Greg Sargent of The Plum Line makes his picks for the top 5 online news stories of the year.

Breaking? Not so much, but since I'm in the holiday spirit I thought I would give our readers the gift of laughter. As our UN Ambassador, John Bolton did almost as much damage to our reputation around the world as his boss, George Bush. Besides being wrong about just about everything, he was also a huge supporter of our former Vice President, Dick Cheney. So, it comes as no surprise that he penned this glowing, fact-free, delusional fluff piece -- proclaiming Dick Cheney -- Conservative of the year: (warning - link goes to Human Events)

In Washingtonian “inside the Beltway” terms, the most amazing aspect of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s new clout is that he is achieving it the old-fashioned way: talking about public policy. He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores. He is, instead, writing a memoir about his extensive career in public service, and giving occasional speeches and interviews, mostly on national and homeland security policy, long his central focus.

If you're feeling brave and looking for some extra laughs, click through to the original article and check out the comments. I'll start you off with #1 from commenter "Square Root":

The simple reason Dick Cheny causes angst to the ACLU atheist, heathen, pagan conglomerate is because he is so fearlessly honest. Conservatives such as he and Sarah Palin, threaten, by the power of their veracity to undermine those who must bribe fellow politicians in their last ditch effort to pass a government health care scheme that is rejected by 61% of Americans.

It is only a matter of time before these enemies of the people will fall on their own swords. Their bag of dirty tricks is nearly exhausted. They can not win on merit. Read on...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (580)

PLAYS: (1252)

Ex-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox that she wished President Obama would stop making those unpleasant allusions to her old boss, George W. Bush. Because, you know, Bush has not been taking shots at Obama.

Oddly, nary a mention of Dick Cheney was heard.

Perino was upset that Obama, in his interview for 60 Minutes, referenced Bush's military triumphalism:

Obama: And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war.

There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough business.

But Van Susteren at least pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, there was no shortage of blaming the previous administration:

Van Susteren: When President Bush 43 took office, was he critical in a similar way of President Clinton, his predecessor? Because one of the things I think we all want to think about, is we want our presidents having greatness about them and not getting petty.

Perino: I wasn't there at the beginning, and I think there is a certain amount of comparison that has to go on at the beginning. But almost everyone -- the left, right, and center -- columnists, even late-night talk-show hosts, are suggesting to President Obama that he lay off.

Well, no, Dana, you weren't around in the early years of the Bush administration. So maybe you weren't there for the endless list of things that Bush blamed Clinton for -- some of which included the following:

In 2002, he blamed Clinton for the recession.

Also in 2002, for the mess in the Middle East.

In 2004, for manufacturing job losses.

Also in 2004, for a shortage of flu vaccine.

In 2005, for "running from terrorists" and generally causing 9/11.

In 2006, for Bush's own failures in containing North Korea.

In 2008, for the soaring deficit.

But the best part came when she suggested Obama should not blame Bush for anything because Bush has been nice and quiet since the election and not criticized Obama:

Perino: Look, I think the other thing that you've seen is that President Bush has been an incredibly gracious post-president during the transition, and he said, 'President Obama deserves my silence.' and I would daresay that he deserves a lot more respect than he's getting right now.

Sure, Bush has been "gracious" because all Republicans have to do is send out Bush's surrogate thug, Vice President Cheney -- who in fact probably had at least as much to do with the direction of policy matters in the Bush administration as Bush himself did -- to do the dirty work for him.

Just last week, Cheney told the nation that the Obama administration was committing treason.

Before that, Cheney accused Obama of "dithering" on Afghanistan. He attacked Obama's decision to investigate torture policies under the Bush/Cheney regime. And he criticized Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans.

Yeah, pretty freaking gracious, those Republicans.

It's important to remind the public just how we got in this mess, and to remind them that the people who got us here want us to forget that fact. Their only hope is to cover their tracks, and Dana Perino is in the business of doing that.

Let’s say that you’re a run-of-the-mill teabagger looking to set yourself apart from the mob. Nazi/Hitler signs tend to go over well, but that’s so not original. You could strap an assault rifle to your back – like this guy did outside an Obama speech – but that’s so not subtle.

Do not fret. Thanks to Zazzle.com, you can find just the right product to push you over the edge from workaday winger to racist extremist.

Want to encourage, or joke about, President Obama’s death? Check out this line of "Bullet holes anti Obama Bumper Stickers:"

Don’t forget to pick up a t-shirt for that special woman in your life:

Maybe you’re a little paranoid about the Secret Service and would rather joke about killing the president’s supporters rather than Obama himself, no problem:

Or maybe you’d prefer to have your dog joke about killing the president instead. What’s the Secret Service gonna do, arrest Fido?

