Tom Brokaw, NBC News: "It's unfortunate for Vice President Cheney to have had this accident obviously, because there will be those who don't like him, who will be writing tomorrow that he had a Dr. Strangelove appearance as he appeared today in his wheelchair."
Brokaw brought it up. Judge for yourself. Did it occur to Brokaw that that this could have been a wily piece of black-hearted/suited satirical stagecraft on Cheney's part? Wonder what was in those boxes that he was reportedly moving -- himself -- when he injured his back. Shreddable secret documents, perhaps? Or could the former CEO of Halliburton not afford to hire movers?
(AP Photo)
UPDATE: Reports that the ex-VP was doing a little recreational waterboarding down by the Potomac when he slipped on the ice have not been confirmed.
"And a happy New Year to you ... in jail!"
If only.
I was just listening to the Ron Cooby show on Air America a few minutes ago, and a caller compared Dick Cheney to Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove. We don't have to wait until tomorrow for people to make that comparison.
This is interesting because G. W. Bush has often been compared to Peter Sellers in Being There. A half-retarded man being put into the office of the presidency by the corporations.
Poor Peter Sellers.
As everyone already knows, Sellers was a genius. He deserves better than to be compared to two of the biggest idiots in the United States.
I didn't get Dr. Strangelove from it. More like Mister Potter from It's a Wonderful Life.
Strangelove hadn't yet entered my mind. I was too occupied seeing old man Potter looking very uncomfortable outside of Bedford Falls.
As much as I loathe Mr. Cheney and think he has wrought unspeakable evil upon the United States and the world, I do think that you engage a little too much in kicking someone when they're down Jim (the endless Palin posts almost alienated me from this site altogether).
JE: He's not down, Alex. He's just out. At last. One thing that sets me apart from Cheney is that I would never approve of literally kicking someone when he is down. Only satirically. Not in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Haha, good comeback. But you were too easy on him. He'd pull their fingernails and waterboard them while they're down.
I do think you piled on Palin a little too much. It was absolutely necessary for you to promote Tina Fey's brilliant take on Palin, but once Palin was (rightly) recognized as the joke she was and was no longer a legitimate threat to the country, she could have been (and hopefully will be) forgotten.
I think he's malingering so he can qualify for food stamps.
JE: Oh, I hate malingerers.
I'm glad the other posters mentioned Mr. Potter. (This just occurred to me: was Mr. Potter designed as an inverted FDR?) But some of Strangelove's secret scheming and utter delight in war has some Cheney resonance for me.
Is Palin out of politics? Because so long as she's governor of a state (or above), she's a threat to the country. How could you have missed her post-election self-promotion tour? The woman's trying to position herself to be a player, ie do damage to the country.
More anti-Palin posts, please.
Also I would have loved for someone to do the old movie/tv courtroom cliche of pretending there's a fire, or a masked gunman on the loose, or something, and Cheney stands up and starts running, and the lie stands revealed.
I made this EXACT connection and had a rather humorous conversation regarding Cheney and Strangelove. How serendipitous!
Also: Blofeld from the Bond flicks. Where's the cat?
AND: The Big Lebowski! "The bums will always lose!"
Too soon, Jim. Too soon.
What Alex Murillo and Mike Farmer said. You're beginning to remind me of this guy, Jim. Don't end up like he did.
And just for Paul, here's something new about Palin from the LA Times. :-)
Jim and others,
I have found (most of) the comments on this blog saddening. I am one who has been dissatisfied with the former administration and excited for Obama's tenure as president. However, how does taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others (especially, people we do not like) not come down to being downright cruel and mean? What I have read on this post is exhibition of gleeful contempt and hatred for another human being. This is the kind of rhetoric worthy of only those like Ann Coulter (a person who should have no credibility in the public forum).
I have always appreciated the sentiment of liberals for their conviction of the intrinsic worth of EVERY person. Yet what I have read here is the antithesis of that very conviction. Should we not love our enemies too? In the words of Jesus, to not do so would make us just like the tax collectors and pagans. In contemporary language, we would be no different from Cheney or Bin Laden.
Remember at the end of "Its' a Wonderful Life" George Bailey wishes Mr. Potter a Merry Christmas. This is not a moment of superficial, emotional ecstasy, but a moment of love and truth. George has the same feelings for Mr. Potter as he does for all of his friends and family: joyful love. We would all do well to follow the example of our new president and have a generous dose of graciousness and humility.
JE: Satire is one thing, encouraging and approving torture is another. I greatly admire the magnanimous spirit of our new president. And I think Dick Cheney and George W. Bush must be tried for war crimes and abuse of power or the rule of law under the US constitution will be trivialized. We shouldn't confuse graciousness with legal and moral accountability. Both admit what they did; their signatures are on the documents; let the law determine the consequences. I want them to have a full, open and fair trial, which is more than they were willing to offer untold numbers of others.
I don't think you can ever be too mean to politicians. As much as I respect Obama, making fun of him is going to be every American's right for the next eight (yes, eight) years.
