More than a few blogs have discussed the cognitive dissonance apparent in Cheney's 1% doctrine regarding terrorism and how it should likewise apply to global warming. In a nutshell, the doctrine states that if a terrorist event had even a 1% possibility of occurring, "we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response."

Now to be consistent (admittedly a foreign concept to Cheney), if there exists the 1% chance that global warming is in fact happening, according to Cheney's own logic shouldn't he be all for doing something, anything, to combat this threat to the entire planet?

The NY Times book review of Ron Suskind's book ("The One Percent Doctrine") had this, "He [Suskind] quotes Mr. Cheney saying that it's not about 'our analysis,' it's about 'our response,' and argues that this conviction effectively sidelines the traditional policymaking process of analysis and debate, making suspicion, not evidence, the new threshold for action."

For now, let's put aside the scary and quite startling revelation that Cheney is saying the key is not to think, analyze, and debate before responding in an effort to get it right from the start, but rather simply respond ASAP -- throw pasta against the wall, fast and furious. But again, to be consistent, Cheney should be urging that all steps be taken to respond to the 1% (or greater) possibility of global warming happening. It also directly contradicts GW's repeated calls for "more science" before he is willing to respond, i.e. he supposedly wants more analysis, and debate for that matter, before he takes steps to halt the threat.

So on this issue, Cheney is at odds with his own doctrine, failing to be consistent with its logic and exposing it to be just another rhetorical device to support actions that have led to failures like Iraq. And yet we also find the president further conflicting with Cheney's doctrine given the VP has stated you respond first, think/analyze (distant) second, but GW wants more on the science front before responding.

With this administration, it's so easy to just pick a position on any issue and peel the onion to find layers of inconsistencies, direct contradictions, hypocrisy, and flat-out stupidity.