The Big Lie

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was on the tube yesterday spreading fear that Obama Administration policies leave us unprotected. Sounds like the recent presidential campaign again, doesn't it?

"There is no prospect" that Iraq will return to producing weapons of mass destruction or supporting terrorists, Cheney asserted, "as long as it's a democratically governed country, as long as they have got the security forces they do now and a relationship with the United States." This from yesterday’s State of the Union on CNN.

What former Vice President Cheney, who hid from the press and voters for the entire eight years he was in office, didn’t mention, however, is that Iraq was NOT a haven for terrorists until the Bush-Cheney administration invaded, and NO weapons of mass destruction were found. He also failed to mention the fact that Saddam Hussein had turned into a pathetic despot who spent his time writing romance novels.

And Cheney failed to mention the millions he received from Halliburton stock, which had a year to date high - right before Cheney left office, believe it or not - of $55.38. Now that the stock market is crashed, Halliburton is selling at just under $16. No wonder he’s lashing out.

Cheney, like Rush Limbaugh, is the master of the Big Lie. He said, according to the AP, that all the Republican administrations goals in Iraq were accomplished and that they kept the country safe from another terrorist attack: "I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles," he said.

"President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

Here’s what Cheney also failed to mention: Osama Bin Laden’s goal was to bring the United States to its knees financially. Osama Bin Laden has accomplished that goal. He doesn’t need further terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center because the billions and billions of dollars that the Bush administration spent waging war on Iraq accomplished that without further attacks. The Bush administration gave away suitcases full of American cash out to Iraqis without any kind of oversight.

Lack of oversight. Does that ring a bell? Oh, yeah. The sub prime lending crisis.

Cheney lies to us outright when he says [Bush Administration War Policy] “was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.” First, Cheney in effect created a fourth branch of government with his vice presidency. He said his office is not a part of the executive branch of US Government, and then flouted the Constitution in the name of executive privilege.

Second, Cheney decided the executive branch could do whatever it wanted and created, as George W. Bush’s puppet master, executive orders and presidential signing statements that put laws into effect while at the same time nullifying them. For example, according to the Boston Globe (Jan. 4, 2006), when Bush signed “the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

“After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a 'signing statement' -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.”

Constitutional? I don’t think so, but I’m not an expert. However, “Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an 'in-your-face affront’ to both McCain and to Congress.

''’The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch,’ she said.

“'Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view.’"

CNN is doing a good job of creating conflict, which the network needs to promote its television shows.

I wonder, however, at the wisdom of having a failed politician (in the very worst sense of the word) spout hatred when we already have so many solutions to find.

As always, feel free to comment below.