Cheney's Traitor Checklist

Wasn't it about a month ago that defenders of Vice President Dick Cheney (and President George Bush) were saying that outing Valerie Plame was not treason, but typical D.C. politics?

If that's the case, than why isn't the same logic applied to those insinuating that President Bush and his administration misled us to war?

According to Cheney, such comments are treasonous:

"...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.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts...

"Facts" isn't really the issue, though. It's the perception that was being given by the Bush Adminstration. That perception, believe it or not, influenced how people viewed the facts.

Take, for example, some of Cheney's quotes in regarding Iraq and al Qaeda:

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Or this one:

"Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction."Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks to Veterans at the Arizona Wing Museum, White House (1/15/2004).

As far as Saddam being a threat: if Cheney felt that way, he's pretty much kept it to himself all this time. There's only one public statement from him on the subject:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."Source: Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).

I'm really curious what Cheney would say if a war critic said this:

If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, "look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Or if a religious figure said this:

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there.

Oops! That weren't no war critic, it was Fox News' own Bill O'Reilly! And that religious figure was none other than 700 Clubs' Pat Robertson (aka, Rev. Ridiculous)!

So here's the scorecard, as far as I can see it:

1. Outing a CIA agent whose spouse is questioning your intelligence analysis = perfectly harmless politics.

2. Suggesting that the President's military strategy is flawed and that intelligence information leading up to the war was manipulated = "dishonest and reprehensible (read "treasonous") charges".

3. Suggesting that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 can blow up another U.S. city or that a city should be punished by a natural disaster = satirical riffs and messages from God.

Where would we be without Cheney around to clear things up?