Dick Cheney made headlines last week at CPAC, the big ultra-conservative fiesta in Washington, by claiming that the Obama administration has made the U.S. less safe by halting the practice of torture and wanting to try the Underwear Bomber in civilian court. Sunday, Cheney got smacked around pretty good on the political talk shows by Colin Powell and Gen. David Petraeus.

Powell was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation about Cheney's claims that Obama has hurt national security, and replied quickly that, "I don't know where the claim comes [from]." He went on to strongly defend the use of civilian courts to try terrorists (as every other civilized country does, by the way — and effectively), and essentially called Cheney a liar, saying of the former VP's charges, "I don't think that's borne out by the facts."

What I'd like to know is how anyone can take seriously anything Cheney says about national security or foreign policy, especially considering that the guy was wrong about nearly everything during the Iraq disaster (anyone remember "we'll be greeted as liberators," "the insurgency is in its last throes," "waterboarding is a no-brainer," and on and on and on?)

Petraeus, the leader of U.S. Central Command, appearing on Meet The Press, said he continues to be against using torture in interrogations, as he has publicly stated since 2003. "I think that whenever we've taken expedient measures, they've turned around and bitten us in the backside," Petraeus explained. He then reiterated that the interrogation methods in the Army field manual actually work, whereas torture-induced "confessions" have usually proven to be worthless. In addition, Petraeus made it clear that he still supports closing down Guantanamo.

In short, Powell (Mr. Desert Storm), and Petraeus, George W. Bush's favorite general - guys who actually know a lot about the military and counterterrorism - think Cheney's ideas are terrible. Here's my question: What does it say about the current state of the far-right that the CPAC crowd roared and cheered Cheney's B.S., and even urged him to run for President? Answer: It means, as we've been saying here for months, that they have genuinely gone off the political deep end. Here's Powell on Face The Nation:

The old British expression “penny-wise and pound-foolish” has several meanings, one of which is “being overly careful about small things, to the point of undermining larger, more important things.” I bring this up because there seems to an epidemic of penny-wise pound-foolishness lately, particularly among penny-pinching politicians — and specifically when it comes to money for education. In fact, the condition has become widespread enough to create a Special DOUBLE Stupid Thing of the Week!

First up, Utah state senator Chris Buttars, who has the perfect solution to Utah public schools’ budget woes: eliminate 12^th grade! The GOP lawmaker says that many high school seniors “fritter away” their last year of school anyhow, so why bother? Buttars believes that providing money for 12^th grade amounts to “spending a whole lot of money for a whole bunch of kids who aren’t getting anything out of that grade,” and adds with pride that his proposal would save about $60 million. And those kinds of tax savings are what’s most important, right? Don’t even consider that, as clichéd as it may sound, education really is the glue that holds an advanced country together — go right ahead, slash away, especially when the purity of your anti-tax ideology is at stake. See? That’s what I mean by “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

Which brings us to Part Two of our Stupid Thing of the Week. In a Thursday blog item, I suggested that education is too important to sacrifice, and the county commission should raise property taxes to make up projected shortfalls in the school system — and thus avoid the draconian cuts Supt. Peter Gorman is talking about. The next day, County Commissioner Bill James sent out an 800-word diatribe slamming my suggestion and claiming that “real leadership would be cutting taxes, allowing people to keep more of their own money.” It was nice to be reminded for the thousandth time of conservatives’ holy anti-tax mantra. The problem, though, is that cutting taxes in this case — not to mention letting our public school system go to hell — isn’t just crazy (at least as crazy as James considers a tax hike) — it’s destructive and genuinely irresponsible.

James’ response to my suggestion lifts him to the same lofty level as Utah's Sen. Buttars: dedicated to the bitter end to a rigid ideology, at the cost of ignoring the reality of educating kids. Or, put another way, “My castle in the air is more important than your real-life crumbling school building.”

Look, I don’t want to pay more taxes any more than anyone else, but in the long run, it’s not about me, so yes, I think that as long as CMS cuts its administrative costs first, it would be worth a bit higher property tax bill. Why? Let’s try this again: education is really, really important — as in, civilization, never mind your city, is S.O.L. without it.

The extra funds could be in the form of a property tax hike that’s specifically targeted to meeting the schools’ needs this year and then is eliminated; it could be a surtax of one sort or another; another half-cent added to the sales tax; a levy on private schools; whatever — it’s time to be creative. But it would be done, more money for public schooling is sorely needed. Again, a self-respecting community does not let its public school system take the kinds of hits CMS is considering.