[T]he unwavering belief in the utter superiority of their own views.

That is the common thread that runs throughout every single scandal listed above. Each scandal reflects, not evil, but arrogance. Cheney honestly believes that he knows better than everyone else around him. He gets an idea into his head and then pursues that idea by either ignoring or removing any evidence that might challenge his preconceived notions. For example, Cheney just knew what would be the best energy policy for America. He also just knew that energy executives would provide the best advice. Thus, there was no need to share the names with the idiot public, who would only demand that hippy environmentalists get a place at the table. (Cheney's view is all fine and dandy if and only if you assume that energy executives are clearly better at formulating energy policy than environmentalists - I'll leave that one to you.)

This same theme of blind arrogance appears again and again. I mean, Cheney just knew that Iraq had weapons, and he just knew that State and the CIA would screw it up. So, he set up his own shop to provide intelligence that supported his own preconceived notions (which, of course, were obviously true). Cheney also just knew that more tax cuts would help the economy, despite the protests of the Treasury Secretary. He also just knew that it would be fine to go duck hunting with Scalia - the hell with what the public might think. In Cheney's mind, it was fine. As for the lies, there are a couple of possibilities, neither of which is very reassuring: (1) he honestly lives in a fantasy world and believes that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda; or (2) he just knew that Iraq was a threat, so he said whatever was necessary to make people come around to his view (in true Straussian fashion). Noble lies hold a very esteemed position in Cheney-land.

I think this is correct. I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with the view that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and so on are "evil", despite the fact that so many people I know believe it. That's not to say that these men haven't been responsible for causing a great many evil things to happen -- that seems to me to clearly be the case. Nor do I accept the notion that "evil" is some outdated and shopworn medieval concept that has no relevance in the contemporary world -- I think it would be pretty darn hard to be aware of the bloody history of the 20th century and believe that.

No, it's just that, like Publius, I can conceive of Bush, Cheney & company doing the things they do for reasons that they (incorrectly, and terribly so) believe are best for the country, that their motivations may possibly be patriotic as well as corrupt and self-serving, that it's not necessarily their intention to do evil things for the sake of doing evil things, and that many of their gravest and most costly errors have arisen from ignorance, blind acceptance of ideological dogma, incompetence, pig-headedness, arrohgance and cupidity, but not from having innately evil natures.

Which is just to say that, for me, the jury is still out. It's still possible that future evidence will show me to be wrong, that George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have souls as black as night (if I believed in the soul, of course -- I indulge in a metaphor) and that they are truly evil men. Right now, for me, it's bad enough that they do evil things, and cause other evil things to be done. That, in itself, is reason enough to get rid of them before they do irreperable harm to this country and the world.