"Stuff Happens"

In case you thought former vice president Dick Cheney's unhinged interview with Politico six weeks ago was an aberration, along comes more of the same.

CNN's John King did the honors, live, on Sunday. (Here's the video.)

Cheney again accused President Obama of making the nation less safe -- without providing a stitch of reliable evidence. He also ducked responsibility for the financial crisis his team left behind, declared victory in Iraq, and confirmed earlier reports that he found himself at odds with former president George W. Bush after failing to secure a pardon for his onetime chief of staff, Scooter Libby.

Cheney said that in rolling back some of the Bush administration's anti-terror tactics, Obama "is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

King then offered him the opportunity to back that statement up. "I want to give you a chance -- and take as much time as you want -- to prove it....I know some of this is classified intelligence, but now that you're out of government, to the degree that you can, tell the American people, because of those tactics, because of those, yes, sometimes extreme tactics, we stopped this."

More here.

People who know that they're wrong try hardest to convince others of their rectitude. In this case morality is less the issue than actions that were unconstitutional and violated international treaties.

Bush and Cheney spied on Americans, and condoned torture. In this they violated the principles they swore to uphold. Yet, Cheney refuses to leave the stage, an actor who ad-libs horribly, hour upon hour, after forgetting his lines.

He should have adhered to the customary practice of presidents and vice presidents and not speak ill of the current president and his administration for at least two years.

But Cheney couldn't wait two months before he stomped on the replacement team, accusing them of all sorts of behavior that he believed would ruin the country.

To hear him tell it, Obama inherited a country that had been soundly run for the past eight years. Thanks to Gitmo, the war against al-Qaida in Iraq, and enhanced interrogation techniques, America is now safer than it's going to be under Barack Obama and his appeasement policies.

Translation: We violated the rule of law, the constitution, and international treaties, but it was for a good cause. We kept America safe.

And if President Obama is going to keep America safe, he needs to do the same. Closing Gitmo, suspending rendition, talking with the enemy, leaving Iraq before victory is won--these actions are putting this nation at undue risk for another attack. And for Cheney that's unacceptable.

In Chaney's own words during an interview we have this:

"In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Cheney unyieldingly defended the Bush administration’s support for the Guantanamo Bay prison and coercive interrogation of terrorism suspects.

"And he asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the county at risk in ways more severe than most Americans—and, he charged, many members of Obama’s own team—understand.

"'When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaida terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,' Cheney said....

"'The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.'"

This appears to be a preemptive strike from the former vice president, not unlike the one leveled against Saddam and the Iraqi people, using "shock and awe" to demoralize the enemy and reduce their level of resistance.

It had mixed success against the Iraqi military, but it may prove more successful against the new president and a democratic majority congress.

Although conceding that he supports the rule of law, Obama believes that he should be looking forward more than backward at this time when the nation is in the midst of an economic crisis of almost thirties-level depression-era proportions.

Initially I agreed with Obama, but the rhetoric from Cheney has grown louder and more strident, the actions of a man that's calling the president out, challenging him to a dual of a sort.

"Yes, I supported enhanced interrogation techniques. Yes, we achieved our goals of bringing democracy to Iraq."

We went to Iraq ostensibly to disarm Saddam Hussein, and to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We didn't go there to give Iraqis democracy, nor to stop the brutal killing of Iraqis at Saddam's hand.

Bush and Cheney are forcing a legacy where none exists.

In addition, Cheney is taking credit for winning a war that shouldn't have been waged in the first place. It's like saying, "I killed a man because he looked liked the man who raped my sister."

Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9-11, and the Bush administration's efforts to connect the Iraqi-al-Qaida dots, and a supposed collaboration between the two, ended up being laughable, and downright foolish.

Cheney will continue to taunt Obama with the misdeeds of the Bush administration, hoping to make a case in advance of an Obama legal action, hoping to convince the American people that he acted with this nation's best interest at heart, and did the only thing that could be done to protect us from another terror attack.

Although congress is threatening hearings, probes, and other actions, we'll have to wait and see if it has the will to make Bush and company answer for war crimes, and other domestic irregularities.

This hubris from Cheney should be met with equal hubris from the Obama administration, but I don't think Obama wishes to use his presidency in that way--to open up his administration, and that of future administrations to legislative and legal second-guessing.

Answer Quest:

What action do you believe President Obama should take against Bush, Cheney, and others, regarding torture?

Should congress appoint a special investigator to take a deeper and wider look at the Bush years, with a directive to bring criminal charges, in concert with the Attorney General, if they're warranted?

Should we dismiss legal and constitutional constraints in our efforts to defeat terrorism?

A Cap That Fits?

What's wrong with giving CEOs, and top earners in corporations big year-end bonuses to the tune of more than 18 billion dollars?

What's wrong with corporations sending their top earners, and big sellers on expensive junkets to Las Vegas as a reward for work well-done, and to keep them motivated?

What's wrong with a corporation taking possession of a new, multimillion dollar company jet that the company ordered for the use of it's corporate heads?

Well, one thing that's wrong with it, is that these things are being financed with the American people's tax dollars, during a time when many Americans have lost their jobs, and are tightening their belt as a new kind of exercise regime.

"But that's not exactly right! American tax dollars are not being used for these expenses, whether you think they're exorbitant or not. These monies are coming from other funds."