If you’d prefer to be a little more oblique about threatening Obama, while no less offensive, these are for you:

The above designs are all the handiwork of a single user of Zazzle named NOBAMAMAN (thanks go to the Active Art blog for discovering them). Bad taste isn’t against the law, but many of these designs are clearly beyond the pale – especially in an environment of heightened threats against the president.

Last month Zazzle banned a line of products which called on people to pray for Obama’s death. The company said the so-called Psalm 109 products “may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest physical harm to the President of the United States.” In light of this, we should be sure to call Zazzle’s attention to some of the above products. You can email Zazzle here, post in their forum, comment on their blog, or use Twitter.

UPDATE: Zazzle appears to have taken down the offerings.

[X-posted from Right Wing Watch]

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (664)

PLAYS: (2446)

Jeremy Scahill joined Ed Schultz to discuss the recent column in the New York Times--Blackwater Guards Tied to Secret C.I.A. Raids:

WASHINGTON — Private security guards from Blackwater Worldwide participated in some of the C.I.A.’s most sensitive activities — clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the transporting of detainees, according to former company employees and intelligence officials.

Several former Blackwater guards said that their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred. Instead of simply providing security for C.I.A. officers, they say, Blackwater personnel at times became partners in missions to capture or kill militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, a practice that raises questions about the use of guns for hire on the battlefield.

Continue reading...

Schultz asked Scahill if we had any idea of what kind of resources Blackwater had committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Scahill: Ed, this company was a plausible deniability machine. Erik Prince the owner of that company built a parallel infrastructure to the U.S. military. He had an air force with his own aircraft. He had a maritime division. He had Blackwater Select which was providing special operations guys. They were guarding and still do guard U.S. diplomats and ambassadors, including the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan right now.

Ed I also understand that Blackwater, because it’s owned by such an incredibly wealthy individual did some operations for free. That’s the ultimate deniability under the Bush administration. There were arrangements with Cheney, the C.I.A. and Special Forces where Blackwater’s guys were essentially working for free in operations funded by the owner of that company Erik Prince.

The story here though Ed that everyone seems to be missing is that Blackwater wasn’t just working for the C.I.A. They were working for the Joint Special Operations Command—the U.S. military and we talked about this on your show recently, including in Pakistan where Blackwater simultaneously worked for the C.I.A. and for JSOC. That story is a scandal that needs to be investigated much more thoroughly Ed.

Schultz: Is this relationship between Blackwater and the C.I.A. and the use of Blackwater still in existence under the Obama administration.

Scahill: It certainly is. In fact news breaking as I came on tonight that Leon Panetta the C.I.A. Director is trying to cancel Blackwater’s participation in the C.I.A. drone bombing campaign which has put its operatives on the ground not only in Pakistan but in Afghanistan as well. And so my understanding from both within Blackwater and from outside is that Blackwater remains very active with both U.S. Special Forces and the C.I.A.

Scahill tweeted this before going on Ed's show: #Blackwater is leaking the CIA ops for a reason. It also distracts from ongoing ops that are not CIA.

He also noted that ABC News confirmed his report tonight-Mercenaries? CIA Says Expanded Role for Contractors Legitimate.

You can find more from Scahill at his blog Rebel Reports.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (82)

PLAYS: (603)

Ron Reagan slams Ron Christie for his defense of Dick Cheney's recent attack on President Obama accusing him of 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'. Just how much self-loathing does Ron Christie have to a) be a Republican to begin with and b) to carry that much water for Dick Cheney? God what a tool.

Transcript via Lexis Nexis.

MATTHEWS: Ron, you`re an attorney, and I respect your professionalism, but let`s take a look at the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason against the United States. Here`s how it`s defined. According to the Constitution, the United States shall consist -- it shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The very language of the Constitution which defines treason he has now leveled against the president of the United States. You don`t have a problem with that?

CHRISTIE: I...

MATTHEWS: "Aid and comfort" is a particular constitutional set of words, "aid and comfort to the enemy" in this case. You don`t have any problem with him charging the president with doing that?

CHRISTIE: We are giving...

MATTHEWS: You don`t have any problem with that wording?

CHRISTIE: No, I don`t.

MATTHEWS: ... that wording.

CHRISTIE: We are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And to my friend, Ron Reagan, I would say, no, this has nothing to do with our justice system. It has everything to do with our justice system. The Bush administration didn`t condone terrorism. I don`t understand why you would condone a system where people who are terrorists, who are captured on the battlefield, who were not given Miranda rights, would then be allowed to come into open court, be able to challenge the evidence against them.

It would make a mockery of our system, to say nothing of the fact, Ron, that the president of the United States and the attorney general have said, Oh, they`ll be convicted and executed. As a defense attorney, I can tell you those attorneys are going to say, We can`t get a good jury pool because the president and the attorney general have already condemned the well. It`s ridiculous!

