Mike Kinsley(WaPo) Downs Dick

It's gotta be a pretty good living doing the 750 word Op-eds. I mean hey, I can blather on for a couple of hundred words or so, and say nothing of import.

However, in this well warranted diatribe against a sitting Dick, Michael Kinsley states what many persons of all political stripes must be feeling to some degree(VP Cheney's disapproval rating is in the 80% range)

Kinsley's take:

"One might also argue," Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, "that untruthful charges against the commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort." That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make it. After all, if untruthful charges against the president hurt the war effort (by undermining public support and soldiers' morale), then those charges will hurt the war effort even more if they happen to be true. So one would be saying in effect that any criticism of the president is essentially treason.

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, "I'm unwilling to say that" -- "that" being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling coconuts at unwanted visitors. "Dishonest." "Reprehensible." "Corrupt." "Shameless." President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into war by faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons.

Interestingly, the administration no longer claims that Hussein actually had such weapons at the time Bush led the country into war in order to eliminate them. "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight," Cheney said on Monday. So-called WMD (weapons of mass destruction) were not the only argument for the war, but the administration thought they were a crucial argument at the time. So the administration now concedes that the country went to war on a false premise. Doesn't that mean that the war was a mistake no matter where the false premise came from?

(much more at link)

Click on over. You'll be glad that you did. The hypocrisy is again amazing. I generally steer clear of overtly angry speech. But given the recent assault by Dick B., I think it's worth reflecting on just how hollow Mr. Cheney's arguments are.

I cannot improve on Kinsley's work. Anger can sometimes be a thing of sublime beauty.