Sunday Discussion Group

May 14, 2006

Three years ago, Josh Marshall wrote a terrific item highlighting a disconcerting trend: most of the Bush administration’s biggest blunders came at the direct hand of [tag]Dick Cheney[/tag]. And the article was written before the war in Iraq even began.

I re-read the article last night after discovering that the Bush White House has two significant legal problems on its hand — and that [tag]Cheney[/tag] was principally involved with both.

For example, there was Cheney’s support for [tag]spying[/tag] on Americans.

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely [tag]domestic[/tag] telephone [tag]calls[/tag] and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency’s strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.

Now, it appears the [tag]NSA[/tag] overruled Cheney’s inital demands, but the NYT article points to the fact that it was a Cheney ally, Gen. Michael V. [tag]Hayden[/tag], helped push the legal envelope in surveillance issues, with legal backing from Cheney and his longtime legal adviser, David [tag]Addington[/tag].

And then there’s the latest on the [tag]Plame[/tag] scandal.

The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson’s CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether [tag]Wilson[/tag] had been sent by his wife on a “junket” to Africa.

Cheney’s notes, written on the margins of a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed column by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, were included as part of a filing Friday night by prosecutor Patrick [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag] in the perjury and obstruction case against ex-Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The notes, Fitzgerald said in his filing, show that Cheney and Libby were “acutely focused” on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White House’s handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence.

Cheney was, in other words, right in the middle of the whole, sordid mess, and far more involved than the [tag]White House[/tag] has been willing to admit.

Taken together, and with recent history in mind, is Cheney the single most destructive force in the Bush administration? Is anyone even a little surprised about the VP’s role in these controversies?

May 14, 2006 at 9:29 am

Liar, war profiteer, foul mouthed jackass… Dick is pretty easy to hate. But when it comes to dispensing human misery and hurting US self interests, I’d have to go with Rummy.

It isn’t just that he has a perfect record of being 100% wrong and that he is a pathological liar (those qualities are pretty common in the PNAC/neoconservative crowd). The man is publicly demonstrating that he is severely mentally ill. Like Custer in LITTLE BIG MAN, but with a depressingly huge circle of influence.

-jjf

Not surprised a bit. Cheney is more sociopathic than anyone else in this administration —
* Cheney took far more from Halliburton as a sitting V.P. than any other government official would have the nerve to do
* told Patrick Leahy, on the Senate floor, and without apology, “Go fuck yourself”
* got drunk prior to hunting and shot one his hunting partners in the face, had the Secret Service cover for him till he was sober, then expected that victim to apologize
* said we were “in the last throes” of the Iraq quagmire (there were 1,664 US deaths then, 2,437 now – all of which, along with the other medical and psychological casualites, can really be laid on Cheney’s “Project for the New American Century, 1997)
* is the only governmental official to always be hiding in a secret location, a la Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Khadafi and the Colombian drug lords
* has backed every anti-gay plot and movement, including a Constitutional amendment, in spite of the fact that his daughter Mary is openly gay
* after going through the empty ritual of vetting all other possibilities, chose himself as V.P.

But why go on? The man is clearly sociopathic. Would anybody be surprised if Ted Bundy or the Hillside strangler, handed Cheney’s power position, would snoop into the lives of ordinary American citizens or out Valerie Plame and her entire operation? Of course not. That’s what you expect from sociopaths. That’s what we’ve come to expect from Cheney.

What is truly amazing is why others in the GOP (elected and wing-nut citizens) continue to have anything to do with this sociopath.

Simply put, Cheney is the linch-pin of the entire Kid George disaster. Wipe petty tyrants like DeLay and Cunningham off the map, there will just be more—courtesy of Cheney. Topple Bush himself, and the country’s left in the maniacal grip of Cheney. Throw dolts like Rumsfeld from the top of the Capitol Dome—America still has Cheney.

But Cheney is the cornerstone; the tipping point; the “linch-pin.” Pull Cheney, and the entire structure will collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane. Once the Dems recapture the Congress, Cheney must be the first to go, if for nothing else but to deny him the opportunity to ascend to the throne of Pennsylvania Avenue. Of the two (Bush and Cheney), Bush is quite likely the lesser of two evils, because Bush without his Cheney might be substantially easier for the Congress to reign in. If not, then the task is to simply (1) deny Bush a replacement VP, and then (2) remove Bush from office via the impeachment process.