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (674)

PLAYS: (1420)

You knew that when Dick Cheney went on Sean Hannity's Fox News show for a sit-down interview last night, it was going to be a nonstop Obama-bashing fest.

Indeed, not only did Cheney back up the long-running Fox News theme that "Obama is a radical leftist America-hater whose plan is to weaken us and destroy us", but he went a step further -- essentially accusing the Obama administration of committing treason.

Hannity: You said that the president's cerebral approach projects weakness, and that the president is looking far more radical than you expected. I was, during the campaign, criticized a lot because I was warning, I thought, of the president's radical associations. How radical do you view him now? How radical do you view his opinions?

Cheney: I saw him, when he got elected, as a liberal Democrat -- but conventional, in the sense of sort of falling within the parameters of the national Democratic Party. I think he's demonstrated pretty conclusively now during his first year in office that he's more radical than that. That he's farther outside the parameters, if you will, of what we've traditionally had in Democratic presidents in years past.

Excuse me, but WTF?????!!!!! Neither Cheney nor Hannity explain this remark or give any example of Obama's supposed demonstration of his radicalism.

Let's see, was it Obama's decision to eschew a single-payer plan and head for a "public option" compromise on health-care reform that marked him a "radical"? His decision to increase troop strength in Afghanistan? Or maybe his willingness to scale back his stimulus package, at conservatives' behest, to the point that it failed to properly spark job growth? Maybe it was his willingness to throw Van Jones under the bus the moment right-wing talkers began circling around him. I dunno. They never tell us.

But Cheney keeps going, slagging and attacking Obama's presidency in some of the most vicious terms available -- including the suggestion that Obama and his administration have committed an act of treason.

This came when he and Hannity were discussing the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other 9/11 terrorists in New York:

Hannity: You said in an interview that New York City is great, this trial in New York City is 'great for Al Qaeda'. That's a pretty strong statement. What did you mean by that?

Cheney: I mean that I think it will give aid and comfort to the enemy. I mean that it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammad something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam.

Um, yeah, except of course that KSM is already "something of a hero" in "the radical regions of Islam."

More importantly, the language "give aid and comfort to the enemy" just happens to be the same language as the very legal definition of treason, as laid out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Cheney is essentially accusing Obama of treason.

Hannity caps it off by asking Cheney if the Obama administration "maybe doesn't believe there's a war on terror," and Cheney agreeing that it doesn't.

History has already recorded that Dick Cheney not only was one of the worst vice presidents in history just in terms of governance, but moreover one of the most vicious character assassins and ethics-deprived manipulators ever to set foot in the White House.

Now he's just adding to that legacy.

Tom Hartmann does something you never hear him do on his radio show. Completely loses his cool with a wingnut caller who insulted him a number of times before he'd finally had enough of him. I agree with the second caller completely. It's easy for people like that wingnut Jason to care less about these useless wars and the toll they take when you don't even look at the people who's heads we're dropping bombs on as human beings. One of the commenters over at DU where I saw this posted said Thom apologized on the next show for this outburst.

I don’t think he needed to. I think the bigger problem is that more people are not as equally outraged about the human suffering that’s gone on in our name and that too many Americans could care less about the number of refugees and widows and orphans that have been created from Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. I’m not any happier with the Obama administration for continuing way too many of Bush’s policies, but Obama didn’t make the decision to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq. Bush did. Now Obama is stuck trying to figure out how to clean up Bush’s mess. That’s one job I sure as hell would not want and don’t envy anyone else having to take on.

I’m just so disgusted right now with what’s happened in both countries that I’m exhausted from it. I’m tired of the killing in our name and with our tax dollars and wondering when it’s ever going to stop. I don’t think we should be escalating in Afghanistan and think we should be getting the hell out of Iraq. I’m grateful there’s someone like Thom Hartmann out there expressing how much all of this pisses me off as well and how outraged anyone should be over the death and destruction the invasion of Iraq has caused if you’re willing to actually take a look at the numbers as Thom did here. It’s just appalling. And our media in this country has completely ignored it. As far as they're concerned, the "surge" has worked and we can move along now. Never mind the carnage we've left behind.

The Rude Pundit: Dick Cheney hates you

Whiskey Fire: The stupidest and most contemptible Politico story ever

Making Light: Trauma and Insurance

Infrastructurist: Superproject Void Redux

The Poor Man Institute: Keeping it Realist

Norwegianity: The linkcetera you've been waiting for

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (827)

PLAYS: (3556)

Dennis Kucinich gives Ed Schultz some straight talk on what anyone should think of Dick Cheney having the nerve to criticize the Obama administration's foreign policy decisions and on whether we should be escalating our presence in Afghanistan.

Schultz: Is there a chance that Bush and Cheney got it so wrong that maybe the Obama plan moving forward could turn this around and we could get a successful conclusion? What do you think?

