Shrine of the Silver Monkey

Alright ok but seriously you don't know Dick.

So he sez that he thinks the US will suffer a terrorist attack under Obama, because the Obama administration is too soft on terrorists. There's a whole lot of bullshit embedded in that statement, so let's dissect it.

Will the US suffer a terrorist attack under Obama? Well, maybe, who knows! It depends on who you define as terrorists, too. They're not necessarily Muslim - see McVeigh, Tim. I'd argue that serial killers are definitely terrorists. The job of a terrorist is to get people frightened.

So, one major assumption in Cheney's statement is that terrorists are to be feared. That's absolutely correct, but you don't want to overdo it. Look at what I said above - people need to not be frightened. I think of the Londoners during the Blitz, or on a smaller scale, folks in Spain dealing with the ETA. Stuff like that. I guess what I'm trying to say is: you should be a lot more frightened of car accidents (cancer, lightning) than terrorists. But I definitely don't think you should accept terrorist attacks passively. So what do you do?

Another major assumption from Cheney: What the Bush administration did worked. I'm partly thinking of the omnipresent surveillance, but perhaps a more concrete example is torture. The US tortured folks in Gitmo. Now, does that make people more sympathetic or less sympathetic to the US? The way I see it, there's a hardcore group - your Al-Qaeda regulars - who really can't be dealed with. You've gotta kill them. But there aren't that many hardcore terrorists. What worries me is the sympathizers. The people who wouldn't sympathize with the terrorists if their lives were better. People who are more inclined to help the hardcore group and join them because of the policies of the US. Another question: did the war in Iraq make people more sympathetic or less sympathetic to the US? It's only with things like the "Sunni awakening" that the hardcore group is being contained, but Iraq is still a hellhole. (The I/P conflict should also be mentioned here.) My point is: 9/11 was actually a fantastic success for the hardcore group of terrorists, because of the reaction of the US. Perhaps their influence is waning now, but there's still Yemen and Somalia for them.

So how do you prevent terrorist attacks anyway? Well, one way is through a good foreign policy (at least when dealing with foreign terrorists), the other way is through security. This is something I'm totally unqualified to talk about (even more so than foreign policy) - but I will note that taking shoes off at the airport probably ain't the best way. Yeah, yeah, Richard Reid. If we really want to be serious about airport security, we need to look to El Al. That's an airline that knows how to prevent terrorism. Also, seaport security is something worth talking about.

As for ideals, freedom, liberty, the Bill of Rights, etc. Jon Stewart said that if you abandon your ideals when you're scared, they're not ideals! Can't add to that.

Not to belabor the obvious, but I can't end without mentioning how utterly shitty it is to wish for a terrorist attack on the US. No one wants that, except for Republicans! They will blame it on Obama. So seriously, go fuck yourself, Dick Cheney. You know how mean and evil it is to wish for that. You're seeking confirmation for your evil policies through the lives of thousands.

Deep thought: anyone remember the anthrax attacks? Never solved by the Bush folks.

Deep thought: Watch out for giant Olmec stone heads.

<redacted>

I had 8 hours of classes by my calculation today, so I don't feel like knowing Dick. Maybe I'll know him a bit. Couple of random thoughts: Remember Caroline Kennedy? Yeah, it looks like Kirsten Gillibrand will be the new junior senator from New York. Also, an intriguing item from Swing State Project. My guess is Charles Grassley, who covers all the criteria.

And in the random connections department - I commented yesterday that Dick Cheney was in charge of the Bush VP selection. Caroline Kennedy was in charge (at least in co-charge) of the Obama VP selection.

You might recall the clusterfuck 2000 election, when we found out about Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris's bust. That's all fine and well, but during that circus who was overseeing Bush's transition to the White House? (It was ongoing during the recount mess.) If you haven't said Cheney, you really don't know Dick. What is perhaps interesting about that is that VPs usually don't run the transition team. (John Podesta ran Obama's transition team.) You understand the importance of Cheney's oversight - he put people he knew into key positions. His influence caused Bush to appoint folks like Rumsfeld and Paul O'Neill to the cabinet. He didn't influence all the appointments, but he influenced enough. Anyway, the point of the chapter was - Cheney had much greater influence than most vice presidents, and woe to them who crossed him.

Anyway, let's be a little more pointed. Right after I posted that Cheney entry yesterday, some big news broke about the NSA on Daily Kos, and disappointingly I haven't seen it covered in the media. I can't say I am completely surprised by the news, because when talking about the NSA, you should probably assume the worst. Here's story 1 and here's story 2. Sometimes life just sucks.

Angler

(alterna-title: You Don't Know Dick)
(alterna-alterna-title: )

Seeing Dick Cheney yesterday in that wheelchair was a pretty powerful sight. He was impotent, the dark heart of the administration humbled at last. As I flew back to Philadelphia, I read the book Angler (after Cheney's secret service code name). It focuses most on the first Bush term, which in retrospect was the truly damaging one, the one when Cheney's influence was greatest.

The book opens with a recap of Bush's vice presidential selection process. Cheney, you recall, was in charge of the VP search. He sent out a questionnaire to various candidates that was excruciatingly detailed. (That I can understand - McCain '08 didn't do much VP vetting.) But what interested me was that Cheney never filled out that questionnaire. In fact much of the selection process seems to have been a sham. Bush conducted sham interviews with some contenders after he offered Cheney the job. In fact, the traits Cheney was looking for in a VP seemed to be traits that were strong in himself.

To be clear, the sending out of the questionnaires was not a sham - but the information Cheney received could be easily used for blackmail. That points to what I viewed as the underlying theme of the book: Cheney wanted to concentrate power, power that could be easily misused.

And I want to talk about that some more. I haven't even explained the Frank Keating story that occupies some of Chapter 1. It's revealing, but I'll pass over it for now. What I do know is that I am zonked out from translating Horace, and do not feel like knowing Dick. (Sorry.) But I'll help you know Dick a bit better over the course of the coming days. Another theme I'll introduce - I did a series on Senator Church earlier in the month. Cheney is the anti-Church, and I'll talk about that.