Skip to main content

During a heated exchange on the Senate floor back in June 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney famously told Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy, "f--k yourself."  Looking back on the episode six years later, Cheney told Fox News that he had no "qualms, second thoughts, or embarrassment" about his Leahy outburst, because  "I thought he merited it at the time."

By that standard, it's Cheney time for President Obama's scandal-mongering critics on Benghazi. That is, it's long overdue for the 97 GOP Congressmen, Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, and the usual suspects among the Bush administration's thoroughly discredited national security team, to hear that Dick's familiar message loud and clear.

F--k yourself.
The list of conservatives trying to turn the Benghazi tragedy into an inquisition against the president and his United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is a very, very long one.  Here are just some of the F-bomb recipients who merit it at this time.

Continue reading below the fold.

John McCain. A man known for delivering expletives, even to his Republican colleagues, now needs to be on the receiving end of some. After all, McCain didn't merely declare he would oppose Susan Rice or any other nominee for secretary of state and insist the Libya attack was worse than Watergate. As the record shows, John McCain has been wrong consistently—and disastrously—on Iraq, Afghanistan and almost every other national security issue for more than decade.

Paul Wolfowitz. One of the architects of the invasion of Iraq, Wolfowitz' lasting contribution to posterity will be his casual rejection of General Eric Shinseki's January 2003 warning that the occupation would require "several hundred thousand soldiers." His claim that Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" was, well, wildly off the mark. Despite Wolfowitz' disgrace, he reemerged last week to blast the Obama administration over Benghazi:

Congress should stay focused on the policy mistakes leading up to the Benghazi attack, the question of the commander-in-chief's role the night of the attack, and the misleading claims afterwards that this terrorist attack was a response to an anti-Muslim video.
Donald Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz' boss as the Defense Department needs to get the Cheney talk, if not an introduction to the "stress positions" he advocated for terror detainees. The man who defended the chaos and carnage he helped unleash in Iraq by claiming "you go to war with the army you have" and "stuff happens" because "freedom's untidy" has also returned to attack President Obama. Last month, Rumsfeld announced it "has got to be embarrassing" for Ambassador Rice to have been wrong about the intelligence on Benghazi and accused the Obama administration of "a lack of competence and the responsibility" for the deaths of the four Americans in the consulate attack.

Liz Cheney. It's time, too, for a little father-daughter talk. After all, it took her less than 24 hours after the killings to declare that "apologizing for America, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies and slashing our military are the hallmarks of Mr. Obama's foreign policy." But before she pronounced Benghazi "one of the worst cover-ups, probably in the history of the republic," she might have paused to reflect on her family's record. After all, it wasn't just her dad who went after Joe Wilson, lied to the press when he claimed a meeting of 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta with Iraqi intelligence in Prague was "pretty well confirmed" and declared in 2005 that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes." A fervent supporter of her father's regime of detainee torture, Liz Cheney in March 2010 slandered the supposed "Al Qaeda 7" lawyers in what she called the "Department of Jihad."

The GOP 97. Last week, almost 100 House Republicans sent President Obama a letter denouncing Susan Rice as "having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter." But before they accused her of having ""propagated a falsehood," they should have looked in the mirror first. After all, the 97 feature some of the most notorious mythmakers in the GOP, including Birther Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Allen West (R-FL), who once claimed there are "about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party."

Tucker Carlson. When it was revealed last week that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper edited the talking points on Benghazi used by Ambassador Rice, Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson was among the conservatives who had a new conspiracy theory:

