In retrospect, the crazy thing about Dick Cheney is that back in the day we were supposed to be reassured by his presence on the Bush team. George Will, for example, was something of a Bush skeptic in the early days -- the candidate seemed dumb and lacked qualifications for high office -- but was reassured by the injection of "gravitas" Cheney brought to the ticket. After September 11, I can't have been the only one who thought, "How is George W. Bush going to lead us through a time of crisis?"
But then I thought -- really -- that things might be okay with Cheney pulling strings behind the scenes. I wasn't an admirer of his politics. But there was no partisan divide about the need to crush al-Qaeda. And Cheney seemed like a competent guy. He was the one, after all, who helped steer a sensible third way during the Gulf War between Colin Powell's overly-cautious approach and the "onward-to-Baghdad" crowd.
Well, let's just say I was sure Howard Dean was going to get the nomination, too. I'm not so good at predictions.
So let me correct that. The crazy thing about Cheney isn't that he used to be the reassuring one. The really crazy thing about Cheney is, well, Cheney. Josh Marshall wrote before the debate that Cheney was the "biggest liar" in the executive branch. I wish it were true. But look behind the bald, rotund head leaning strangely askew and the weird, seemingly stroke-damaged mouth and you'll see the eyes. Those are the crazy eyes. The eyes of the true believer, the kind I saw among the delegates and volunteers at the Republican convention. The vice president's calm, mature demeanor is just that -- a demeanor. Below, he's a true believer in a deluded worldview.
But true belief among the troops is one thing (and make no mistake, fully 62 percent of registered Republicans believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9-11), disturbing, perhaps, but not truly dangerous. Among a leader, particularly among the most influential vice president in American history, it's a serious threat. But when Cheney says of his Iraq policy, "If I had to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action," he means it.
That's scary. Suffice it to say that never in the history of the world has there been a war in which no mistakes were made. That Cheney thinks he's been a flawless wartime leader is bizarre.
And that's what's going on. If the eyes don't convince you, take a gander at the brilliant Cheney profile by Spencer Ackerman and Franklin Foer that appeared in The New Republic last December. Cheney and his many plants throughout the national-security establishment -- especially in the Office of the Vice President and the Defense Department, but with others scattered around elsewhere -- almost certainly did not cook up bad intelligence about Iraq in order to trick the nation into war for some ulterior purposes like boosting Halliburton's profit margins. They wanted war for the exact reasons they gave: to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, which he was certain to do in the near future, and possibly give them to al-Qaeda for use in an attack on the United States; and to build a pro-American liberal democracy in Iraq on the cheap, thus transforming the culture of the entire Middle East and bringing long-term security to America.
Which is not to say that Cheney would never tell a lie. But these are incidental things, cover-ups, not the crime itself. When he says he's "not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9-11," he's lying, covering his tracks. When he calls Iraq "the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction," he's offering an honest opinion. And an absurd one. Were terrorists really more likely to come together with WMD in Iraq than in a country -- say, Pakistan, North Korea, or Syria -- that actually has WMD? Of course not. More likely to come together in Iraq, which didn't even have a nuclear program, than in Iran, which is actively pursuing one? Again, obviously, no. But Cheney believes -- sincerely -- that they were. The man is demented, and he's not only a heartbeat from the presidency, he's exercising enormous influence right now.
And if he gets four more years in office, he'll keep on doing it. Keep on doing it as the nation moves to confront North Korea, Iran, and whatever unexpected challenges may arise. Challenges that, like the challenge of Iraq, can only be met by leaders whose analyses of the problems and the possible solutions are grounded in empirical reality.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.
