A Tale of Two Authoritarians

[bubbabgone]

Former Vice President Dick Cheney visited the House of Representatives yesterday. He and his daughter Liz were the only two Republicans present at a moment of silence commemorating the events of last January 6th. It was a touching scene, which perfectly described why the surviving anti-Trump Uniparty of the political mainstream is at least as much of a threat to democracy as the “insurrectionists” they never stop wailing about.

In a story entitled “Dick Cheney returns to the House and receives a warm welcome . . . from Democrats,” the Washington Post wrote that “Democrats put aside their fierce and lasting policy divides with the Cheneys to thank them for condemning the attack and Trump’s continued effort to undermine the 2020 presidential election results with his false claims of fraud.”

(News writing has become a pre-fab profession, like assembling IKEA furniture. All you need is an Allen wrench and a list of the latest clichés. “Trump’s efforts to undermine the 2020 election” has replaced “Trump’s efforts to coordinate with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” and “Trump’s false claims of fraud” has replaced “Trump’s false claims of ‘fake news.’” Part of the significance of January 6th is that it updated popular propaganda stock, which had grown stale.)

A Tale of Two Authoritarians

The appearance of Dick Cheney in the House of Representatives on the anniversary of January 6th helped identify the true villain on the scene

taibbi.substack.com

I don’t mean to understate the seriousness of January 6th, even though it’s been absurdly misreported for over a year now. No one from a country where these things actually happen could mistake 1/6 for “a coup .” In the real version, the mob doesn’t take selfies and blaze doobies after seizing the palace, and the would-be dictator doesn’t spend 187 minutes snacking and watching Fox before tweeting “go home.” Instead, he works the phones nonstop to rally precinct chiefs, generals, and airport officials to the cause, because a coup is a real attempt to seize power. Britannica says the “chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements.” We saw none of that on January 6th, but it’s become journalistic requirement to use either “coup” or “insurrection” in describing it:

An article with something for everybody.
From real deal Matt Taibbi.
Give it a read.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

An article with something for everybody.
From real deal Matt Taibbi.
Give it a read.

An interesting piece.
Was not familiar with Taibbi.

Sure, D Cheneys a COLOSSAL asshole, no sane person would even attempt to say otherwise, but I think that Taibbi misses his mark here, Cheney-911 and donnie trump 1-6 are two completely separate events, I think he was pretty much pointless through all of this. Saying: "Yeah, but Dick Cheney was even worse!" that might have some merit but really is 100% irrelevant.

Of course other POLITICIANS will make it POLITICAL to some extent, thats sort of what POLITICIANS do, but his whole "Sure 1-6 was horrible, but just look at Dick Cheney!" doesnt really say much to me or make much of a point with me.

Yes, vaccinations absolutely ARE "the governments business" IMO, just like its the governments business to get children immunized against measles etc if they are going to be in school.
Yes, the actions on 1-6 WERE "terrorism" IMO, because thats what it is when a group uses violence or threat of violence to intimidate or change the activities of others. Its "terrorism" when gangs of armed people take up outside government offices where legitimate business approved by a poll of registered voters is authorized to take place. (Governor in Mich for example, I realize that the terrorists outside the Capitol on 1-6 were not "armed" per se (because it has WISELY been made ILLEGAL to do so in DC, only a matter of time before armed nut jobs start shooting it out with each other in the streets, and thats anarchy and no good for anyone.

This guy reminds us of what an evil bastard Cheney was and is, and I agree, all of the secret detention and torture (I'd guarantee thats still going on somewhere by "Blackwater" folks or whatever), but he does try to mimimalize 1-6 IMO, which he comes right out and says he ISNT going to do.

Sure it was an "insurrection", just because the participants and the nitwit leader were REALLY bad at it, unorganized, fumbling and basically a hot mess, it was an "insurrection" I wouldn't say "coup", as he says the military wasnt seized and power was never really "seized".

Interesting writer, but basically just another guy with an opinion. I'd read more of his stuff for entertainment value.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Taibbi likes to be a contrarian, but his blog entry there falls flat on the coup claims. Often coups are almost entirely spontaneous. Moreover, just because someone made a terrible coup attempt, does not mean that it wasn't a coup attempt.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Taibbi likes to be a contrarian, but his blog entry there falls flat on the coup claims. Often coups are almost entirely spontaneous. Moreover, just because someone made a terrible coup attempt, does not mean that it wasn't a coup attempt.

No weapons capable of a coup. No weapons capable of holding the Capital or making a change in the election, or making it stick if they had. No insurrection. A joke of a riot, an unorganized tresspass on the "peoples House". Riot, tresspass, assault, all true, but nothing else was ever going to come of it. If the national guard had been deployed as suggested, the riot would never have gotten into the capital..

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No weapons capable of a coup. No weapons capable of holding the Capital or making a change in the election, or making it stick if they had. No insurrection. A joke of a riot, an unorganized tresspass on the "peoples House". Riot, tresspass, assault, all true, but nothing else was ever going to come of it. If the national guard had been deployed as suggested, the riot would never have gotten into the capital..

And you obviously have no understanding what Trump and his allies were trying to do. The whole thing was an attempt to pressure Pence to reject electoral votes and to somehow get the election thrown back to the House, where Trump would be instilled as president. Moreover, Trump thought that the riot would lead to a confrontation between his supporters and ANTIFA (which never even showed up), and then he could invoke the Insurrection Act.

 

[multivita-man]

Taibbi likes to be a contrarian, but his blog entry there falls flat on the coup claims. Often coups are almost entirely spontaneous. Moreover, just because someone made a terrible coup attempt, does not mean that it wasn't a coup attempt.

It was also a lot more organized than we were initially led to believe. Indeed, part of the reason why it has been hard for people to accept that it was a coup attempt is because it had the appearance of a populist mob gone amok, when in reality there were individuals plotting to interfere with the official counting of the electoral college results. Peter Navarro essentially came out and said it: all Mike Pence had to do was to stop the official count and claim that there were different slates of electors. A phone call with Dan Quayle is what prevented us from slipping into a massive political crisis.

Would that have been constitutional? No.

Would it have been challenged in court? Yes.

But that's the point: we would have gone to bed on the night of January 6 with an unresolved election and chaos. There would have been national outrage. Trump could have - and apparently the plan would have - called a national emergency and used the military to retain power.

Taibbi is doing what a lot of independent journalists or opinion writers do: searching for an audience. He reminds me of some of Glenn Greenwald, who became a household name with the Guardian and then the Intercept before becoming a pet of the alt-right conspiracy theorists.