FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Vice President Dick Cheney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who slithered out of his secret undisclosed location to frighten the American people into opposing President Obama.

I know, Dick Cheney is an easier target than a friend’s face while duck hunting. But his national security speech this past week was nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt to rescue his flagging image by using 9/11 imagery to scare Americans into submission.

Dick used his speech to defend Bush administration policies that even George W. Bush isn’t defending anymore. He rehashed all the failed arguments of the past administration, but puts them forward as factual and credible.

Dick warns of weapons of mass destruction. You know, the ones that were famously never found.

Dick warns about the dangers in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. In truth, going into Iraq only emboldened the terrorists and created a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaida to flourish there.

Dick talks of the abuses of power at Abu Ghraib as a problem of only “a few sadistic prison guards [who] abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency.” Again with the “few bad apples” defense? This kind of abuse is a systemic problem and those who were prosecuted were pawns in a greater game that goes far up the chain of command and needs to be investigated. But also Dick, if the military shouldn’t be violating American law, military regulation and simple decency, why is it that you continue to defend torture?

Worse, Dick promotes the practice of waterboarding/torturing alleged detainees, even though it doesn’t work. Even sensible Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree that waterboarding is torture. Conservative radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller even allowed himself to be waterboarded, thinking the exercise would prove that waterboarding is not torture. Instead, he lasted only six seconds and concluded, “It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke. It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back. … It was instantaneous, … and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Most notably, Dick said the country is less safe today because of Obama’s policies.

But even Tom Ridge – the Bush administration’s original Homeland Security Secretary – doesn’t agree. Regarding Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention camp and release the so-called torture memos made the country less safe, Ridge told CNN’s John King, “I disagree with Dick Cheney. Waterboarding is a matter of debate, but it’s no longer an issue. Debate around memos and waterboarding don’t make us less safe.”

In his speech, Dick said, “To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target.” So why is it, Dick, that your first Homeland Security Secretary disagrees with you?

THEM DEMS ARE FREAKY TOO

Dick also lashed out at Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay, “The president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.” Dick added, “Attorney General [Eric] Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland.”

There is so much wrong with Dick’s statements, but what’s worse is that many Democrats are buying Dick’s illogic.

First let’s examine what Dick said. He makes it sound like the detainees will be brought to U.S. to carry on with their lives and live among us, like a paroled sex offender. In truth, the detainees would be brought and held in high-security prisons that can indeed handle them. After all, we already incarcerate serial killers, child rapists, and all other evildoers, (to use a word Dick enjoys). Theodore “The Unibomber” Kaczynski, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid, Charles Manson and Oklahoma City bomber co-conspirator Terry Nichols are all adequately housed in American prisons.

Omar Kadhr is one of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was captured by American forces at the age of 15 after allegedly throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed a U.S. soldier and has been held there for six years. Does Dick really think American courts and prisons couldn’t handle Kadhr?

Actually, Kadhr’s situation is exactly the reason so many don’t want to bring the detainees to the “homeland” – because the case of them is so flimsy, so many laws were broken in their detainment, and many have not been charged with a crime, that the real fear among Dick and his adherents is that the rationale for Guantanamo Bay will be exposed as a charade and sham.

But for Democrats, the real issue is allowing the fear mongering to take hold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters this week: “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” This is cowardly and pathetic.

And then came the vote on Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. With 90 of the 100 senators voting in opposition, Democrats and Republicans joined together to allow NIMBYism (the sentiment of “not in my backyard”) to rule the day. Democratic senators have been lining up to say they don’t want the detainees brought to their states.

As for Obama, in his speech he said that since some of the detainees haven’t actually committed a crime – but may pose a threat to America – it would be illegal to incarcerate them. So, he wants to make new law that would make prolonged and indefinite detention legal.

Was this really the change we were supposed to believe in?

An Afghanistan ultimatum

A new law passed last week by Afghani President Hamid Karzai’s government restricting the rights of women has forced me to think that it may be time to do in Afghanistan what President Obama is planning to do in Iraq – leave!

In case you haven’t heard, this new – and odious – law would severely restrict the choices and rights of Shiite women in Afghanistan. This is bad law on at least two fronts.

First, the law is a clear violation of human rights. The measure would reportedly make Shiite women nothing more than wards of their husbands, even requiring spousal permission to leave the house. Worse, the law forbids a woman from saying no to having sex with her husband – meaning that husbands can now legally rape their wives.

This is bad enough on its face, but it is made worse by politicians – particularly Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government – who argue that NATO forces are there in order to HELP Afghani women. Former First Lady Laura Bush even made the rights of Afghani women her signature issue in the latter years of Bush’s presidency.

But no, women’s rights is not really the reason for the war in Afghanistan – it was a red herring created by politicians and sold to the American and Canadian public when support for the original reason for the mission fell.

And what is that original reason? Just ask Obama. Here’s what he said last month: "So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” So fighting terrorism is why we are there. To that end, Obama plans on INCREASING the number of troops in Afghanistan.

This might be a worthy cause for continuing to fight in Afghanistan, but don’t sell the voting public a bill of goods that we are there to help Afghani women.

The second reason why this new law is wrong is that it applies only to the country’s Shiite minority, and not the Sunni majority. So Shiite women will have fewer rights than Sunni women. Treating people differently based on one’s religion? That should not be tolerated.

