Let me state for the record, Cheney is not my favorite guy in Washington DC.  I think he deserves a lot of the criticism he gets.

But one of the things I do like about him is that he not afraid to say what he thinks, and he rarely pulls punches.  Take this for example:¹

Cheney: Moves by Pelosi, Murtha would ‘validate the al Qaeda strategy’

In an interview with ABC News today, Vice President Dick Cheney called the announcement that the British will begin withdrawing their troops in the spring “good news,” described the situation in southern Iraq as “dramatically improved,” and lambasted House Democrats for pursuing a course that will “validate the al Qaeda strategy.”

Cheney told ABC that the troop shuffle is evidence of improvement, “I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well.”

In the ABC interview, Cheney mostly confined his criticism of war opponents to House Democrats, who recently passed a resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush’s plans to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

“Jack Murtha is an old friend of mine,” Cheney said of the powerful Pennsylvania Democrat. “We’ve done a lot of business together over the years. When I was Secretary of Defense, he was perhaps my closest ally on Capitol Hill. Jack clearly has a different perspective. With respect to Iraq, I think he’s dead wrong. I think, in fact, if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we’ll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy.”

Can you say slam?  I added a video clip of Cheney below.²

And the really painful part is that he 100% correct.  That is exactly how AQ would read a rapid reduction or withdrawal.

 So the esteemed speaker went crying to daddy.³

Pelosi Calls Bush to Complain of Cheney’s Comments on Democrats’ Iraq Strategy

I found this a very interesting story for three reasons.

First it is yet another example of the wink nudge quid pro quo system of dealing in DC:

Clinton defends consulting contract

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday denied that her campaign traded money for an endorsement from one of South Carolina’s most influential black politicians.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton responded to questions about the consulting contract her campaign negotiated with state Sen. Darrell Jackson, who last week endorsed her candidacy rather than of top rivals John Edwards or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

“Senator Jackson was someone who was involved in my husband’s campaigns. He was someone we turned to for political advice and counsel and I’m proud to have him on my team,” Clinton told the AP.

Soon after the endorsement, Jackson acknowledged that his media consulting firm had negotiated a $10,000 per month contract with Clinton’s campaign. Jackson has said he turned down more lucrative contracts from other candidates.

Ok, I am unswayed by his defense that he turned down higher bribes contracts.  Sorry, there is no particular comfort knowing that you are for sale even if you don’t take the highest bid.

Second, the trade off is fairly obvious.   We are not stupid.  The fact that other campaigns sought his “consulting” just means everyone knew he was for sale.

But as the story unfolds something else struck me:

Although he backed Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, Jackson said he now supports Clinton because she has the best shot of winning the White House.

And this is point two:  Hillary is not the best quialified, just the odds on winner.  Interesting that of all the issue Jackson could have raised, such as easing poverty and unemployment, or working for racial balance or whatever, the best thing he had to say was that “she has the best shot of winning”.