Yeah, sure! How these execs can separate our money from any other is beyond me. Weren't these corporations teetering precariously on the precipice of ruination? Didn't some have to go to Capitol Hill, hat in hand, begging for a bail out?

It seems to me that if these companies were doing so well that they could pay billions of dollar in bonuses, finance expensive junkets, sporting events, and sports arenas bearing their names, then they didn't need the people's money to begin with.

For future recipients of bail out monies, yesterday, February 4, 2009, President Obama capped the salaries of corporate heads at the pay level of the American President, $500,000.oo. The move is not retroactive. Already, many are crying foul, while others are applauding the move.

"This move by the President could be very bad for New York; the state will suffer the most under this cap. And it will cause an unfortunate brain drain, a mass exodus of talent to other corporations, at a time when the best minds and the most talented are needed to shepherd these failing corporations out of the red and back into the black."

Well, if these talented tenth were so great, why are these corporations in the fix that they now find themselves in? If they're so damn smart, why did they need government bail out monies at all?

One thing that we may face if these talented, smart people move to other companies is that they may bring the new companies down in the same way they did the old ones.

And if the rats abandon a sinking ship, who would want them anyway? I thought a captain went down with his foundering ship, and was the last to desert her bow and stern.

By capping the salaries of company heads who accept bail-out money, many believe that Obama capitulated to politics, and political expediency, in hopes of smoothing the ruffled feathers of those Americans who're struggling the most in the economy.

I say power to him. Maybe it's time for some of these companies to fail, if their only hope for survival is to continue with their business as usual tactics--the very things that got them here in the first place, unchecked greed, and bad business policies.

If corporations wish to pay out big bonuses, fine, just don't ask the American people to finance it.

I thought that "pay to play" was at the very least unethical, if not illegal. We shouldn't assure companies that they're too big to fail, and insure them against bad managerial decisions and policies. I know of no place where bad decisions are tolerated, and failure is rewarded with fun and games and expensive consolation prizes, to the extent that we have seen during this financial crisis. I say if these corporations wish to play, let them pay, and not the American people.

This cap is just the right size, given the immensity of the problem, and the extensive use of taxpayer dollars that will be required to help resolve the problem.

A One Opponent Fight Is Like One Hand Clapping

Let me confess something. (I'm told that confession is good for the soul. Perhaps so. Perhaps not.)

When I was in my salad years this bully stomped my right foot. We had tangled once before, but at that time we were about the same size. We were the same color, living in the same neighborhood, knowing the same people (It was a small, every-body-knows-everybody town.) Now, the bully was not only taller but heavier. I was a slim Ali up against a "Smokin' Joe" Frazier.

Did I stomp his foot back? Hell no! Even today, a part of me wished that I had. But, unlike on previous occasions, my courage faltered, and then deserted me.

Now we have President Obama taking on one of his nemesis--a bully of a sort--in the form of Rush Limbaugh. He and Rush are not from the same neighborhood--Obama's a Democrat, and Rush's a Republican. And they're not the same color--Obama is electively black, although he comes from a bi-racial family, and Rush is white.

And although they know some of the same people, it can't be said that they move in the same circle, even one with "circles within circles."

But Obama, the skinny black guy, now our president, stacks up against Rush in the same way that Ali stacked up against "Smokin' Joe," but, in Rush's case, a white version of Joe.

And like "Smokin' Joe," Rush has thrown a few pre-fight verbal jabs, stating that he hopes that Obama, and Liberalism fail. "I Hope Obama Fails," Rush quips, with more bravado than usual.

And to make absolutely certain that Rush will be in shape, and ready for the big showdown, the Republican National Committee, the RNC, has spared no expense in recruiting a fight manager (Michael "Hard as Steel" Steele ) for hard-hitting, "Mount Rushmore" Limbaugh to prepare him for the fight of his life (Republicans are feeling a little punch-drunk right now.), for his up-coming battle with Barack "Fists of Rocks" Obama.

To make this fight more interesting, the RNC has recruited someone the same color as Barack, with the same "street cred," but from different 'hoods, Barack living on the left-side of town, and "Hard as Steel" Steele hailing from the right-side of town.

And this fight, unlike previous fights, will not follow Marquis of Queensberry rules, but will be a no-holds-barred fight, to take place in a steel-covered cage, and to the death.

Ol' "Mount Rushmore" believes that liberalism, and Obama in particular, are bad for the sport, and for our sport-loving nation. He wants to be the "last man standing," with his arms lifted over his head, and the Republican flag of victory raised over the Capitol, and the White House, at the end of the fight.

It reminds you of the new Sheriff in town telling the shootist that the town is not big enough for the two of them.

For the sport of boxing, and for the sport of politics (yes, politics is a sport, with winners and losers), both boxing and the nation's interests are served best when we have as many boxing styles represented in the ring as possible. The sport becomes dangerous when one boxing style is touted as superior to all others, and when one opponent believes that the sport is best served by one style only.

This is where the analogy ends. Conservatism and liberalism, as well as other voices, need to be heard in this democracy. It's the best way to assure that all voices, all points of view are heard above the din of special interest politics.

Beware of those that preach a politics of exclusion, asserting that their brand of governance is the only brand, and that their politics is the only politics. Beware of those that insist that their way is the only way, and that their principles are the only principles upon which to build.

Democracy is best served when we all have a say in our government, both conservatives and liberals, and all the shades in between. Democracy is stunted when we demonize one to deify the other.