Decision ‘08

Shameless…

What in the hell was Jim Hoagland thinking?

Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind? That question, even if it is phrased more delicately, is creeping through foreign ministries and presidential offices abroad and has become a factor in the Bush administration’s relations with the world.

“What has happened to Dick Cheney?” That solicitous but direct question came from a European statesman who has known the vice president for many years. He put it to me a few days ago — even before the discovery of a blood clot in Cheney’s leg and the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby, his former chief of staff, brought headline attention to the volatile state of the vice president’s physical, emotional and political health.

It is not new for Americans to question whether their leaders have become delusional. Editors at The Post directed reporters to find out if Jimmy Carter had suffered a nervous breakdown when he retreated to Camp David for 10 days in 1979 and abruptly fired five Cabinet officers. Remember the hubbub over Al Haig’s “I am in control here” and other Captain Queegish remarks, or Richard Nixon’s talking to portraits?

What is unusual is for foreigners to think about a vice president at all and to question what effect the VP’s moods and internal policy defeats have on America’s standing in the world.

What is even more unusual is for a ‘respected’ journalist to question the Vice President’s sanity, openly, on the basis of a blood clot (!!!) and the perjury conviction of a subordinate.

The Libby trial revealed serious splits between Cheney and Bush’s political team, led by Karl Rove, who suffered no legal consequences for his role in the scandal. The trial also served as another exercise in showing how Cheney has empowered his critics at home and his foes abroad: His excessive concern for secrecy and control by the executive branch has given new credibility and fundraising ability to the Democrats and to civil liberties organizations here, and it has won sympathy around the world for prisoners who may well be terrorists.

So listen up, diplomats: However beleaguered, Cheney will not resign over the president’s refusal to take his advice. The only force that could drive him to that dramatic step would be that unshakable sense of loyalty to Bush, who desperately now needs a vice president in stable physical, emotional and political health. That is the equation you want to be watching.

Is Hoagland suggesting here that diplomats pressure George W. Bush into dumping his VP on trumped-up charges of mental incompetence? Is that proper? Is that ethical?

I intend to write an e-mail to both Hoagland (jimhoagland@washpost.com) and the Op-Ed editorial desk (opinions@washpost.com) and ask these very same questions. I realize Hoagland is a columnist and not a reporter, but does that mean there are no boundaries whatsoever?

I expect more from the Post - this is at the Frank Rich and MoDo level…

29 Responses to “Shameless…”

1 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Naked delusion (the British withdrawal is an unequivocal sign of progress in Iraq, we will be welcomed as liberators, the insurgency’s in its last throes, etc.) over and over and over again is certainly a reason to question somebody’s mental well-being.
2 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
So mistakes (or alternate political views - or spin - or even living in the cocoon) are signs of insanity?

Please…this is not the Daily Kos…
3 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
It’s simply not an alternate political view. The false statements over and over again, the paranoia (to the point of refusal to even acknowledge to the public who works in his office), etc. In a public official, these are causes for concern.
4 mikebdot Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Yes, “living in the cocoon” is a sign of insanity, Mark.
5 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Then every single progressive I know is certifiably insane, and quite a few conservatives, too, Mike…insulating yourself from opposing viewpoints may be questionable policy making, but it’s hardly a sign of insanity…
6 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
And what’s OK about his paranoid refusal to disclose anything about how his office operates? His PUBLICLY ELECTED office? If not indicative of mental illness, it’s CERTAINLY cause for concern at the very least.
7 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Fargus, the implication of Hoagland’s Op-Ed is that Dick Cheney is insane - not that his behavior is ’cause for concern’.

That’s over the top and over the line…
8 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Over what line? Over the “you ignoring it” line, apparently? Why give it space here if you think it’s so wrong? Or should he just not be allowed to say it in the first place?
9 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Fargus, let me explain how this blogging thing works (but you know it already). I blog about what interests me, what outrages me, what amuses me, my opinions, others’ opinions, in short - anything the hell I care to blog about.

Now I don’t charge admission, so I can’t give you your money back…but I think it’s outrageous and over the line, and it’s my blog, and I say what I think…sometimes I’m wrong, sometimes I’m right, but I think a columnist using a BLOOD CLOT as evidence of insanity is out of bounds.

Not trying to be snippy with you, but you’re carping at every little thing today. I don’t expect you to always agree with me, but you can’t convince me not to blog about my own opinions - I’d sooner hang the whole thing up.
10 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Dude, lemme know next time you put a moratorium on discussion going on in the comments. I’ll be sure to refrain.
11 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I’m not trying to put a moratorium on discussion - you know I enjoy the sparring - but I’m not sure why this particular post has you so up in arms…
12 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Anyway, forgive me if I gave offense - but let me get this straight - you think Hoagland’s column is fair play?

Forgot for a minute it’s Dick Cheney - if Joe Blow has a blood clot, and Joe Blow’s secretary is indicted and convicted - that means Joe Blow is insane?…
13 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I just don’t understand what the point of your activism is about it. Establish “boundaries” on what people on the op-ed page are allowed to say? Shoot, if I were to write the WSJ every time they published an op-ed that I thought was “over the line,” my fingers would be bleeding.

Nowhere above, and nowhere ever here, have I ever asserted that you don’t have the right to state your opinion, or even insinuated it. It’s a little bit troubling that you jumped straight to that, but I guess that’s what people do.

Regardless, reading the passage over again, the author clearly does NOT attribute mental illness to a blood clot in the VP’s leg. He only mentioned that in the context of the VP’s health being brought to the surface of the public consciousness recently.