Once complete, a Democratic Congress, backed by a Democratic President/Vice President, would probably have 18-to-20 months to undo the damages foisted upon the nation by this current “dastardly duo.” Signing statements could be undone on a wholesale level; Iraq could be honestly assessed (either bring ’em home, or avoid “a second Viet Nam” by pouring in the massed assets needed to win the struggle outright.) NSA can either answer the questions in the open, or face summary dismantling by means of immediate de-funding. A new Cabinet could be put in place within days, thus unplugging Rumsfeld, Rice, and everyone else. Departments could start doing their jobs again.

But the elemental defanging of the Republikanner carnivore starts with Herr Cheney….

If Cheney has been able to bring such darkness lurking in the wings as Vice President, it boggles the mind to think of the terror he would bring if he were President.
Pissed off with nothing to lose and a huge ax to grind, mentally ill and arrogant, looting and shooting, spying and lying..
President Cheney is the worst case senario of the Bushworld endgame….
The Doomsday President.

Off topic, but
Here’s a wishful post that might be too good to be true
*****************************************

PBD – Progressive Blog Digest
Sunday, May 14, 2006

APPEARANCES CAN BE DECEIVING

Well, either Jason Leopold is making stuff up, or he has a very, very Big Scoop

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

“… is Cheney the single most destructive force in the Bush administration?”

Nope.

Bush is the Boss of the bosses…
He is the ‘Capo di tutti capi.’

Cheney is second in command.
He is the “Consigliere.”
(prime counselor of the Bush Crime family.)

He’s the one who ‘whacks’ family members who are ‘broken’ (those who have falling out of line), and he also ‘clocks’ and puts out ‘contracts’ on those who oppose ‘The Family.’

Cheney also oversees ‘The Commission,’ ( the Mafia ruling body) and liquidates all incoming ‘swag.’

Of course Cheney also runs the Halliburton district…

Normally the Consigliere keeps the family’s business ‘off the record.’

However Mobster Dick blundered recently when a NY Times op-ed piece turned up with his scrawl initiating a ‘hit’:

Or did his wife send him out on a junket?

Will this blunder result in Dick being ‘chased’ from La Familia Bush?

Probably not.

Because one thing is certain:
The Bush Crime Family is very resolute in standing by its Capos.

In other words, I don’t think we will see Cheney being ‘sent south’ unless DC becomes a serious ‘hot place.’

And DC won’t become seriously ‘hot’ unless the media shines a light on it.

I don’t expect that to happen any time soon….

In fact, some of us think the media may actually be a secret ‘enforcer’ of the Bush Crime Family.

I keep hearing comments about how we have to get rid of Cheney prior to going after Bush, similar to how removing Agnew made it more acceptable to remove Nixon. However, if the Dems win heavily in November, I’d actually prefer to impeach Bush before Cheney leaves the vice-presidency. My reasoning is that a “President Cheney” would have no hope of generating public goodwill or starting an effective presidency, and would be an even worse albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2008 than Bush could ever be. He would illustrate how Bush’s failures are in fact fully owned by the Republicans as a group, and are not just the failings of one unfortunate individual from whom they can distance themselves with a little carefully crafted spin.

Something about the way that Nixon got busted and then taken down fried a circuit in Cheney’s mind set. He’s gone back to that time continually to highlight the loss of presidential power. Some people are born dictator’s. Cheney is one of those guys. He may have started as Shruby’s hand holder even in his own mind not knowing that he would be presented with 9/11, (we’d like to think). He was just hoping to get the opportunity to make Iraq Halliburtion’s plaything, but when the opportunity came, he grabbed the ball and bang, bang, bang, started putting things in place. War, surveillance, recess appointments, ignoring laws, skewing power to the already rich and powerful as fast as possible. No screwing around. He knew what he wanted going in and, btw, what a fine partner in crime John Ashcroft made followed by mini-John, Abu Gonzalez.

