Quick Note: GOP on Iraq -- "I Don't Know" vs. the Cheneys

The GOP is talking about Iraq again.  The old guard is back in the media spotlight, gabbing away to anyone who will listen and the current guard is so busy covering their own soon-to-be-up-for-re-election behinds, that they are having trouble saying anything at all.

Dick Cheney has suddenly re-emerged as a conservative media darling and, (God help us), supposed expert on solving the problems in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, co-written by Dick and his I-want-to-be-important daughter, Liz, they wrote: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."

It is self-serving, revisionist history like this that makes my head want to explode. There is no mention of the 4500 American lives and trillions of dollars that W. and Dick spent on an entirely false hunt for non-existent WMDs.  I guess re-writing history is more fun than admitting you're a lying idiot with no conscience. 

The Cheneys continued:  "Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change.  Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing."

At the risk of being petty: 1.  The President's pronouncements on climate change were made before the situation in Iraq devolved into the current mess.  2.  Yes, the President went golfing over Father's Day weekend while insurgents were beginning to move in Iraq. Cheney conveniently forgets that, at the request of the Iraqi government, we are no longer involved in the day to day running of Iraq.   3.  W. went on several long vacations during the Iraq War, thus becoming the first president in U.S. history to vacation while Americans were risking their lives in foreign lands.

And more:  "Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War.  Defeating them will require a strategy--not a fantasy.  It will require sustained difficult military intelligence and diplomatic efforts--not empty misleading rhetoric."

This from the man who was front and center in deciding to start a war based entirely on "a fantasy."  As one pundit wrote yesterday, "The Cheneys--the Cheneys--want to talk about the scourge of 'misleading rhetoric.'  Let that thought roll around in your head for a moment."

Rachel Maddow commented on the re-emergence of the Bush-era foreign policy brain trust by saying, "It is very frustrating to see that this is the way that we handle debates about foreign policy in this country.  We take people who were so provably, terribly wrong and bring them back and treat then like experts on the very subject they have been so wrong about.  It is maddening."

But when you look at current Republican leadership, it explains a lot about why the old-guard is back in the headlines.  We have Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) who voiced his displeasure with the way the White House is handling the current crisis in Iraq.  He urged the President to "act quickly" to present a strategy in Iraq. When asked for details on the action he wished the President to take, McConnell said he had no specifics.  Senate Republicans themselves are sharply divided over whether the U.S. should intervene militarily.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged the President to "get engaged" in Iraq.  CBS News' Nancy Cordes asked the Speaker to explain what he wanted the President to do: "Do you think the U.S. should be launching airstrikes?  And if not, what should the U.S. do?"  

Mr. Boehner replied "I don't know enough of the details about airstrikes to comment," but he did propose that we should "provide the equipment and the technical assistance that the Iraqis have been asking for."

Looking beyond the fact that Mr. Boehner appears, improbably, to be unaware that we are already providing equipment and technical assistance to the Iraqi government, the Speaker wants the U.S. to "engage" in Iraq; but he doesn't have any knowledge of how exactly, which makes me wonder how he came to the conclusion that engagement was the answer in the first place.  And I guarantee you that if the President does "engage," the Speaker will be leading the charge to declare it the wrong choice. 

So what we have is a Republican Party whose leaders want somebody else to do something that they can't exactly explain but they know they want it done.  And they want it done yesterday--right after they approve it.  

With an agenda like that, can we really fault the media for focusing on Cheney and his sidekick Li'l Cheney?