Dick Cheney‘s up to his old tricks again:

“She accused me of questioning her patriotism,” Cheney said. “I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”

“Al-Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That’s their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home,” Cheney added. “And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it.”

First things first. It isn’t just the Pelosi policy, it’s supported by a clear majority of Americans. So Dicky’s telling all of us with a straight face (if that expression can be applied to his habitual scowl) that we’re all nuts.

There seems to be only one thing Dick Cheney knows how to do, and that is to conflate everything with al Qaeda. Is there anyone else who has even come close to suggesting that al Qaeda is the reason why we are thinking of packing up and going home? Why does Cheney insist on seeing things through the al Qaeda fun-house mirror? And why is it that everything gets reflected in that distorting mirror?

What does he have a problem with, telling the truth or dealing with it? Or both?

Since we don’t know the answer to that, I question his judgment, I question his honesty, I question his integrity. And most of all, I question his sanity.

Hey, Dick-prick, if we withdraw from Iraq, al Qaeda will have nothing to do with it. (Just like they had nothing to do with the original butcher of Baghdad*, Saddam Hussein.) That may not stop them from trying to claim credit for our withdrawal when we leave. But why do you have to do their propaganda work for them? That’s what true patriots do, huh?

You know what? You shouldn’t do it pro bono, you should get them to pay you. That’s what a true patriot would do. Because every dollar you take from them is one less dollar they can spend on killing Americans. See, it’s a no-brainer. Which is why it should especially appeal to you. And those you appeal to.

And while we’re on the subject of al Qaeda’s strategy, o wise and honest one, instead of farting around about what you’re calling their fundamental underlying strategy, why don’t you address the much more urgent question, which is this business of them hiding behind Pervez Musharraf‘s skirts in Pakistan, and using that safe haven to regroup and gather strength? Instead of patriotically questioning Pelosi’s judgment, why don’t you focus on addressing the real threat, Mr. Dick? The real al Qaeda threat isn’t al Qaeda in Iraq, it’s the bigger and stronger al Qaeda in Pakistan. What did you do about their growing strength as it grew? And now that they have regrouped and gathered strength, do we have any plans to do anything about it any time soon? Other than keeping America safe by attacking Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha, that is.

* Guess who’s the reigning title-holder now?

*** Update, 8:55 am ***

It is useful to remember what the President-in-chief himself said, back in March 2002:

He has no place to train his al-Qaida killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it.

The “he”, of course, is Osama.

It wasn’t obvious at the time, but the key word in that statement must have been “find”. While Osama was setting up his training camps and operations hubs in Pakistan near the Afghan border, we apparently did not find them (because if we had, we would have taken care of them; that was a presidential promise). No doubt we did not find them because our intelligence agencies report not to the President-in-chief but to the NYT.

But once the NYT passed on the intelligence to the President-in-chief (through the usual channel—by printing it on the front page), he moved swiftly to take care of the problem (it took him just over a week; that’s swiftly, right?):

The vice president made a visit today to a U.S. airbase in Pakistan, where he is said to have warned Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he’d best be doing more to crack down on al-Qaida operations in his country. … Cheney is said to have delivered an “unusually harsh” message to Musharraf…

Unusually harsh, huh? No one is willing to confirm it on the record, but apparently when we went “You’d best be doing more to crack down on al-Qaida”, and Musharraf went “Oh yeah? Or what?”, instead of our usual response of “Or else”, we actually said “or ELSE!!”

I think my mother entirely approves of Bush’s approach to taking care of this matter. She was always big on solving problems with words, and words alone.