Without a Trace of Irony....

Update: being a nonviolent person, I do not actually endorse The Rude Pundit's solution at the bottom.  It does sound quite satisfying, however.

Earlier this week, former vice president Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, had an editorial published in The Wall Street Journal.  Talking Points Memo sets the tone:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz, the one-time Senate candidate and ex-State Department official, took to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday to blast President Barack Obama on Iraq.

The Cheneys set a bleak tone right off the bat: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," they wrote. "Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is 'ending' the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality."

From the editorial itself:

Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. 

When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. 

My mind, it is boggled.  It is utterly incomprehensible to me why this war criminal, who possibly more than any other Bush administration figure, helped to conjure up a war based on lies and falsehoods, and in which thousands of Americans died or were maimed for life, should have any sort of public forum.  He should be shunned, disavowed, and laughed at for all time.  Oh, and should be emptying bedpans in a VA hospital for the rest of his life.

Cheney and his cohorts basically sh*t the bed in Iraq.  And now he has the audacity to criticize Obama's actions, when Obama's options range from bad to worse to worst.  See, you can't unsh*t the bed, no matter how much Cheney tries to deflect blame onto his successor.  Iraq--just like Afghanistan--was never going to have a happy ending.  Never.  It was only a matter of when it would unravel.

Earlier this week, The Rude Pundit's head was also spinning about the Sunday news shows.  These featured an array of former Bush administration war cheerleaders...as though the same people who started those wars should now be listened to about what to do now.  

The Rude Pundit's idea was a good one, and a simple one.  Whenever any of them (Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Pearle; Paul Bremer; columnist William Kristol)  tried to sell the idea of heading back to Iraq to stave off disaster, they should have immediately been punched in the nuts.  Not listened to, not respected, just punched in the nuts.

On the Wrong Side of History...and Ultrarunning

Usually I don't even bother anymore with wasting any thoughts on things Cheney, having concluded that I just have to let it go rather than waste my bandwidth and energy on what should have happened in a perfect world.

(in the interests of full disclosure, my take: I wonder why the former vice-president is a free man, still a Very Important Person in political circles, rather than spending the rest of his life in jail for war crimes).

Anyway...seems that his gay daughter, Mary, and his straight daughter, Liz (who happens to be running for a U.S. Senate seat in Wyoming in 2014), are a bit at odds (credit to AP news, here):

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife stepped into a sibling squabble Monday after their daughters became involved in a public feud over gay marriage that began on "Fox News Sunday" and soon spread to social media.

Discussing her U.S. Senate campaign on the talk show, Liz Cheney restated her support for the "traditional definition" of marriage. She added that states should be free to decide for themselves whether to allow or prohibit same-sex unions.

Her sister, Mary Cheney, who is married to a woman, shot back on Facebook: "You're just wrong."

Gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not.  And just like slavery, or women's suffrage, or civil rights, you will either be on the right side of history or the wrong side (clue: the right side of history is that who people choose to love and/or marry is their business, not the government's ..."traditional marriage" is not diminished one iota if the gay guys or ladies down the street decide to marry).

I also loved this quote from the same article:

Mary Cheney and her wife, Heather Poe, didn't waste any time challenging Liz Cheney's television comments as insufficiently pro-gay marriage.

"Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 - she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us," Poe posted on Facebook. "To have her now say she doesn't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least."

Chimed in Mary Cheney: "Couldn't have said it better myself. Liz - this isn't just an issue on which we disagree - you're just wrong - and on the wrong side of history," she posted.

So, we have the very awkward clash of political ambitions versus alienation of family.  And Liz, seriously, does it really make sense to "leave the issue up to the states"?  Can you imagine a patchwork of up to 50 different definitions of marriage--along with all the associated issues of taxes, heirs, estates, wills, next of kin, adoptions, etc. etc. etc.?

Additional personal disclaimer: Among my family members are numbered several gay folks.  They are just ordinary people, just like you and me in every way, same hopes and dreams and needs, except that they happen to love someone of the same sex.  I love them and accept them and their partners equally and totally.  It's not my call or my business to do otherwise.

Think again about being on the right and the wrong side of history.  Reminder: you get exactly one chance to get it right.

And while I'm on a rant, let's also point out another entity that's on the wrong side of history: the United Methodist Church (link here):

A United Methodist pastor was convicted Monday of breaking church law by officiating his son's same-sex wedding and could be defrocked after a high-profile trial that has rekindled debate over the denomination's policy on gay marriage.

The Methodist church put the Rev. Frank Schaefer on trial in southeastern Pennsylvania, accusing him of breaking his pastoral vows by presiding over the 2007 ceremony in Massachusetts.

The 13-member jury convicted Schaefer on two charges: That he officiated a gay wedding, and that he showed "disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church."

Oh, and the mandatory connection to Ultrarunning?  Imagine that you're running an Ultra, say a 50 miler.  You're a back-of-the-pack runner, say 11 hours or so finishing time. You happen to fall in with a guy (or a woman) runner going about the same pace as you.  The miles and the hours fall away quickly.

