Cheney Attacks
It's difficult not to notice Dick Cheney defending torture. Just last night, for example, Keith Olbermann asked his guest, Larry Wilkerson, why Cheney is on the warpath. Lots of people are asking. And it's interesting to speculate. My take is that Cheney has figured out that Mr. Obama isn't capable of fighting back, so he's pushing him around simply because he can. Part of it, of course, is logical self-protection: Cheney sees that Mr. Obama caves before any and every establishment interest, and while Cheney knows that the U.S. establishment isn't going anywhere soon on the torture question (indeed, Mr. Obama seems quite happy to retain most Bush administration policies regarding detainees and to conveniently forget about the laws that have been broken), Cheney also knows that an international consensus is brewing to the effect that some kind of punishment for past misdeeds may well be appropriate and that this is exactly the sort of process with which Mr. Obama is likely to compromise. To fend off the bad news it makes sense to go on the offense. But more than that, clearly Cheney enjoys jabbing at an inert — and quite possibly empty — suit.
« The Ringer | Main | Kurt Wallander »





































Comments
George,
I think that yours is a well-considered assessment of what Cheney is doing and what Obama isn't. I do wonder how an administration equipped with good political minds can let things get so out of control. Or if they are letting a political rope-a-dope go on too long. Standing with your back to the ropes is fine to a point, but if you miss your cue you become intimate with the mat.
The money that is talking is probably the root of all this, but I'd like to think (please, just for a minute) that a haymaker is coming for Dick. I'll enjoy a giant left hook popping out of the "empty" suit if it happens.
Meanwhile can someone please get Dick to shaddap? I know, death or solitary are going to be the only way. This is what I am hoping for this week. Dick Cheney to vanish.
Posted by: peter | May 22, 2009 10:20 AM
You are 100% correct George — thanks — I was wondering about this myself.
Posted by: Robert B. Livingston | May 22, 2009 4:32 PM