Where Left Is Right / The Old Site

[If Bush is The Weasel, then what might Cheney be...? I know. Perhaps it's just the inflence of the Harry Potter series (which Mrs. FLJB and I are re-watching), but I think the perfect handle for him is The Basilisk...]

The New York Times and other papers are reporting on The Basilisk's address yesterday to the American Enterprise Institute. (Complete transcript here. It always surprises me that these guys unashamedly post transcripts of their most godawful remarks, right alongside those nominally stressing statesmanship and moderation.)

The text was pretty much standard stuff -- starting with The Basilisk's disappointment at press reports about his comments last week:

Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"

One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way. For my part, I've spent a career in public service, run for office eight times -- six statewide offices and twice nationally. I served in the House of Representatives for better than a decade, most of that time as a member of the leadership of the minority party. To me, energetic debate on issues facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy political system -- it's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed in this business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most of us in public life.

Here Cheney is responding, apparently, to the Reuters story on his remarks before something called the "Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala"; the Reuters story has exactly the headline cited by The Basilisk. The Frontiers of Freedom Institute, in case you were wondering, "seeks to lead the conservative movement against an ever more powerful and intrusive federal government, and to restore and maintain individual rights." (This comes from the organization's capsule description on the Google Directory, category "Conservatism > Politics > Institutes.") I have no idea what was the purpose of its 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala, but perhaps The Basilisk was brought on for comic relief -- as there couldn't possibly be anyone less suitable to the Institute's stated purpose.

Here's the passage in Cheney's speech last week to which the Reuters headline alludes (all emphases mine):

I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

Got that? He's saying the criticism is dishonest and reprehensible -- not the critics. [IRONY ALERT ON] Jeez, Reuters, mislead your readers why dontcha? No wonder it got under The Basilisk's reptilian skin. [IRONY ALERT OFF]

Anyway, back to yesterday's speech to the American Enterprise Institute...

The Times summary focuses on Cheney's overall theme: that he welcomes, even "enjoys," healthy debate, but that he does not welcome, let alone "enjoy," the current debate over the validity of the pre-war intelligence -- or the misAdministration's selective presentation of this intelligence to Congress, the UN, and the American public. This debate is presumably unhealthy. And here's the passage to which the Times's article's headline ("Cheney Sees 'Shameless' Revisionism on War") refers:

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American politics, much less in the United States Senate.

What The Basilisk (and The Weasel, and all the rest of the misAdministration's corrupt, shameless menagerie) would have us believe, in other words, is this: All the reasons they gave us for the need for immediate invasion remain true to this day. Any suggestion that these reasons were known to be false is, well, corrupt and shameless.

But, whoops, there's always a fly in the ointment whenever The Basilisk and his people assert "facts" about their way of governing:

• There's the notorious energy task force. Cheney always said -- continues to say -- that revealing any of the task force's participants, let alone what they said, would be to disrupt his ability to confer with experts without having the discussion subjected to the harsh glare of public knowledge. So Congress recently turned to the oil company executives themselves: Did they participate? "No." "I don't know." And so on. Until -- whoops -- it turns out that oil company executives did participate.
• The Downing Street Memos (as well as Paul O'Neill's memoirs, and others sources) reveal that the misAdministration's inner circle was actively pushing -- pushing hard -- for an Iraq invasion continuously, from within a few days after 9/11 all through 2002... without, uh, subjecting the discussion to the harsh glare of public knowledge. The only question was, how to justify it?
• ...To which the answer was: Find evidence, no matter how discreditable, which supports the need for the invasion. Present it as certain knowledge, not even remotely vague or flat-out wrong it might be. Especially good evidence for this purpose is the evidence supplied by expatriates eager to curry favor with the West; see Ahmed Chalabi, for example, and see "Curveball." (Wikipedia articles on these two are here and here. Be sure to check the external links and references at the foot of each article as well.)

In short, The Basilisk's and The Weasel's continuing efforts to tar critics' perfectly valid 20-20 hindsight as "revisionist," "reprehensible," or whatever -- such efforts themselves are based on a denial that the documented past ever happened. It's a failure to revise one's view of history to conform to facts. That's not a mote in the critics' eyes, O Dick. It's a big honking log in your own.