As you know if you have run any long-distance race wherein you spent at least part of the time with a stranger, there is an instant connection and bond.  As you chat, all of a sudden you are sharing things about yourself that you would never otherwise broach in normal social intercourse.  And it's perfectly normal and natural, as you both struggle in the athletic endeavor.  As your body is laid bare, so to speak, by the physical effort, so is your mind.

So...it's not very far-fetched at all to imagine that your running buddy shares the fact that he/she is gay/lesbian.  Do you suddenly call bullsh*t and tell the runner to buzz off, you don't accept his/her lifestyle? Like,  "You're going to Hell, I'd better drop back now and let you run your own race."

Or do you have this moment of understanding and empathy and know, just know, in your heart of hearts, that the ONLY difference between them and you is that this person just happens to love someone of the same sex.

Not a big deal, is it?

Fire on the Mountain 50K...and War

Well, yesterday was the running of the Fire on the Mountain 50K.

I will post more about it after the results are up (unavailable as of this writing).  It was a tough race for me but provided some very valuable lessons.

Now, while I was happily running my heart out in the wild mountains of western Maryland, former vice-president Dick Cheney was on a Sunday morning show, uttering some chilling words (via Firedoglake, here):

On ABC’s ‘This Week’, host George Stephanopoulous asked Cheney about the effectiveness of diplomatic talks in Iran.
“Is military action against Iran inevitable?” he said.

“I have trouble seeing how we’re going to achieve our objective short of that,” Cheney said.

Maybe the Iranians are playing us about the nuclear ambitions, making nice and sounding reasonable.  But when you are talking about war--as in WAR, you know, where real people die--I'd like to think that the Very Serious People who run this country would be a tad more interested in listening and giving the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to immediately ratcheting up the firepower rhetoric.

In other words, talk first, and if that fails THEN begin to make very cautious noises in conjunction with the UN about the knuckle sandwich school of problem-solving (as well as all other potential non-lethal options by the world community).

Looking Back, With Regret (part 2)

Part 1 ran on Saturday.  Regrets seem ubiquitous these days.

From Crooks and Liars on 30 Aug 2011. Somehow I doubt this will ever happen, but it's nice to imagine.  I suppose that it's better late than never, but Wilkerson could have had more credibility had he broken ranks at the time rather than now, a number of years later:

The former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell pledged Tuesday to testify against former Vice President Dick Cheney if he is ever tried for war crimes.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that he would participate in a trial even if it meant personal repercussions.

"I, unfortunately -- and I've admitted to this a number of times, publicly and privately -- was the person who put together Colin Powell's presentation at the United Nations Security Council on 5 February, 2003," Wilkerson said. "It was probably the biggest mistake of my life. I regret it to this day. I regret not having resigned over it."

SNIP

Joining Wilkerson and Goodman to discuss Cheney's new book "In My Time," Salon's Glenn Greenwald said that it was disturbing to see the former vice president treated simply as an "elder statesman.

"The evidence is overwhelming... that Dick Cheney is not just a political figure with controversial views, but is an actual criminal, that he was centrally involved in a whole variety not just of war crimes in Iraq, but of domestic crimes, as well, including the authorization of warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of FISA, which says that you go to jail for five years for each offense, as well as the authorization and implementation of a worldwide torture regime that, according to General Barry McCaffrey, resulted in the murder -- his word -- of dozens of detainees, far beyond just the three or four cases of waterboarding that media figures typically ask Cheney about," Greenwald explained.

"And as a result, Dick Cheney goes around the country profiting off of this, you know, sleazy, sensationalistic, self-serving book, basically profiting from his crimes, and at the same time normalizing the idea that these kind of policies, though maybe in the view of some wrongheaded, are perfectly legitimate political choices to make. And I think that's the really damaging legacy from all of this."

But I guess we're looking forward and not backward.  Sure, we invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses, tortured and violated personal privacy under the guise of homeland security, spilled the blood of tens of thousands, depleted our treasury...nothing to see here folks, just move right along. 

Dick Cheney…and Ultrarunning

One of my favorite reads is Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I. She gets pretty irate abut stuff and sometimes drops a lot of f-bombs, and I say, “I wish I’d said that.”

Well, she just did it again in this post.

A tantalizing excerpt. After quoting a USA Today piece about going after a Guatemalan human rights abuser, she says:

What about our own war criminals? What about the National Security Council of the Bush Administration, which discussed, with great specificity, what torture techniques were to be used?

No, we won't go after our own war criminals. We'll let other nations do that. Which is why you probably have not seen any of the senior cabinet members of the Bush Administration, other than maybe the Secretary of Agriculture (whoever the hell that was) take any foreign vacations since they left office.

This whole Obama “we’re looking forward, not looking back” thing is really just looking the other way. What a disappointment.

Sure, the torture of captives in Iraq and Guantanamo has very little to do—directly—with Ultrarunning. Probably nothing. But when I run trails I want to be comfortable in my own skin, to know that I’m one of the good guys. And if my President, the guy I voted for with a feeling of hope, wants to continue to sweep this utter moral failure under the rug, then I can’t rest easy.

This probably sounds utterly stupid, but for me the fact that the United States of America not only tortured prisoners, we continue to ignore what was done, kinda diminishes the whole wilderness thing. I mean, how can I blissfully run my trails and act like there’s nothing wrong? Conflicted doesn’t even begin to cut it.