Agnew Had Pat Buchanan; Who's Writing This Stuff For The Dickster?

The Dickster is moving into Agnew territory ("Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" and "Pusillanimous Pussyfooters") in terms of political ranting. The Trickster's Veep (Spiro T. Agnew, convicted felon) read speeches written by Pat Buchanan in the late '60s and early 70's. Buchanan is an anti-Semitic sleazeball. Who is Buchanan's spiritual successor (and likely anti-Semite) in the early 21st century? (Answer: David Wurmser?) The Dickster is reaching for the same Agnew-like alliterative sneer at the opponents of Dub's "policy" in Iraq. If only history repeated itself: Agnew was forced to resign the Vice Presidency when he was found to be a crook. Agnew managed a plea bargain that kept him out of the slammer. Now, if only The Dickster would suffer the same fate (without the plea bargain). If this is (fair & balanced) sanguinity, so be it.

[x Austin American-Statesman]
Cheney launches nuclear attacks on his foes
by David Sarasohn

In what reporters actually called an easing of the rhetoric on Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday called 57 percent of the American people "dishonest and reprehensible."

Speaking to the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute — these days, the president and vice president speak mostly to conservative groups, if they can't find a military base — Cheney attacked claims of manipulation of prewar intelligence as "dishonest and reprehensible," and launched his legendary sneer at the senators who suggested it.

But earlier this month, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked the question, "Do you think President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to war with Iraq, or do you think President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq?" Of the sample, 57 percent thought the president misled them.

That's a lot of reprehensibility.

It may be that on Iraq, the vice president needs more than a new American policy. He may need a new American people. And he may have to look hard.

As Cheney also explained, anyone saying that American troops were sent into battle in Iraq on a lie were committing "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety."

But a survey taken in early November by the Pew Research Center asked whether leaders of the United States and Britain claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "mostly because they were themselves misinformed by bad intelligence, or ... mostly because they lied to find a reason for invading Iraq?"

The survey found 43 percent thinking the U.S. and British leaders lied, and only 41 percent thinking the leaders were just misinformed themselves. If 43 percent of Americans are "corrupt and shameless," Democratic senators may not be Cheney's biggest problem.

Still, the vice president insists that what's really hurting his Iraq policy is politicians not being nice about it.

"The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough," he admitted, "but any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."

It's a ringing declaration, and an impressive display of Cheney's mastery of the synonyms for dishonesty. But underneath the charges of political conspiracy is a real problem big enough to be picked up by U.N. inspectors, or even by the CIA.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll this month asked, "In making its case for war with Iraq, do you think the Bush administration told the American public what it believed to be true, or intentionally misled the American public?" By a margin of 55 percent to 44 percent, those surveyed went for "intentionally misled."

Whether that 55 percent — the general standard of a political landslide — were "dishonest and reprehensible," or "corrupt and shameless," or maybe all four, was not made clear.

What's clear is that this administration's problems with the American public and Iraq aren't about other politicians. They're about realities that Americans have seen, and discoveries that have led them to their own conclusions.

One of those conclusions seems to be that if you spend a year whipping up support for a war — including the flat statement that the country you want to fight is close to developing nuclear weapons — and that statement turns out to be not at all true, you're not the one who gets to be outraged and indignant afterward.

Also, if you said confidently that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators, and three years later their casualty rate is still rising and a gathering of your own Iraqi politicians declares that killing U.S. troops is "legitimate resistance," it may not matter how many West Wing speechwriters are busy piling up insulting adjectives.

That seems to be another complication for the vice president. The most recent CNN/USA Today poll found that 36 percent approved of the job he was doing, against 54 percent disapproval. A Harris poll this month discovered just 30 percent thinking Cheney was doing an excellent or pretty good job, against 65 percent thinking his performance was fair or poor.

Even that was better than a recent Newsweek poll result that only 29 percent of Americans consider him honest and ethical.

But the vice president has gotten one big break. So far, no pollster has asked whether Americans consider Cheney "dishonest and reprehensible."

David Sarasohn is an associate editor at The Oregonian of Portland, OR.

Copyright © 2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.