Supporters of Afghanistan have argued that women already don’t have many rights there, so all the law does is codify common practice. Plus, they say, Afghanistan is a different culture than the West, and repealing this law will not immediately change attitudes and cultural norms.

Well no, it won’t. But that’s no argument not to make the law reflect what should be. The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t eradicate racism, but it sure did empower blacks and other minorities – over time – to stand tall and be counted. Repealing this repugnant law in Afghanistan can only help women there.

Others argue that Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and Western and NATO forces don’t have the right to tell this foreign government what laws to pass or repeal. That’s true, to a point. After all, nations like the U.S. and Canada are spending money and lives in Afghanistan. NATO forces are, in theory, helping to build a stable nation there. And Karzai only has whatever power he has because of that Western-backed coalition. Does Karzai really want to piss off his NATO patrons?

This must be where we draw a line in the sand. This law has to go – or we do.

Misoverestimating Obama

As I write this, I’m watching Barack and Michelle Obama dance at another inaugural ball. But frankly, I don’t care about the pomp and circumstance of this historic inauguration day. I don’t care about what dress Michelle is wearing. And I don’t care about which marching bands took part in the parade.

What I care about is the day after, the day now-President Obama begins the hard task of fixing all that the George W. Bush administration broke over the last 8 years.

Obama told us we have to have hope, and I hope he can live up to the hype. But I also fear that people’s expectations have been set so high that he cannot possibly meet them. To turn a phrase first used by Bush, I’m afraid we may be misoverestimating Obama.

Obama talks of change – and certainly, being America’s first African-American president brings change. But there is much that will not change. For example, like Bush, he easily laces politics with religion. In fact, Obama has talked of continuing Dubya’s faith-based initiatives. He even cited scripture in his inauguration speech.

Obama talks about dealing with the wars, and many are expecting him to keep his promise of withdrawing troops from Iraq in just over a year. Is that even possible without Iraq falling apart? And I continue to be surprised at how many people don’t know that Obama pledged to INCREASE the troop presence in Afghanistan.

Much has been made of Obama being the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s “dream.” But aside from racial equality, King preached an anti-war message of peace. Increased fighting in Afghanistan will not be a fulfillment of that part of King’s dream.

In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of America’s “God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” Setting aside his statement that such a promise comes from God and not the laws of the land, if he really believes that all are equal, why does he still support inequality when it comes to marriage rights for same-sex couples? Too many gay and lesbian Americans have been too easily pacified by Obama’s glowing oratory, without really pushing Obama on this issue. Yes, Obama supports “civil unions,” and that is presidential progress, to be sure. But real change would be having a president who really means “that all are equal.” As the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled about racial segregation, “separate but equal” is not really equal. (The Los Angeles Times gets it right in its editorial, “Obama’s gay-marriage waffle,” at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-warren21-2009jan21,0,1786860.story.)

The new Obama administration has a full plate – war, recession, and a damaged international reputation, just to name a few menu items. And Obama will need all the help that he can get. Right now, the best thing we can do is to stop deifying Obama, recognize that he is a vast improvement over Bush but still far from perfect, and set realistic expectations for president #44. If we don’t cool our collective jets, we will only end up even more disappointed and disillusioned than we were before.

Peach State vote is the pits

The results are in and – thanks to Georgia voters – President-elect Barack Obama will not have a filibuster-proof majority to work with in the U.S. Senate. Incumbent archconservative Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss won the Dec. 2 runoff election against Democratic challenger Jim Martin.

Chambliss won his reelection fair and square, and my beef is not with him. My question is for those voters who came out in droves on Election Day last month – to vote for Democrat Obama – and yet stayed home for the Senate runoff.

While Republican John McCain won the state of Georgia last month, he did so only by 5 percentage points – 52 to 47. And only 3 percentage points separated Chambliss and Martin in last month’s election (but neither garnered 50 percent of the vote, which was the reason for the runoff). In total, almost 4 million Georgians voted in last month’s election.

This week, however, was a different story. Only a little over 2 million Georgians voted, and Chambliss won by a whopping 14 points – 57 to 43. So what happened?

In the words of the New York Times, “Many of the Democrats who turned out last month in enthusiastic support of Barack Obama apparently did not show up at the polls on Tuesday.” The Times also quoted Merle Black of Emory University: “For a lot of African-American voters, the real election was last month. The importance of electing the first African-American president in history generated enormous enthusiasm. Everything else was anticlimactic.”

Too many voters just didn’t care issues and policies. They just voted for Obama because he’s black. If these voters cared about Obama getting legislation through the Senate, they would have turned out for Martin this week as they did for Obama.

But for these voters – many of them celebrated by the media for being first-time voters “energized” by Obama – issues and political action just don’t matter. What mattered was voting for a black man.

Not that any of this is surprising. Back when Obama won, there were too many people dancing in the streets, voicing extremely unreasonable expectations. I even heard people talking about how Obama would end the wars in both Iraq AND Afghanistan – oblivious to Obama’s comments that he wants to INCREASE the military’s presence in Afghanistan. They just weren’t paying attention to what Obama was saying, only what he looked like.

So the first opportunity these so-called energized, first-time voters had to cast a ballot after last month’s election, they sat on their hands. Without Obama on the ballot, they just didn’t care. So much for all that energy and enthusiasm.