The World According to Cheney

Glenn Greenwald has a great post on Cheney's bizarre demand that journalists in the pool on his return journey from Pakistan refer to him as a "senior administration official" even though he clearly identifies himself throughout the discussion.

In fact, the very first words out of his mouth were: "The reason the President wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world." He discussed at length the comments he made recently about Nancy Pelosi wanting to "validate Al Qaeda's strategy. So even though there was not a single security reason for the anonymity, Cheney insisted upon it anyway....

Cheney's petty demand that he not be identified -- like a petty tyrant's demand that his name never pass anyone's lips -- is just an assertion of secrecy and authoriatarian power for its own sake (even under the rule of Emperor Hirohito, "commoners were no longer forbidden to speak his name or look at his face"). But unlike Hirohito, Cheney is an elected public servant of American citizens and this attempt to prohibit journalists from attributing his own words to him is just bizarrely megalomaniacal and contemptuous, particularly in light of how he virtually went out of his way in the very first sentence to make clear that it was him.

The heart of the discussion with reporters was devoted to the GWOT and the role Cheney sees Iraq playing in it. This is where we get a glimpse into the bizarre workings of the Cheney White House brain trust in formulating foreign policy. Greenwald:

Towards the beginning of the interview, Cheney was referring to his meetings with Prime Minister Karzai and President Musharraf when, out of the blue, he began arguing that those leaders would somehow be endangered in their fight against terrorism if we withdrew from Iraq:

I've often spoken and would reiterate again today, when you think about the debate at home, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle arguing that we need to get out of Iraq, then you go spend some time with our allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you can't help but be convinced that that would have a devastating impact, devastating consequences for what they're trying to do, what they've agreed to do in terms of their ongoing efforts with us as allies in these struggles in this part of the world.

Nothing makes less sense than that. By all accounts, the reason we face a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda in that region is because there are insufficient troops there -- a troop deficiency we have suffered since our invasion of Iraq. In fact, Cheney himself, when asked to elaborate on the claim he was making, made clear that Karzai and Musharraf's problem is a lack of American and NATO troops in Afghanistan:

One of the reasons I think Karzai was upbeat was because of the United States' economic and financial commitment. We've asked for significant sums for him this year in the budget, the commitment of an additional brigade of troops to beef up what's already there, that's all taken as a sign of our commitment, specifically to Afghanistan. They worry about that.

The idea that withdrawing from Iraq would endanger Karzai and Musharraf's fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is just laughable.

Laughable, indeed. I'm sure Karzai is spending a lot of time analyzing the adminstration's commitment to the Iraq debacle, leaving the force in Afghanistan understaffed and ill-equipped, facing a resurgent Taliban. I'm sure that Karzai takes great comfort in his country's virtual abandonment by the U.S. Of course, you could arge that withdrawing from Iraq would make it less of an attraction for al Qaeda, perhaps sending would-be al Qaeda terrorists back to Afghanistan and Pakistan to kill their own people instead of coalition forces and hapless Iraqis. We're fighting them in Iraq so Karzai and Musharraf don't have to fight as many of them?

As Greenwald says, Cheney's arguments for the continued occupation of Iraq are "sophistry of the most transparent order." And evidence that he will continue to do and to say whatever he thinks necessary to continue this occupation, regardless of the will of the American people to end it. I'll let Greenwald have the final word on this, because he says it so much better than I could:

Dick Cheney is an increasingly embittered and reckless government official. And the further damage that can be done from a large-scale military presence in Iraq is more than ample reason why a withdrawal from Iraq -- and sooner rather than later -- is the most urgent political priority we have.