Jim,
You are spot on about not confusing graciousness with legal and moral accountability. However, without the former the latter becomes an exercise autonomous moralism and eventually ruthless, soulless justice; eventually justice is replaced by tyranny (the evolution of the former administration answer to 9/11 shows exactly that).
This post though was not about proponing the virtues of justice but about belittling an ex-Vice President and treating another person as if he was not a human being. My critique is aimed at that and that alone.
JE: Apologies if I took your remarks too far. I've been waiting so many years for this day (which I feared would never come) that I'm a little charged up. Fair trial for the pitiless tyrant with the pulled back muscle who looked unmistakably like Dr. Strangelove today. That's all I ask.
Jim,
You can rightly defend your outrage over Cheney and Bush's politics...and I completely agree that they should be tried for war crimes (if other leaders are, why shouldn't they?). But don't deny a certain glee in taking lowblows at Cheney, Bush, Palin, and the like.
The most egregious example was your laughtrack post of Palin's interview with Katie Couric. Granted, it was cringe-worthy in its ineptness, and downright frightening to think that, for a brief period before the nation came to its senses, this dangerously underqualified person could have been vice-president of the United States. But by piling on Palin instead of discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of her policies (or lack thereof...and in both cases, it was definitely lack thereof), you did briefly engage in something beyond satire, something closer to (as Travis Gilmore put it so well) the kind of dehumanizing, steamroller politics we liberals rightly accuse Ann Coulter and the like of peddling from the right.
JE: If she had been able to actually discuss policy she wouldn't have prompted the laughter from so many quarters. That WAS the key issue.
What Alex Murillo and Mike Farmer said. You're beginning to remind me of this guy, Jim. Don't end up like he did.
My "too soon" comment was meant as a joke.
Living up to Brokaw's prediction, The Daily Show referenced Strangelove. I have to admit the satire of it is funny (and appropriate) but I don't revel in the fact that he hurt himself. But I sure am glad that he's gone.
Dick Cheney is indeed a war criminal and should be prosecuted. We have a better case against him than he and Bush had against a number of prisoners held at Gitmo. We need to set a precedent that will discourage future administrations from torturing and illegally detaining people and from invading nations on lies. I don't see any prosecution of Cheney any time soon. The least we can do is lampoon him as the paranoid thug he is. Keep it up, Jim.
This post was the first thing I read this morning, and I laughed my ass off. It's a great way to start off the day. Thanks.
Actually, when Cheney was standing with his black hat on, he reminded me of Toht, the sadistic Nazi agent in “Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark”.
Funny. I just thought he injured his back when the door hit his ass on the way out.
Jim--
You're 100% right about Palin. When we elect a president, or vice-president, we're not just electing someone to flip a few levers--there is more to them than simply what boxes they tick in surveys about the issues. Palin was inept and ignorant, and those things matter as much or more than whether or not you're on the right side of the hot topics of the day.
I thought Dennis Miller's call on Cheney being Gert Frobe in Goldfinger was best. He said Cheney always looks like he is about to say, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
The Wheelchair is all Potter.
JE: All three were mentioned by US News & World Report!
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/01/21/dick-cheney-in-a-wheelchair--blofeld-strangelove-or-potter.html
Are there really people in here defending Cheney and Palin as the 'victims' of this evil movie blogger? Just how far up your asses are your heads, exactly? Pick up a newspaper sometime, you lunatics. These are monstrous people. One caused, and the other doubtless would cause, if she were able, a great deal of harm to the entire human community. If the worst that ever happens to either of them is that they get made fun of, I'd say they're getting off pretty light. In other times and places they'd be facing a firing squad.
Maybe take some of that 'protect victims' energy and use it to, I dunno, help speak out for actual victims? Of whom there are a lot? No? Ok. Keep citing scripture, though, that's great.
Jim,
Yours is one of only two blogs that I read. I read yours because of the intelligent discourse regarding movies.
I wish, if you are going to make political comments, that you would use the same insightful analysis that you use when you write about movies.
When you speak about war crimes, have you done the historical reading to make the determination as to whether prior administrations would be guilty of crimes and misdemeanors? Maybe you would have argued for sending Lincoln or FDR to prison? Do you think it would be a good thing if the executive branch is afraid to give up power because the next administration will throw them in jail? Maybe you would prefer a system such as that used during the French Revolution?
Snarky comments about anyone have no place in the debate regarding the important issues that the nation faces.
Btw, I enjoyed your analysis regarding The Dark Knight.
Eric
JE: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. What's important is that there be a legal determination of what Bush and Cheney ordered and approved were war crimes and/or abuse of power -- or not. Waterboarding is and has always been considered torture under the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. Bush and Cheney have publicly admitted approving waterboarding among other "interrogation techniques" -- and we have the declassified secret orders to prove it. So, where does that leave us? I don't recall advocating a rush to the guillotine. A fair and open trial is the only democratic way of resolving important issues of constitutional and international law. And if it's not done at home, it may be done in The Hague. This story from February, 2008, summarizes some of the known issues:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/08/national/main3807334.shtml
I think Michael hit on it with David Huddleston--the actual Big Lebowski. Very similar sneers, though Cheney didn't have the blanket around his legs.
