Dick Cheney served at the highest levels in an administration that oversaw the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in American history, but he never tires of reminding us that they “kept us safe” for the rest of their time in office.  That’s offensive enough–it’s kind of like asking us to forget about that little thing that happened on September 11, or giving the administration a pass.

One thing about Cheney–he’s always tried to be careful to craft his words to try to insert a rhetorical vacuum in place of 9/11, by saying, for example, that he and Bush kept the nation safe for “seven and a half years” in other words, that if you leave out the September 11 attacks, their record is spotless.  Even that wording was always imprecise, since Bush and Cheney were actually only in office for 7 years and 4 months after the attacks, but, as long as we’re not holding Bush and Cheney accountable for the attacks, why not spot them an extra couple of months, I guess.

For some reason, it really rubbed me the wrong way when I read that Cheney is defending himself against criticism for his recent over the top rhetoric that, to paraphrase Leon Panetta’s, almost seems to indicate a wish for another attack, by insisting that the policies of the Bush-Cheney administration have kept us safe for the last “eight years”.

I guess this is where I draw the line.  It’s June 15, 2009.  September 11, 2001 took place less than eight years ago.  It hasn’t even been eight years since Bush was handed a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” (Bush’s pithy response to that memo was to tell the briefer “well, you’ve covered your ass.”  Unfortunately, Bush didn’t bother to cover his own ass, or any of ours.  He stayed on vacation for the rest of August 2001).

In addition, Bush and Cheney left office five months ago.  On Cheney’s reasoning, he and Bush get to take credit for keeping Americans safe during the first five months of Obama’s administration–though, if an attack occurs, that will, of course, be Obama’s fault.  ( A question comes to mind: if, as I certainly hope is the case, there are no attacks for the next four years and beyond, will Cheney keep taking credit, claiming he and Bush kept us safe for eight years, twelve years, etc.?)

It may seem like a minor point, but I think it’s worth pointing out that, even taking Cheney on his own terms, he and Bush can’t take credit for keeping us safe for the past eight years.  First, it hasn’t been eight years since 9/11.  Second, Cheney stopped being Vice President five months ago.  Maybe someone needs to get him a memo on that.

Whenever the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees is challenged, whenever anyone has dared to speak the truth that torture is both immoral and illegal, it’s just a matter of time before one of the now former Bushies trots out that tired trump card: anyone who questions the use of torture is making Americans less safe.

The latest person to make this despicable argument is former Republican Congressman and former CIA Director from 2004-2006, Porter Goss, in today’s Washington Post.  Goss is just the latest defender of torture who is trying to distract us from the real issue: that the Bush administration tortured detainees in an attempt to extract “confessions” about a non-existent link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Goss is following in the finest tradition of the Bush-Cheney era by using fear in an attempt to distract those who would question the Bush administration.  In his Post op-ed, Goss solemnly tells us that “the damage to our [intelligence] capabilities has already been done” –apparently by the release of memos revealing new details about the Bush administration’s torture of detainees.  (It’s interesting, by the way, that Goss laughed off any concerns about damage to our intelligence capabilities when the Bush administration publicly exposed the cover of an undercover agent, Valerie Wilson.  I’m sure it is just a coincidence that the Wilson matter involved Republicans, because Goss makes clear in the title of today’s op-ed that he is a man who puts security before politics).

Shame on you Porter Goss.  Stop hiding behind the bogus assertion that torture is essential to security.  Someone needs to ask Director Goss to explain how trying to extract “confessions” about the phony link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was essential to keeping us safe.

Goss is using an incredibly disingenuous form of argument.  He will not engage on the real question: will anyone be held accountable for torture that had nothing to do with keeping us safe? (I think all torture is wrong but I think it’s worth emphasizing that this is about torture that had nothing to do with keeping anyone safe).  Instead, he tries to change the topic, pretending that the real villains here are in the Obama administration, which undermined the CIA by releasing the torture memos.

Republicans (and at least one anti-choice Democrat) are opposing two of President’s Obama’s nominees because they are pro-choice.  It’s funny, because Republicans are also complaining that there is an attempt to criminalize political differences by holding the Bush administration accountable for torture.  I smell hypocrisy.  Holding people accountable for torture has nothing to do with criminalizing “political differences“, but blocking presidential nominees because of their views on abortion rights is pure politics.