Shruby’s a putz. A spoiled, egotistical and arrogant waif. Shruby wasn’t the one with three decades worth of seething and anger inside of him at the unfair loss of the original Imperial Presidency. Without Cheney and Rove to guide and goad him, he would not be where he is. Cluelessness, thy name is George. The conversations that Shooter and Turdblossom have had while Shruby was out riding his bike would be things of shock and awe. The real coup in what is the ongoing ShrubCo debacle began when Cheney made himself V.P. He wasn’t some wide eyed innocent when he did that. But he had a wide eyed innocent and unquestioning fool as a running mate. It was perfect. And whatever made it possible to take down Nixon, Cheney is scrambling to head off at the pass and pre-emptively strike at. Giant databases and blatantly disavowing/disregarding laws might come in handy for such things.

I hope Dick had a few extra pieces of bacon for breakfast this morning. With some shots of extra salt for that umm.. ummmm good taste. Gravy on bacon is quite delicious I have heard.

Yeah, CB, I think you’re right that Cheney is a bit more inept than the media typically appears to notice. For example, as a bigger trend, the Republicans on a national level seem to be learning- sometimes at least- how to learn from mistakes, and modify or soften a message when they find it needs to be a little more misleading (instead of letting their pride drag them places they shouldn’t go at times when being unyielding just on “principle” actually isn’t such a great idea).

Cheney, though, violated a nigh-universal political “rule of thumb” in his own little flap: he didn’t react quickly. When he shot his friend, he just hid under the covers and hoped he could count on his stature to absolve him from making a statement. Oops! His crummy move just made him look worse and worse instead. Now he gets booed by every single person in the stadium when he throws the first pitch of a ball-game.

And then, of course, there’s Iraq.

Not a genius, certainly.

The Great Decider decided he needs help deciding, and that’s where Cheney comes in. GW hears the voices and reads the papers, but Dickie is staying; he’s doing a heckuva job. Got that?

N. Wells,

Contemplate this possible scenario: Bush is impeached; Cheney becomes President; President Cheney counters “rebellious elements” within the United States by declaring martial law; the Supreme Court trumps the Congress on the issue, and upholds the constitutionality of Cheney’s actions….

Oh, and another major fuckup; that speech in Vilnius:

International Herald Tribune
May 11, 2006

Putin versus Cheney
By Anatol Lieven

WASHINGTON — In many ways, Russian President Vladimir
Putin and U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney are rather
similar characters. Both are highly intelligent, but
both see the world above all through the restrictive
prisms of security and national power.

Both are patriots, but – like so many leaders – with a
tendency to see national power and their own power as
one and the same thing. Both are capable of great
ruthlessness in defending what they see as the vital
interests of their countries. Both are publicly
committed to democracy and human rights, but both have
been responsible for policies that have called this
commitment into question.

But to judge by their records, and especially their
speeches of the past week, there is also an important
difference between them. Putin is a statesman, and
Cheney is not.

Cheney’s tub-thumping speech in Vilnius, Lithuania,
attacking Russia for lack of democracy and energy
“blackmail,” coupled with his attempts to create an
energy alliance against Russia, invited a blistering
response from the Russian president. With perfect
fairness, and with the approval – in this case – of
most of humanity, Putin could have torn Cheney’s
speech apart on a whole range of issues.

These include the hypocrisy of denouncing Russia over
democracy and going straight on to lavish praise on
the oil- rich dictators of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan;
the general weirdness of Cheney talking about human
rights at all; the insolence of an administration with
the Bush-Cheney team’s record in the Middle East
daring to demand automatic Russian support against
Iran in the name of “the international community,” and
so on.

If Putin had issued such a response in his state of
the union address on Wednesday, he would have had the
approval of the overwhelming majority of Russians –
while of course doing still further damage to
U.S.-Russian relations.

It is hard to imagine a U.S . president turning down a
domestic political opportunity like this, whatever the
likely effect on his country’s interests. But apart
from a couple of mild and indirect comments, Putin
said none of these things. Instead, he focused on the
issue that is indeed the greatest threat to the
Russian nation, namely demographic decline.

Putin’s calm response to Cheney may be rooted partly
in a new confidence in Russia’s strength, especially
when it comes to influence within the former Soviet
Union. One of the marks of Putin’s statesmanship is
that with some exceptions (mainly with regard to
Ukraine, about which Russians tend to be irrational)
he has displayed an accurate feel for Russia’s real
strengths and weaknesses.