"I hate to think that the director of National Intelligence lied, is a liar. But I'm not sure I see an alternate explanation. Apparently, he's contradicting what he testified to just last week. Is there another explanation for this?"
As it turns out, Tucker Carlson is quite familiar with accusing intelligence officials with lying. When the CIA revealed that Valerie Plame was in fact a covert agency operative, Carlson in his all-out defense of Scooter Libby was having none of it:
"CIA clearly didn't really give a shit about keeping her identity secret if she's going to work at f**king Langley...I call bullshit on that, I don't care what they say."
Ari Fleischer. George W. Bush's former press secretary has been on the frontlines of the GOP's Benghazi hysteria, often turning to Twitter to issue his attacks on the president. For example:
"For Bush critics who say he lied about WMDs, is Obama lying about Benghazi? Or is intelligence info sometimes wrong?"
Of course, there is that third category, where the president and his allies—like Ari Fleischer—continue to lie about the Iraq war. As Fleischer put it in March 2009:
"After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."
Darrell Issa. The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has played a major role in the Benghazi investigation. Major, that is, by accidentally revealing classified information during committee hearings in October. Nevertheless, the same man who accused Valerie Plame of perjury and suggested the families of Blackwater private security personnel killed in Fallujah had someone else write their statements explained his worries to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News:
VAN SUSTEREN: Are you suspicious that it's incompetence in terms of getting that -- or misinformation and confusion? Or do you think it's a coverup?

ISSA: Greta, I'm concerned for both. If it's a coverup, then it's bad policy and bad politics coming right out of the Oval Office. If, on the other hand, it's incompetence and it's bad leadership over four years or more, something that President Bush prided himself on -- love President Bush or not, he focused -- and Vice President Cheney focused on improving our security footprint for our men and women here and around the world. That's important. We need to maintain that competence. I hope we can turn it around. That way, I hope it's not actually politics with American lives.

Of course, playing politics with American lives is precisely what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their colleagues did for eight years. After all, President Bush didn't merely respond, "all right, you've covered your ass now" to the CIA analyst who briefed him on "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." or claim that Saddam Hussein's WMD could be the "smoking gun that takes the form of a mushroom cloud" or later insist the United States invaded Iraq because "we were attacked." Hoping to deflect the bloodbath in Iraq that would kill thousands of U.S. troops and wound tens of thousands more, Bush offered this pathetic defense on August 30, 2004:
"Had we had to do it [the invasion of Iraq] over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success - being so successful so fast that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped and lived to fight another day."
Of course, there is no such thing as "catastrophic success." That's just another, oxymoronic name for failure. And despite having produced, defended and lied about their failure throughout the Bush presidency, its authors and apologists are on the warpath against President Obama over the Benghazi attack. If the roles were reversed, Dick Cheney would no doubt offer his famous two-word response.

Big time.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure-Cheney outed one CIA agent-putting Party... (7+ / 0-)

    before country, why shouldn't he continue being the same treasonous "poopy head" about demanding the outing of the covert CIA operation in Benghazi...for which  "'the State Department presence in Benghazi "provided diplomatic cover'"

    Why should FGOP partisan and Unpatriot, Cheney,  care that Iran, Syria, and Russia and Libyan extremists get all the details (hey, maybe even including the names of all covert CIA agents in Libya, etc) of the missions?    

    ...which involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals...of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles...

    Given that most of the weapons going to hard-line jihadists in Syria are U.S.-made and are being handed out by the CIA, it's not a stretch to wonder if the CIA is indirectly arming Syrian rebels with heavy weapons as well...
    No doubt sure that the Syrian govt., the Russians, the Iranians, the Libyan extremists and al-queda are just dying to get all the details from Cheney blabbing on CNN...

    Doesn't seem to matter to the GOP that making a covert operation(s) public might endanger US interests, US covert operatives, and/or the lives of people who will be but at further risk from the Syrian govt. and heavily armed Libyan extremists.  

    If tactical details of covert operations need to be discussed, the discussions shouldn't really be in front of TV cameras, Mr. Cheney, Fox Spitemiesters, and GOPer political has-beens, as you darn well know, you monstrous political partisan politicians and huge warts on the butt of humanity.


  •  Cheney as a WalMart Greeter (3+ / 0-)

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 10:03:36 AM PST

  •  Thank you for precise documentation (2+ / 0-)

    worthy of heaping more scorn on these scoundrels....not just blowing them off with Go F* yourself.

    If anybody is up to writing letters to editors (especially in districts where these people live):

    Media Contact Kit:

  •  Ignoring them would be better. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    third Party please

    It would piss them off a lot more than being told to fuck themselves.

