Subscribe via RSS Feed

Ongoing Notes On the Death of Parody

[ 84 ] June 18, 2014 |

Shorter Verbatim Dick and Liz Cheney: “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

If he were talking about his own administration, it would even be accurate! I look forward to Michael Brown’s critique of the Obama administration’s disaster management policies.

Cheney in 2002:

As for the reaction of the Arab “street,” the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are “sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.” Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.

Oh-oh Spaghetti-Os!


Comments (84)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RepubAnon says:

    Tomorrow, the Wall Street Journal will run McClellan’s criticism of the way Ulysses S. Grant was handling the Union’s forces.

    • George Will says:

      Listen here, you stupid rape victims, while I tell you a little something about YOUR unearned privilege…

      • Reasonable 4ce says:

        Speaking of the death of parody, today’s New York Daily News has an op-ed co-written by Judith Miller explaining why we must get back into Iraq. (I refuse to link to it.) The death of shame may be a better description.

  2. Nocomment says:

    Jesus, what an oleaginous pair.

  3. Nobdy says:

    Everybody wants to talk about Abu Ghraib but nobody wants to talk about all the foreigners the Bush and Cheney administration DIDN’T torture.


  4. McAllen says:

    “With notably rare exceptions, a U.S. President has never before been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

  5. junker says:

    Not sure if you saw Chait today. He argued that conservatives who were wrong about the second Gulf War are basically equivalent to liberals who were wrong about the first Gulf War, and that therefore to argue that we shouldn’t listen to Cheney you must also argue that all libersl doves in the nineties are permanently discredited.

    • dick cheney sucks says:

      We shouldn’t ignore Cheney because he supported the Iraq War, we should ignore him because EVERY PARAGRAPH IN HIS OP-ED IS FULL OF LIES. Actually, maybe we shouldn’t ignore him, though I really want to.

    • That is fucking ridiculous. How many people did Gulf War I doves get killed? (Zero. The answer is zero.) The idea that there’s any equivalence between someone who advised an action that turned out destructive and someone who advised against an action that turned out constructive… is insane. Just incomprehensible.

    • howard says:

      i hope you’re kidding, because that’s an inane commentary by chait.

      the liberal critique of the first gulf war was twofold: we had indicated a blind eye to saddam in the first place, but far more important, it was hard to see how a military invasion ended without, well, without what actually happened from 2003-now.

      so the first issue is minor in the scheme of things, but the second issue turns out, in fact, to have been not wrong but right.

      whereas cheney was just plain wrong. time has not bailed him out, nothing he said prior to the war turned out to be accurate, and nothing he says now is accurate. he’s an angry and stupid old thug and he should never be listened to about anything again.

      and how chait can compare, say, me in 1991 with cheney today and say that if we want to ignore cheney for the rest of our lives we should ignore me too, is beyond me.

      this is the second totally dumb-ass thing chait has gotten involved with in the last few months: has the effort of combatting right-wing lies on the affordable care act worn him down or something?

      • JoyfulA says:

        And we were right in our opposition to the First Gulf War. Many, many Iraqis died, and Saddam wasn’t really tossing all those Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators.

    • sleepyirv says:

      Chait, of course, supported the Iraq War and just shudders at the idea that there’s some subject people don’t want his opinion about.

      • witless chum says:

        That’s basically the entire undercurrent of his back and forth with Ta-Nehisi Coates. That and an “It’s just a flesh wound!” level unwillingness to accept defeat.

    • Major Kong says:

      I wasn’t all that keen on the first Gulf War and I WAS THERE!!!!

    • Johnny Sack says:

      God damn Chait is fucking useless. I am almost prepared to say that Brooks is more intelligent and insightful.

    • delurking says:

      This is, apparently, the new Right-Wing talking point. It doesn’t MATTER that they were Wrong about the Second Gulf War, and that the Liberals were right, because some liberal somewhere has been wrong about some war somewhere. Or something somewhere.

      Also liberals are always against all wars, so the fact that liberals were against THIS war (and turned out to be right) just means they got lucky. It doesn’t mean Right-Wing War-Mongers Are Ever Wrong Again.

  6. jeer9 says:

    Parody died during Dubya’s administration. Every Republican knee-jerk since then has been, characteristic lack of rhythm notwithstanding, dancing on its grave. The Cheney two-step is particularly gauche.

  7. JKTHs says:

    Hey, he only said “rarely” so I’m sure he’s just leaving room for his own administration.