To give one example, Putin last year withdrew the
remaining Russian military bases from Georgia proper,
where they were provocative and vulnerable, while
continuing the Russian military presence in the
breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, where it enjoys overwhelming local support.

On critical issues like the Iraq war and Iran’s
nuclear program, Putin has tried to resist U.S.
pressure while keeping Russia in line with China and
whenever possible Western Europe as well.

This is statesmanship – cynical maybe, but still
statesmanship.

The Bush-Cheney administration, by contrast, has a
record of grossly over-estimating American power. To
judge by Cheney’s speech in Vilnius, it may be
repeating the same disastrous mistake with regard to
U.S. policy towards Russia and in the former Soviet
Union.

For if Washington’s chief goal is to destroy Russian
influence in this region and replace it with that of
the United States, it needs to remember that whatever
its weakness on the world stage, in its own backyard
Russia has some tremendous latent strengths.

If, on the other hand, the more important factor
behind Cheney’s attack was Russia’s role in the U.S.
struggle with Iran, then his attack on Russia in
Vilnius raises two possibilities – one of them
depressing, the other disastrous.

The first is that Cheney and other leading U.S.
officials genuinely believe that the United States can
gain support for its policies by abusing and
threatening other major states.

If so, this reflects not only a Neanderthal approach
to diplomacy, but a failure to grasp the damage to
American power from the Iraq debacle, and the
increased strength and confidence of Russia, China and
other countries.

The other possibility is that Cheney is no more
interested in a negotiated compromise with Iran than
he was with a deal to prevent the Iraq war; and that
by driving Russia into Iran’s arms, he hopes to wreck
any possibility of such a compromise and leave
military action against Iran as the only apparent U.S.
option.

If this is so, then given the potentially catastrophic
implications of a U.S. attack on Iran, not only
Russians but the world in general should be grateful
for the statesmanship of Putin’s response, and should
hope that this Russian line continues.

Bushand Cheney and the rest of the gang all say they’re doing what they’ve done to promote the”security” of Americans.

Here’s what a Certified Great American had to say on the subject of security:

“If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.” – Dwight Eisenhower

How Cheney was ever able to get a reputation for “competence” is beyond me – the only thing he ever did right was to let Colin Powell run the first Gulf War – if you read “Crusade,” you find out almost everything he suggested for that war turned out to be bad idea.

How it is that he’s considered in danger of a heart attack is also beyond me – how can you lose something you never had?

There’s a little black spot in the news today
It’s the same old thing as yesterday
There’s my chief o’staff caught in a nasty smear op
On that ole Palme nag and the talk won’t stop

I have stood here before inside the Nixon reign
With Libbies turning circles running ’round my brain
I guess I’m always hoping that I’ll keep this reign
As it’s my destiny to be the king of pain

There’s a little black spot in the news today
(Said invasion was cool)
It’s the same old thing as yesterday
(Iraqi with flowers)
There’s my chief o’staff caught in a nasty smear op
(NSA tap okay)
On that ole Palme nag and the talk won’t stop
(Said Iraq last throes)

There’s ole OBL that’s trapped in a high cliff wall
(Said Sadam was it)
There’s a dead Big Easy sunk in a waterfall
(House hunt was fun)
There’s a blue state screwed by an electric ebb
(Enron are friends)
There’s a superpower trapped in ole OBL’s web
(Iraq’s the central front)

There’s a king on a throne with his brains put out
There’s a senile sec fighting at shadows of doubt
There’s a fat man sleeping on a golden bed
There’s an old hunter choking on a face full of lead

King of pain

There’s my plan to protect the fundy family
(My kid’s a lesbian)
There’s a black-souled plan with a spying phone
(I’m hiding somewhere)
There’s my chief o’staff caught in a nasty smear op
On that ole Palme nag and the talk won’t stop

king of pain
king of pain
king of pain
I’ll always be king of pain…

I have come to the conclusion that Cheney has lost his mind. The total abuse of power and no concern for what is best for the country is unprecedented. He has headed the biggest money grab in the countries history and is responsible for the most corrupt administration ever. It is amazing to see that he sleeps so well.