  •  As a future professor is found of saying: (0+ / 0-)

    Cheney is irrelevant, and McCain is rapidly becoming so. Deal with it.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:07:40 PM PST

  •  Obama/Benghazi versus Reagan/Beirut (0+ / 0-)
    The Commander in Chief Test
    Connect the dots... what happened back 9/11/2012 in Libya with what happened in 1983 in Lebanon.

    Benghazi, 4 dead in two same-day incidents. Beirut, 392 dead in four truck bombings.

    Tough Lessons Going Forward

    People say they love Reagan. He had a great speaking voice. He never said his job was "not caring about those people."

    However, think he was a competent Commander in Chief ??? Then you have to be mostly ignorant about what happened in Lebanon.

    Obama and Reagan each made a decision to take sides in a civil war. From there on, the management and the results diverge.

    Reagan overrode his ambassador's warning that if Ariel Sharon invaded southern Lebanon (in 1982) that this would destabilize the Lebanese government. Reagan lost 241 at the Marine barracks, 392 overall to thermobaric truck bombs.

    63 -- victims at American embassy 18-April-1983
    241 - victims at the Marine barracks 23-October-1983
    58 -- victims at the French barracks 23-October-1983
    30 -- victims at Tyre for the Israelis 3-November-1983

    -- 392 total

    Obama went in to Libya because Benghazi would have been slaughtered by Gaddafi's tanks and guns. Because his gal Parker heard the voices of 800,000 dead Tutsis.

    Losing 4 people when you take sides in a civil war? Goes with the territory...

    When it's only 4 dead, then you're one of the luckiest SOBs ever to sit in the big chair.

    Beirut was a disaster. Surprising how Robert McFarlane's "Peacekeeper" PR angle never grows old as fakery/fxckery. The realities of what happened in Lebanon in 1983 are hard to find in PR dominated histories:

    -- America was at war with Iran in 1983. Billions of dollars in American military equipment were being used by our ally, Saddam Hussein, to kill Iranians (1980-1988.)
    -- Iran had every reason to seek revenge.
    -- Ariel Sharon invaded southern Lebanon and then set up an occupation. The goal was to eliminate Arafat and Fatah.
    -- A civil war between Christians and Muslims ensued within the year following Sharon's invasion.
    -- American Ambassador Dillon had opposed that invasion and occupation on grounds that the resulting political shocks would destabilize Lebanon.
    -- On 18-April-1983 a 1-ton truck bomb went off directly below the ambassador's office. The front of the building pancaked, killing 63.

    -- While the Marines had indeed arrived as United Nations Peacekeepers, Robert McFarlane as Assistant National Security Adviser to President Reagan, got approval to have a flotilla of U.S. Navy warships open fire on Muslim positions.
    -- That use of heavy artillery converted American forces to combatants on the Maronite side.
    -- You're not "Peacekeepers" when you're firing 5"/127mm and then 16" diameter artillery rounds into Muslim villages.
    -- Six months after the embassy bombing, the Marine barracks was undefended. A 20-ton thermobaric PETN-and-liquid-butane weapon turned that 4-story concrete building to a 1-story wreck. France and 10 days later Israel in Tyre were also hit. 329 dead after the embassy bombing.
    -- Ronald Reagan never admitted fault. Never had the incompetents fired and/or court martialed. No blame fell on the C.O., the area commanders, or the Pentagon brass.
    -- Official blame went to a lowly duty-roster officer who had been paralyzed in the bombing. He never learned that the classified "Lessons Learned" documents and off-the-record backgrounders were falsified to use him for the cover-up.
    Reagan sucked up the PR bull. Useless as CinC was he.

    Promoted McFarlane from Assistant NSA to National Security Advisor.

    Reagan went on to abandon the Maronites. (Similar to Bush41 and his Iraqis after the Gulf War.) Terrorists were shown that a Paper Tiger could be driven out of Lebanon and made to betray allies for the price of four suicide bombers.

    Compared to those two: Thank God for Black Eisenhower !

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site