’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II;

(4) America’s hypocrisy of saying “all men are created equal” while enslaving a whole race;

(5) America’s creation of more pollution than most of the rest of the world combined; and

(6) America’s role in promulgating reality TV (What B-list American celeb DOESN’T have a reality show now!?!).

We set forth "facts," and based on the weight of those facts, we persuade. We don't act like people who state facts are evil.

Another “negative” fact is that we killed an estimated 220,000 people in Japan, including women and children, with our atomic bombs. I suppose the total number of deaths could be disputed, but it’s pretty easy to count those who were there and then were gone in a blinding flash or who died from radiation sickness in the months thereafter.

Or is it a positive fact? What if I say "all is fair in love and war" and that by dropping atomic bombs, we saved more American (and possibly Japanese) lives by making an island incursion unnecessary? That's subjective. But you can't argue with "the fact" itself. You’ll never hear me hide from THE FACT that America killed children, which is conduct that we call “terrorism” when it’s done by anybody but America.

You see, I take America, warts and all, and do my best to make it live up to ideals it espouses and tries to press upon the rest of the world. I’m sure some conservatives are going to say I hate America for not seeing just the good.

But it’s not just conservatives who run from truth. Try talking about crime and race. You’ll get liberal eyebrows raising before you start. Here’s a fact. In 2002, 63% of inmates were either black or Latino, even though they represented only 25% of the population combined. Liberals run from this “fact” because they think it plays into arguments that Latinos and blacks are “criminals.” But the incarceration “fact” can’t tell the story of massive racial discrepancies between the charging rates on drug crimes of blacks versus whites. Nor can it speak to the discriminatory sentencing that keeps blacks and Latinos in jail for longer periods than their white counterparts. These facts rebut the incarceration fact, but they don't make the incarceration rate no longer true.

….which brings me to Charlie Black and John McCain.

Good old Charlie said that a terrorist attack would help John McCain in the general election. Black apologized for his comment. McCain then came out and said it wasn’t true and even used Black’s gaffe as an opportunity to recount his work to prevent another terrorist attack.

You know whose comments I find more deplorable? McCain’s. Here’s why. What Charlie Black said is a fact. The polling data shows in compelling fashion that the only area McCain demolishes Obama is on dealing with terrorism. This is why McCain jumped all over Obama when Obama said we should actually try terrorists instead of just holding them forever without trials. McCain wants to direct as much attention as possible to terrorism.

Common sense tells us the more an issue can be put on the public’s mind, the more likely the public is to vote for the candidate who wins on that issue. The reason James Carville coined the phrase, “It’s the Economy, Stupid,” is because he knew Clinton couldn’t win talking about foreign relations.

As a Democrat, I have wondered periodically whether Charlie Black has a soul. But is there anybody in this country (except for Ron Paul supporters who think we blew up ourselves on 9-11) who seriously believe Charlie Black WANTS a terrorist attack? That’s an abhorrent insinuation.

(Having said this, it IS interesting that the coverage of Black’s gaffe in the story above shows a picture of ground zero wreckage, thereby putting it in the public's mind. Is Black that stupid, or that ingenious? I honestly can’t tell).

But not wishing for an attack doesn’t mean that such an attack wouldn’t benefit your candidate. And McCain KNOWS it would. And so do we, without question. But America won’t let him, or Charlie Black, say it...because we are too afraid of facts.

McCain Proves Facts are Impolite