Cheney Mentally Ill or Just Stupid?

From the AP:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday renewed Washington's warning to Iran that "all options" are on the table if the country continues to defy U.N.-led efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

At a joint news conference with Prime Minister John Howard during a visit to Australia, Cheney also said Washington was "comfortable" with Britain's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and that it was up to Australia to decide if it would do the same.

From the Washington Post regarding the Cheney-Pelosi spat and al-Qaeda in Iraq:

The remarks also reflected Cheney's frequent suggestion that al-Qaeda is the United States' principal adversary in Iraq, a stance disputed by many experts inside and outside the government. A recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that factors in Iraqi violence include "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

These remarks from the London Times about Tony Blair make some interesting comparisons with our warrior Vice President:

Only the fantasy world inhabited by Blair and Des Browne, his defence secretary, can now claim the four-year British occupation of Basra a success. A country that can be patrolled only by air or in armoured columns is not controlled, let alone governed. Blair promised last week “to publish a plan to develop the port of Basra later this year”. This is outrageous. Where was that plan before the invasion? The one happy note is that when the British leave the Shi’ite south, it should at least be spared the fury of the Shi’ite/Sunni conflict in the north. Mere gang warfare will ensue.

If Basra was uncontrolled and ungoverned, what does this say about Baghdad? Memory lapses seem to abound on both sides o the Atlantic (I listened to Olbermann's Countdown on Friday and a clip from Tony Snow had me laughing out loud. Since when did our President ever think the UN was an institution to follow? Gee, was John Bolton just putting us on?).

Last week’s decision has given new impetus to the Iraq blame game. Pundits vie for comparisons with the Dardanelles, Crete, Khartoum or Afghanistan. Such efforts demonstrate only that in matters of war politicians remember nothing and learn nothing. What is extraordinary is to watch the same mistakes made in Iraq — basically waiting on policy dictated from Washington — being repeated in the Helmand desert. Browne and his defence ministry profess confidence in their press releases while commanders scream for reinforcements. To expect a British cabinet to remember Crete or the Dardanelles may be asking a lot, but they seem unable to recall the day before yesterday.

As with the President, Mr. Cheney forgets Afghanistan. Or maybe he came to believe his own mendacity that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? The English have not forgotten Afghanistan and the Taliban. The AP article above had Australia John Howard saying something about the US being forced out of Iraq as encouraging Iran. Mr. Howard seems to forget that Afghanistan is on the other side of Iran from Iraq. Getting forced out of there would be a blow to us that I think Iran would find more bothersome and also encouraging. Bothersome because the Iranians hate the Taliban and encouraging because the Afghan situation is more of conventional military situation than Iraq. Failing in Iraq belongs to the civil/political side and not the military. Perhaps here lies the explanation for the Vice President's apparent delusion about Iraq - for a political failure means the fault lies with the Executive Branch and its eager chickenhawks. Emphasizing the military role obscures the true failure in Iraq.

Something more to think about from the London Times:

At first the Taliban were so soundly routed that they could do little. But gradually, encouraged by the West’s queasy commitment, they have used their bases in Pakistan to regroup. They are now a serious threat to western forces. British troops have seen tougher fighting in Afghanistan than in Iraq and more of our soldiers have died there. It is a bloody and dangerous struggle against a ruthless enemy, which is no surprise to anyone who knows a bit about British and Russian imperial history.

Lastly, this from John Nichols at The Nation, which focus on the importance of Cheney and our foreign policy:

Were Cheney a run-of-the-mill vice president, his inability to identify the line between fact and fantasy – or is it: truth and fiction – would be the stuff of comedy sketches. But, of course, Cheney is no ordinary second in command. Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy, he has for six years now been the real "decider." Only the most delusional observer of Washington fails to recognize that the Bush White House does what it does "because," as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill explained, "this is the way that Dick likes it."

So as the vice president, with his attacks on Pelosi, launches a new front in his war on reality, isn't it time to talk ask whether American can survive another two years of his misrule. Or, to be more precise: Hasn't he earned the sanction proposed by the bumper stickers that read: "Impeach Cheney First"?

If it were not that Congress has enough on its hands and other means for limiting Cheney's power, I would heartily agree with impeaching this idiot.