  8. NS says:

    Pretty sure Hubert Humphrey and Dean Rusk and McNamara and Kissinger and a whole host of others continued to have public careers after a far more disastrous war. It isn’t anything new. There are few instances in this country where a single event so thoroughly discredited a set of political elites as to drive them from public life.

    • sleepyirv says:

      Hell, even Robert E. Lee found a job after the War. McClellan was elected governor of New Jersey.

    • solidcitizen says:

      Was Vietnam “far more disastrous?” I have never thought on that question. Was it?

      In terms of body count – certainly. Maybe in “immediate lives completely overturned” as well. But in terms of long-term world-history type disaster, I’d argue that the Vietnam War was relatively inconsequential, other than maybe restraining future US aggression. Whereas Iraq is starting to look like “major unforced blunder in the ongoing control-the-world’s-energy-reserves” war. We toppled the one barrier to Shia-Sunni War and managed to came out the enemy of the hard-core on both sides. If Sunni militants take (further) control of Saudi Arabia, we have Arabia and Iran who hate us, the Russians have no love for us and the US is politically divided for the next x number of years about what to do about it all.

      I do not mean to discount the horror of the Vietnam War or minimize the disaster, I just think that the jury is not out on Iraq yet and it is not looking good.

      • agorabum says:

        Vietnam today doesn’t look that bad. But Vietnam in 1975 /76 certainly did (hello, boat people). Lots of executions and reeducation camps. And don’t forget the impact of the Vietnam war on Cambodia – Khmer Rogue? Killing Fields? Genocide of millions.
        Vietnam is still far worse. But, the world did bigger body counts back then…
        Jury is still out on Iraq, but it’s got a big mountain to climb in order to top the Cambodian genocide.

        • Joshua says:

          I would agree that it is a big mountain to climb, but I think it has already started and is making good time.

        • Snarki, child of Loki says:

          Cambodia? Didn’t the US side with Pol Pot, at least until the (Communist) Vietnamese intervened to clean things up?

          • joe from Lowell says:

            Only kinda-sorta!

          • redrob64 says:

            The US sided with Democratic Kampuchea (Pol Pot’s lot as fronted by Sihanouk) after the Vietnamese invasion. This was done in a “kinda sorta” way (as joe puts it), to allow the US to claim that it was supporting the territorial integrity of a UN member state, but not the Khmers Rouges. I’m sure there may have been a touch of schadenfreude when the cross-border artillery duels began, of course.

      • Snarki, child of Loki says:

        Iraq is starting to look like “major unforced blunder in the ongoing control-the-world’s-energy-reserves” war

        Or perhaps, winning the first major battle in the War Against Carbon.

  9. Ramon A. Clef says:

    Churchill, he ain’t.

  10. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    I know a lot of people wanted to see Cheney stand trial in the Hague, but I would have been- and still would be- satisfied to see him airdropped into Iraq with nothing but his snarl and his artificial heart

  11. calling all toasters says:

    That’s great, Dick, but what do Ahmed Chalabi and Curveball think?

  12. LosGatosCA says:

    Major Kong is on a roll!

  13. socraticsilence says:

    Having someone react appropriately to this would make Sunday shows actually worth watching. Just one person, busting out laughing and asking why on fucking Earth anyone should give a shit what Dick Cheney says about anything other than ill-timed warnings about Bird shot.

    Here’s a G-rated paragraph that works: “Sorry, David, I was just pondering a time when people who screwed up as thoroughly as Dick Cheney had the common decency to leave public life for good. Now, I’m not saying he needs to commit seppeku, but let’s be frank, the next Cheney missive that should receive wide publication is his doubtlessly self-serving obituary.”

    • Zombie Hunter Thompson says:

      “Having someone react appropriately to this would make Sunday shows actually worth watching. Just one person, busting out laughing of their seat to land a haymaker on Cheney’s evil face on live TV

    • Rob in CT says:

      To me, the appropriate reaction isn’t laughter. It’s spittle-flecked rage. The shear unmitigated gall of this asshole is almost beyond comprehension.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      How’s this: “That’s nice. What does Mike Brown think about the response to Hurricane Sandy?”

  14. ASV says:

    Rarely has someone who gave so few fucks fucked so many.

  15. “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” – Tom Lehrer.

    He was wrong about that, unfortunately.

  16. Halloween Jack says:

    “Rarely has a [former] U.S. [vice] president [and his failed would-be politician daughter] been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”

  17. Steve LaBonne says:

    Really, we can joke, but the fact that this idiotic, criminal asshole gets any respectful attention at all is a symptom of how dangerously sick our political / journalistic culture is.

  18. joe from Lowell says:

    Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad.

    It’s like a sick joke.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.