What I see in the VP is a dangerous, delusional, incompetent megalomaniac. You see it differently, obviously. But purposely misconstruing an editorial so you can disagree with it that much more just seems a little dishonest to me.
14 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Fargus, here’s what really gets my goat about Hoagland’s piece, and I’ll repeat it:

The Libby trial revealed serious splits between Cheney and Bush’s political team, led by Karl Rove, who suffered no legal consequences for his role in the scandal. The trial also served as another exercise in showing how Cheney has empowered his critics at home and his foes abroad: His excessive concern for secrecy and control by the executive branch has given new credibility and fundraising ability to the Democrats and to civil liberties organizations here, and it has won sympathy around the world for prisoners who may well be terrorists.

So listen up, diplomats: However beleaguered, Cheney will not resign over the president’s refusal to take his advice. The only force that could drive him to that dramatic step would be that unshakable sense of loyalty to Bush, who desperately now needs a vice president in stable physical, emotional and political health. That is the equation you want to be watching.

Now what the hell is that but a very thinly veiled message to foreign diplomats on strategic manuevering against the Vice President of the United States?

Seriously - read it carefully and tell me how you interpret it. No snark. I mean it - what’s your interpretation?…
15 Fargus Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that (your interpretation of it).

I see it, though, as somebody who’s concerned with the future of the country, and who sees Dick Cheney as a corrosive force on that future. Poorly worded? Maybe. But sticking with a man who (in his opinion) is doing consistent harm to the country over the country itself just wouldn’t be an option, in his view (I’d guess).

I get your objection, that he’s appealing to foreign diplomats at the end of the column. But what other recourse is there, if Cheney ignores the public and the Congress?
16 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
It doesn’t sit right with me, that’s all - anyway, I doubt my activism will amount to much - I imagine the letters they receive will consist of - mine…I never claimed to be a Chris Bowers…
17 mikebdot Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Mark: Yep, every progressive I know is crazy because the country is being run like it’s one of Bush’s failed companies. Some on the right are crazy because they’ve always been crazy. Sounds about right.

Incidentally, the phrases “sign of insanity” and “certifiable insanity” are not the same thing. And Fargus made a good point regarding the mention of the blood clot and the Scooter comment not being a sign of his insanity, but just part of his narrative. Basically, point being, the second sentence of your post is bogus.
18 Mark Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Mike, I hear what you and Fargus are saying re: the blood clot. But why even mention it? The whole column is full of insinuations and innuendos. It’s creepy, and it’s pretty brazenly below the belt…
19 mikebdot Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Yep, as per standard with today’s press corpsE. Of course, it’s no more crazy than anything you’d see highlighted on mediamatters or the dailyhowler.
20 Dennis Says:
March 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I just don’t understand what the point of your activism is about it. Establish “boundaries” on what people on the op-ed page are allowed to say? Shoot, if I were to write the WSJ every time they published an op-ed that I thought was “over the line,” my fingers would be bleeding.

Fargus, have you not even noticed the irony of calling out Mark here? Mark didn’t like the implication and thought it was beyond the pale, so he decided to write to the author in question and state his objections.

You think that’s over the top, so you decided to write to the author in question and state your objections. As you’ve done repeatedly on this blog.

Damned if I can tell the difference…
21 Fargus Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I didn’t say he was over the top. I said I disagreed, and I laid down why. Look for your straw man elsewhere, Dennis.
22 Dennis Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 12:54 am
There’s no strawman here, Fargus, and you know it. Look at the part I quoted. You said you didn’t understand why he felt obligated to write in and protest, and you mocked it with your comment about the WSJ and your own apparent restraint.

And yet here you are, regularly writing to Mark and protesting what he says about any number of things, and now, even protesting the very fact that he protests. And when he calls you on it, you pull a sulking act of complaining about moratoriums. That doesn’t exactly help you prove your case when calling someone else paranoid.
23 Fargus Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 7:39 am
I’m not protesting what he says. This is what’s called a free exchange of ideas, and I’m sharing my own opinion, which may disagree with his. This is some pretty weak stuff. I hope you bring your A game next time, guy.
24 Aaron Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 9:03 am
So your opinion, which you’ve shared, is that Mark should not share his opinion with Hoagland.
25 Fargus Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Ugh. Mark’s free to do whatever he wants to do. I never said otherwise. I questioned what his goal was in writing to Hoagland, and what he meant by “over the line.” You know, whether he was implying that Hoagland should refrain from expressing his opinion or not.

The hardest thing I said was that I didn’t understand what Mark hoped to accomplish with his assertion that he was going to voice that opinion to the WaPo. That by no means indicates that I think he shouldn’t feel free to voice it.
26 Dennis Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
So what do you hope to accomplish here? You’re big on the macho sarcasm, yet you still haven’t explained what your purpose is in posting here regularly to disagree with your host. Since you seem to think it’s rather pointless for Mark to do something similar, I think it’s only fair for you to let us know why you feel obliged to do the same.
27 Fargus Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I don’t owe you anything, Dennis.
28 Dennis Says:
March 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Well, who said you did? I guess we’ll just have to go without finding out why it’s vital for you to make your feelings known to Mark, but pointless for him to do the same with an author with whom he disagrees.
29 Fargus Says:
March 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Dennis said:

I think it’s only fair for you to let us know why you feel obliged to do the same.

Yeah, see? I actually don’t owe you any explanation. Nothing’s “only fair.” I don’t know if you know this, but I’m actually allowed to have an opinion for no reason, if I want. In religious quarters, that’d be called faith, and it’d be praised.