Sure, they’re not actually criminalizing the pro-choice position yet, but that’s actually where the logic of their argument leads.  If abortion is murder, as the anti-choicers say, then it is a crime, and the next question becomes how to criminally punish women who have abortions.  GOP Chair Michael Steele has suggested that one of the nominees in question, Kathleen Sebelius, needs to answer “significant questions” about her views, implying there is something sinister or nefarious that needs to be looked into.

It’s time for someone to speak clearly here.  It is utterly illegitimate to block a presidential nominee because she (both of these nominees are women) is pro-choice.  This would be like Democrats blocking Bush nominees simply because they were supply siders or, more to the point, anti-choice.  It’s a political difference, a policy difference, but not grounds for denying a President a chosen nominee.

As Steve Benen points out, reproductive rights are constitutionally protected and enjoy the support of most Americans.  It is not an extreme position to be pro-choice–it is decidedly mainstream.   The anti-choice movement has lost before the Supreme Court, it has been unable to convince Congress to vindicate its goals, and it has lost in the court of public opinion.

Those who suggest that being pro-choice disqualifies Kathleen Sebelius from becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services or Dawn Johnsen from heading up the Justice Dept.’s Office of Legal Counsel are trying to turn a political difference into something sinister.  That is illegitimate, and it’s time to denounce these bullying tactics for what they are.

Perhaps only renewed interest in Ben’s Chili Bowl…

Is it only this cartoonist who is quite surprised how long people would wait in line for a half smoke?

If Politico and cable news repeats something often enough, will it become true?  We may get a chance to see when it comes to coverage of President Obama, which portrays him as a president who is struggling to meet expectations.  For example, Politico suggests Obama is a president who has “suffered missteps” and is seeking “refuge” following critical media coverage.  What are these important missteps?  One is the “tougher-than-expected passage of the stimulus bill.”  Since when does winning passage of key legislation qualify as a misstep?  (Politico seems to be aware of the paradox-it also seems to refer to passage of the stimuls bill as “a smashing campaign victory.”

I don’t think the Daschle and Gregg nominations are something to point to as successes, but I think Politico and others are overdoing their importance.  Presidents often nominate cabinet members who either are not confirmed (John Tower, Zoe Baird) or turn out to be utter failures (Alberto Gonzales).  It’s hard to imagine that (as Rahm Emanuel suggested) anyone will be talking about Daschle or Gregg in weeks, let alone months or years, to come.

Politico paints a picture of a president who is back on his heels, but it ignores some important evidence to the contrary: Obama’s approval rating is over 60%.  I am sure there will be times when Obama’s approval rating dips and he really is on the defensive.  But, as Obama prepares to sign the stimulus bill today, with his approval ratings over 60% (and disapproval at just 23% in Gallup’s poll), there’s something pretty dissonant about focusing on his “missteps”.

Via Christy:

ROMANO: Can I get a reaction on Dick Cheney’s comments that there will be a high probability of a terrorist…that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear attack in the next ten years?

AXELROD: Well, those…there’s no doubt, I think we all live with the reality that there’s a threat and it’s a grave threat. It existed during the years of the Bush Administration. We’re living with it now — it’s something that the President is completely focused on and meets every day on these threats.

I was disappointed with the Vice President’s comments, not because he said…stated the obvious which is that there are threats that are grave, but that he suggested that somehow the president’s decisions on torture and Guantanimo would increase the likelihood of that.

You know, one of the things that I’ve been impressed by is the graciousness that President Bush has shown during this transition period and the first weeks of this administration. When he left, he wished us the best — and I believe that he meant that.

Apparently the memo didn’t circulate around the White House, because I’ve seen…you know…what I consider tasteless comments by the Vice President.

Amazing comments by Karl Rove. You know, the last thing that I think we’re looking for at this juncture is advice on fiscal integrity or ethics from Karl Rove. I mean, anyone who’s read the newspapers for the last eight years would laugh at that.

Here is Gregg’s statement (via email):

I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

As we move forward, I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals. This will certainly be a goal of mine.

Kathy and I also want to specifically thank Governor Lynch and Bonnie Newman for their friendship and assistance during this period. In addition we wish to thank all the people, especially in New Hampshire, who have been so kind and generous in their supportive comments.

As a further matter of clarification, nothing about the vetting process played any role in this decision. I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.

