[caption id="attachment_6536" align="alignright" width="284" caption="I'm baaack. And fortified with new neocon opinions and 9/11 imagery!"]T[/caption]

[Editor's Note: Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, bumped this column, which was supposed to run yesterday.]  

I just got back from a two week trip on the Island of Ibiza with nearly three dozen supermodels.  It was a pretty intense photoshoot, filled with mechanical bullriding, dirty dancing with Spain's political elite and even some vomitting.  But what do you expect?  We're supermodels.  It's what we do.  So I have been out of communication for the last few weeks.  Words to the wise:  cocaine and orgies cause writer's block.  Don't do it.  And what a horrible time to be gone.  Obama gives his controversial speech to Notre Dame and wows the crowd, we pass a Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, Health Care reforms are announced, Obama declares fuel efficiency standards to the tune of 35.5 miles to the gallon and Obama declares a "new direction" on the fight on terrorism—also known as the "We're Fucking Closing Guantanamo, So Suck It Up, Congress" speech. 

Guess what?  That speech on terrorism is a two-fer.  Some people think it's really great to have the country's most unpopular Vice President come back from the (dead) and offer up some sage advice (or defend his own failed policies) to our new President on how he should handle terrorism and America's place in the global fight on terrorism.  

These people are called delusional Republicans. 

Lucky for Democrats, these people are running the Republican party and message.  (It should be noted for the record that all Republicans are not delusional and all delusionals are not Republicans and some of my best inlaws are nice, learned, friendly Republicans who don't hate gays, prochoicers or Muslims). 

Obama's Thursday Terrorism speech was good. I liked it.  Took me a while to warm me up after the typical re-hash of all that Obama has inherited.  Note to Obama: You only have maybe 2 or 3 of those left before they start providing a diminishing return (hi Economic 101!). Honestly, the best part of the speech was that he gave it at the National Archives.  Powerful backdrop.  If anyone was paying attention to the analogy.  It must have been a terrible poke in the eye to the Bush Administration.  That and statements like, "the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable".  Maybe that's why Cheney was so bitchy in his retort. 

So let's get to the bitchy retort.  And a bitchy retort deserves a bitchy retort. 
 Cheney's backdrop: the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank and leading architect of Bush Administration's conversative policies.  Stark contrast anyone?  And for those who think this wasn't about  legacy protection and it was rather just "wise advice for the protection of the American people," look to this backdrop.  He didn't make the speech at Arlington cemetary or Walter Reed Hospital or even have the Pentagon as a backdrop. He chose a neoconservative think tank to deliver his somewhat blistering critique of Obama's policies. 

Also, irony of all ironies.  Cheney starts off by slamming Obama for being longwinded and then proceeds to talk himself for 40 minutes.  Then there is a recap of 9/11.  I mean let's refresh that image in people's minds and bang that drum some more.  Hey, it worked in 2004, it should work again!

Cheney goes on to say the dividing line in the debate over national security is this: You either can look at the facts and see that the Bush Administrations "Comprehensive Strategy" works and should be continued or you can look at the same facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one off event, unique in its character and does not require a sustained war time effort.  Wrong.  The dividing line is this: Did the Bush Administration's "Comprehensive Strategy" overstep legal, moral, ethical bounds and, if so, subvert the core principles of American law and American values?  Additionally, the follow up question is, if you think so, can that "Comprehensive strategy" be scaled back and still keep America safe?  These are the questions Obama is asking and the American people agree with him.

Cheney has a vested interest in re-writing history and defending the policies that inevitably landed he and George W. Bush in the low 20s approval ratings, swept in large Democratic majorities and elected the first black President with a Muslim name and relatively little experience.  Listen, I am thrilled they sucked it so hard. Obama's a fantastic President and the team assembled is working their asses off.  But don't resurface and try and convince me you guys did the right thing. 

The verdict was made and it was called the 2008 election.