After seeing a variety of media reports on Dick Cheney’s speech to AIPAC yesterday, I made the mistake of actually reading through the whole transcript. The Vice President was in rare form, even rolling out a new speech built around what Cheney described as four “myths.”
1. “Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror.”
2. “[O]ne can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements needed to carry out their mission.”
3. “[G]etting out of Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America’s hand in the fight against terrorists.”
4. “[W]e can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to the broader Middle East.”
Now, I started writing a detailed response to each of these “myths,” explaining why Cheney clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but then I realized, that’s probably pointless. Cheney is too mendacious to be taken seriously. His demagoguery warrants mockery and derision — substantive responses to such transparent nonsense is a bit too similar to wrestling with a pig.
That said, I’m afraid I can’t help myself on Myth #2. Cheney actually believes he has the authority — politically and morally — to lecture his critics about supporting the troops by giving them the tools they need? Even the most ignorant political figures should probably be at least tacitly aware of the fact that troops still don’t have the body armor they need, and their Humvees still haven’t been equipped with the advanced armor kits that could help save Americans lives. Given this, it’s almost as if Cheney were criticizing himself yesterday.
“Myths” aside, Cheney apparently couldn’t resist his old standby: to criticize the White House is to undermine the troops.
“When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that’s been called slow bleed, they’re not supporting the troops, they are undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory, but of time limits — (applause) — when members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they’re telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out.”
Speaker Pelosi’s office was not amused.
“It is a disservice to our military personnel for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to continue to advocate for an open-ended commitment in Iraq, while brushing aside the advice of military leaders and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, all of whom argue that the war in Iraq cannot be resolved militarily but only through diplomatic, economic and political means. As the Vice President’s remarks today prove again, the Administration’s answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people.”
That’s not bad, but like Matt Yglesias, I don’t think it’s nearly dismissive enough. Cheney believes the best way to support the troops is to put them into the middle of a civil war without the equipment they need. Yglesias recommends a harsher kind of response.
I still don’t feel that Democrats have located the appropriately disrespectful tone for responding to Cheney’s foreign policy pearls of wisdom. If David Duke were to slam Pelosi as insufficiently committed to white supremacy, she wouldn’t start quibbling with him. Getting smeared by Cheney isn’t the same as that (but let him complain then come back with, sorry, it’s easy to get confused when you’re talking about one of congress’ foremost supporters of the apartheid regime in South Africa), but it’s still a situation where his attacks should be worn as a badge of honor. Substantively, the man is a horror. Conveniently, he’s also wildly unpopular. I mean, he’s got to be one of the least-popular major American political figures ever. It seems to me that “When Dick Cheney criticizes the House Democrats, that’s how we know we must be doing something right” is along the right lines.
Sounds right to me.