And the Obama statement (actually Gibbs, via email):

“Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart”.

Feel the burn. Apparently Gregg will not be running for re-election.

You can help ensure that a Democrat wins the seat in 2010 by donating to Rep. Paul Hodes now.

Near the beginning of his press conference tonight, President Obama said something that makes very clear why the Republican party stands poised on the brink of irrelevance: “as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems–especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans.”  He might have changed “eight” to “thirty”–for more than a generation, Republicans have chanted the same mantra of trickle down economics in response to every economic challenge: that tax cuts for the wealthy are the solution.

Most Republicans in the Senate still believe in this disproved theory: 36 of 41 Republicans voted for an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have replaced every bit of spending with tax cuts.

Barack Obama is not a magician and no one can say how quickly his plan will work.  But economists across the political spectrum agree that simply cutting taxes is not a solution, and it looks like at least a few Republicans are rational enough to realize this, just enough to vote for an end to debate on the bill in the Senate today.

Obama doesn’t have all the answers, but if, as is looking very likely, the stimulus plan passes both Houses and ends up on his desk (after the bills are reconciled in Congress), the 36 Republicans in the Senate who swore their allegiance to a failed approach run an enormous risk.  14 years ago, Bill Clinton had to declare his relevance as president.  Republicans who criticize those who would act to address the worst economic crisis in 75 years but offer nothing other than a failed approach may find themselves in a similar position of having to declare, and prove, their relevance.

David Sirota is going to be pissed:

“We can’t send a protectionist message,” Obama said in an interview with Fox News, referring to the multi-billion-dollar economic stimulus package currently being debated in the U.S. Senate.

It would be a grave error to push ahead with any provisions that violate world trade agreements and signal a new era of U.S. protectionism, Obama added to ABC News.

“I think that would be a mistake right now. That is a potential source of trade wars that we can’t afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe,” Obama said.

“We need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war.”

Or as the New York Times tells it:

In television interviews tonight, President Obama agreed with Republicans that provisions should be stripped from the House and Senate stimulus bills requiring the use of made-in-the U.S.A. steel, iron or other goods in these financed projects. The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups called the measures protectionist.

Sirota has lots of background here (and here). Contradicting his own Veep’s messaging on this from just a few days ago, President Obama has folded on another campaign promise. Somebody better tell Politifact.

Update 1: Via Ambinder, the relevant piece of the ABC transcript:

CHARLES GIBSON: A couple of quick questions. There are “Buy America” provisions in this bill. A lot of people think that could set up a trade war, cost American jobs. You want them out?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I want provisions that are going to be a violation of World Trade Organization agreements or in other ways signal protectionism. I think that would be a mistake right now. That is a potential source of trade wars that we can’t afford at a time when trade is sinking all across the globe.

CHARLES GIBSON: What’s in there now? Do you think that does that? Do you want it out?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think we need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war.

Update 2: Not happy about this development? Tell someone who cares. No, seriously.

White House Switchboard: 202-456-1414
U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202 224-3121

Administration sources are now confirming that New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg has been tapped - and has accepted - President Obama’s offer to be Commerce Secretary. There is just one condition, his replacement must be a Republican. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was very blunt on Sunday saying, “I think it would have no impact on the balance of power in the Senate.” Jane Hamsher isn’t sure what makes Gregg so indispensable, and I’m not I do either. There is clearly some grand plan here.

Chris Bowers points out the irony of someone who, at least as of January 30th opposed the economic recovery plan, being put charge of the Department of Commerce. He then solicited input from readers, looking for a an explanation. David Mizner had the same reaction I did.

Seriously, maybe Gregg agreed to support the stimulus… I mean, can Gregg really vote against O’s signature piece of legislation before heading into the administration?

The optics of Gregg voting against this would be really bad. President Obama probably doesn’t need more than Snowe and Collins out of the GOP, but he definitely wants more than token Republican support on this thing.

The other real possibility is that Gregg will not show up for the vote this week, but if that is the case, it may not be immediately evident what Obama got out of the deal.

Regardless of how the deal went down, this episode highlights the importance of Senator Feingold’s Amendment to require special elections for all Senate seats. The consequences of these seats is far too important to leave to ego-maniacal slimeballs and back room deals. After New York, Illinois and now New Hampshire, it is clear this is a lesson we are going to learn the hard way.