Also, I know that I will be frequently using the phrase "lampoon him as the paranoid thug he is" from now on. Thanks, (same?) Michael.
Thanks Jim for the additional information.
I completely agree with you that these are important issues. However, I think that any issues that are known should be addressed during the respective President's term of office. If appropriate, Congress can hold hearings and choose to impeach. My concern is that any President will fear the transfer of power to a new President and then find a reason "to suspend elections for the good of the country." For example, when the country was new the supreme court finessed the ruling in Marbury v. Madison because there was a serious concern that the executive branch would simply ignore the other branches of government and do what it wanted because it had the power of the army. Similarly, although it is unclear how seriouly people took the concern, some people feared that Nixon would refuse to give up power. Anything that stresses the orderly transfer of power I believe should be approached with great caution.
Eric
In the old days, Roman tribunes and praetors were immune from prosecution while in office. Which is why they tried to extend their stay in office indefinitely.
I've thought a lot about bringing Mssrs. Bush, Cheney et al to trial. Please believe me when I say that I believe they deserve nothing less, and also that I believe that given a fair trial where all the evidence is admitted, they would be sentenced to many, many years in prison.
But...I've wondered if this is the best thing to do.
Given the willingness of Cheney, Rumsfeld et al to play fast and loose with the truth, the law, the separation of church & state, the separation of their own private and public interests (Rumsfeld, for example, was constantly recusing himself from contracting decisions at the Pentagon because he had NOT divested himself of interests in companies bidding on military contracts)...
...don't you think that the precedent of putting former presidents, vice presidents, etc., on trial after they leave office will spill over, and that the philosophical heirs of Cheney et al will find trumped up reasons to put Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al on trial after they leave office? Or perhaps they might not even wait until after Obama leaves office - they might start a whisper campaign before the next presidential election cycle with an eye to influencing the vote.
In short, if the USA is going to put the departing administration on trial, I don't think the charges can only be limited to authorizing torture. It has to go the whole hog, and charge them with violating the Constitution of the United States in the particulars of separating Church and State, violating the principles of the checks and balances, and so on and so forth.
And, if this is done, those doing it must be prepared for the quasi-defence of "what you're really saying is they committed treason. Be serious! They didn't commit treason."
The whole package of questionable if not illegal activities has to be brought to light, tried, and if possible convicted. It has to be done is as non-partisan and transparent manner as possible, or you leave open the possibility of one verdict in the courts and a completely different verdict in the court of public opinion. You have to do all this...in order to ensure that this never happens again.
Until 30 or 40 years from now when everyone has forgotten it.
Frankly, the whole process would be filled with so many potholes that I'm scared those who are philosophical brothers to the accused will be able to subvert the process to advance their agendas.
How about Professor Xavier from X-Men?
Dane Walker:
Yes, same Michael. Thank you (I think) for the compliments.
For anyone interested, I'd recommend Washington Post writer Barton Gellman's book Angler, about Cheney's vice presidency. Gellman does his best to give Cheney a fair shake, but at times he seems as if he can't quite believe the depth and breadth of the former vice president's transgressions, particularly when it came to the electronic surveillance.
Cheney would make a fascinating subject for a film. I nominate Breach and Shattered Glass director Billy Ray to adapt Angler ... after he does the Bernie Madoff story, of course.
JE: I haven't read "Angler," but I'm in the middle of "The Dark Side" and the depth and breadth of the reporting and available evidence is overwhelming. Billy Ray would be a terrific choice!
Travis Gilmore: I do tend to take great pleasure in Dick Cheney's pain, but not so much as a liberal, but rather just a spiteful, callous, cynical jerk.
A war crimes trial for Bush II, Cheney, et al? What a wonderful... dream.
I see 2 major "ifs" here.
If this unlikely scenario indeed comes to pass (Most of the reasons why this scenario will not happen has already been pointed out in previous posts by others far more eloquent than I. I will not repeat them here.) and if the war crime tribunal is NOT conducted at The Hague, but in the United States at or by, say, the Supreme Court or the Congress, then all that will happen will be that a lot of defense attorneys (Who would be the prosecutor in this trial anyway? Hillary Clinton?) will make a ton of money submitting a lot of motions to delay the proceedings again and again until finally the next neo-con Repub becomes president.
Then, we'll hear the dreadful phrase "Presidential Pardon" once again. Checkmate.
For a war crimes or treason trial against members of the former administration to stand a chance of being fair and not subverted or clouded by partisan politics, it will have to be conducted outside the country by a third party with absolutely no interest in the outcome. There is no way we can do this ourselves without setting a bad precedent and without appearing partisan. Personally, I doubt if The Hague will even touch this one.
Keep dreaming though. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that there are others out there in the real world who also feel that what this fascist regime we've been plagued with for the last 8 years has done violates the letter and spirit of our great Constitution.
Personally I always thought Cheney was more General Jack D. Ripper. Still very funny though.