Kucinich: Well I think that many of us know that President Bush and Dick Cheney took this country into a war in Iraq that we did not have to fight, kept this country into Afghanistan and prolonged a war that we did not have to continue and frankly with the Vice President speaking out, he should be held accountable. Both he and the president should have been impeached, President Bush that is should have been impeached and Mr. Cheney should still be held accountable for the lies that he told that took us into war in Iraq. Now with respect to Afghanistan, we should not be escalating. It’s an unfortunate thing that President Obama has made a decision to escalate. You can’t be in and out at the same time. He may talk about an exit strategy but the truth of the matter is, you first have to escalate and then you find out how long you’re going to be there and I think it’s regrettable—we don’t have the money to do this. We are weakening our ability to defend this country by doing it. And I think it’s going to undermine the United States’ role in the region and create even further instability.

As Rep. Kucinich also noted, it is also up to the Congress to decide whether to fund our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who are opposed to increasing troop levels have an obligation to take a stand.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (233)

Keith talks to Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson about Dick Cheney's recent criticism of President Obama's foreign policy.

OLBERMANN: The very day before Mr. Obama‘s speech tonight, former Vice President Cheney gave an interview primarily about Mr. Obama‘s Afghanistan plan in which Mr. Cheney accused the U.S. president, in legalese, of treason and revealed, not for the first time, that the vice president, who failed to fight terrorism, had instead personally succumbed to its most insidious aspect, panic.

In a 90 minute interview yesterday with “Politico,” Mr. Cheney revealed that unlike authentically tough people, he‘s still so panicked. But he still mistakes acting tough for being tough and makes the corollary error that failing to act tough implies that you are weak.

Because, apparently, in trashing America‘s president the day before a vital foreign policy speech, Mr. Cheney cannot conceive that displays of grace and humility might arise instead from actual grace and humility.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (605)

PLAYS: (1281)

From Think Progress--Politico’s Allen And VandeHei ‘Interview’ Cheney So That They Can Write His Op-Ed:

Despite Cheney’s well-known and worn-out attacks on Obama, Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei secured an interview with the former vice president in order to inform their readers today of the shocking revelation that Cheney thinks Obama is projecting “weakness” on Afghanistan. The paper’s top reporters sat down with Cheney for a 90-minute interview and transcribed Cheney’s attacks without challenge, criticism, or rebuttal.

[...]

Instead of playing Dick Cheney ghostwriters, perhaps Allen and VandeHei can take a lesson from McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay on how to fact check his baseless smears.

I would say Andrea Mitchell could take a lesson from them as well instead of hyping The Politico's "exclusive interview".

Speaking of pathetic journalism, what is Jon Meacham smoking with this article: Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012:

I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)

Why? Because Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting. A contest between Dick Cheney and Barack Obama would offer us a bracing referendum on competing visions. One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction. A Cheney victory would mean that America preferred a vigorous unilateralism to President Obama's unapologetic multilateralism, and vice versa.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (55)

PLAYS: (121)

I posted Andrea Mitchell's segment on this earlier. Now it's Tweety's turn to regurgitate gossip rag The Politico's stenography for old five deferments Dick Cheney. I'm sure every "news" outlet in the country will be following suit before the night's over. Matthews asks Jim VandeHei if Cheney just has a grude against President Obama and after VandeHei answers him follows up with this:

Matthews: No what I mean by a grudge...I'm asking you for something that is reportable. The fact that he was easily available, you were able to get him for this interview, the fact that he's giving this harangue against the President for ninety minutes. That he's devoted himself in a way that Condi Rice has not, that George W. Bush has not, that Rumsfelf has not. He has singled himself out for this duty of attacking the President like a rear gunner on an airplane. The fact that he's singled himself out for this duty--does that tell you that he has a grudge that's personal?

Uh Chris...there's nothing dutiful about what Dick Cheney is doing right now. And it really gets old hearing you refer to these chickenhawks as though they're some brave warriors fighting battles when all they're actually doing is taking cheap political shots at the President, with your help. If I hear the words Cheney and guns together I sure as hell don't think of airplanes. Friend's faces and small tame animals being killed at close range come to mind instead.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1003)

PLAYS: (1134)

After playing part of old "Five Deferments" Dick Cheney's radio interview with right wing radio host Scott Hennen, Andrea Mitchall asks if President Obama is "acting more like Hamlet than the Commander in Chief". This from the supposed "liberal" network, MSNBC.

Interesting how ABC doesn't see a conflict of interest in having a woman with no credentials on their "This Week" panel, to discuss the ever-livin' war on terrah, whose CLOTHES ARE PAID FOR from the trust fund war profits from that very same conflict. (comic bigger here)

Open Thread below...