The real issue for me is the process by which Bush was selected to run for president. Who was behind him and was Cheney part of the cabal? Was it determined from the outset, when Bush ran first ran for governor, Bush would be the front man and that Cheney would be the de facto president once the presidency was won? We may have to wait decades for the historians to answer these questions.

Cheney’s a destructive force, but Bush still holds the most destructive force in the White House title. It’s all about responsibility. As president, Bush chose Cheney as his running mate, keeps the incompetent Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, keeps the equally incompetent Michael Chertoff on board, rushes to Alphonso Jackson’s defense, still has the soon-to-be indicted Karl Rove on staff, and generally refuses to fire anyone who shows the proper fealty to Bush.

Bush likes the “president as CEO” analogy, which is fine. But when a company starts to precipitously tank, the CEO bears the greatest responsiblity. Anyone in their right mind would fire “upper management” types like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jackson, Chertoff. etc., as soon as it’s clear they’re woefully incompetent and poorly matched to the task at hand. Bush has no doubt been advised to ditch these guys, but he refuses to out of some misplaced loyalty or the fear they’d ratfuck him once they were out of office.

I think Cheney’s going to be an interesting historical footnote, but Bush will be assigned responsiblity for his administration’s misdeeds and missteps.

It’s a bit amazing that Republicanite operatives are using Dick Cheney as a boggyman to make Air Force General Michael V. Hayden seem a defender of our rights and liberties.

The NSA, after the debacle of failing to translate the 9/11 plotters conversations in a timely fashion, created their various unconstitutional programs to cover their collective butts. Hayden is complicit in this, and spent his time lawyer shopping to find someone to claim that his programs were legal and constitutional.

The fact that they had to let JOHN ASHCROFT go to get a Attorney General (Gonzales) who would support them just shows how far off base they have gone.

And the programs aren’t even effective. They give tips in the thousands to the FBI and return hits at less than one percent. That ‘success’ rate is the reason their programs won’t pass muster with the FISA court. There is nothing reasonable in spying on every American when all you get is some twit who thinks he can cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch!

Now they have five years of telephone calls from most Americans (huzzah Qwest!) and can, just by looking up any telephone number that interests them, find every bookie, loan shark, strip joint or other shady character that some relative of yours has called, and use it against you when you march in an anti-war or anti-bush demonstration.

And they have the gal to say they are protecting Americans’ privacy.

Steve,
I appreciate your concern, but I don’t think Cheney has the support or the health to manage anything like that, or even to set the stage for a Republican comeback. Moreover, there would be massive protests, and how many cops or armed forces / national guard folks are going to shoot protesting citizens in support of a Cheney regime of dubious legitimacy?

Removing Cheney then Bush lets Republicans choose a new president, who would undoubtedly benefit from a public desire to heal wounds, repair the national spirit, and so on (as happened with Gerald Ford). Removing Bush then Cheney ensures a multi-month Cheney presidency that starts at 20% approval levels, and has no obvious way of rising much above that, and plenty of obvious ways to fall even lower.

If Cheney should fall before Bush, so be it. However, I think the nation got it wrong by considering Nixon’s removal unthinkable until after Agnew’s departure. Instead, Republicans got to play some important roles as “king-dethroners” and we got a harmless republican replacement (Ford), which re-legitimized them. Only one full presidential term later, a Republican was once again considered respectable enough to be entrusted with the presidency. In retrospect, a failed “President Agnew” and a second painful but inevitable round of impeachment hearings would have been a much more prolonged disaster for the Republicans. The religious right and the fat-cat right need to be discouraged in their own minds and/or deserve to be discredited in everybody else’s for a generation.

I still want to know exactly which warrantless intercepts John Bolton wanted to hear. The press has dropped this subject.

Apart from that, the administration may well be using foreign entities to monitor its domestic enemies. For example, the Germans at the old NSA radome station at Bad Aibling. That way they end-run the law. It is easy to imgaine Cheney pusihing for such a policy.

Off topic — The video clip of Al Gore on Saturday Night Live is well worth watching. You can see the video at Crooks and Liars.

Lance’s comment reminds me that Reagan oversaw the the establishment of some draconian RICO and forfeiture laws. At the time, people concerned with civil liberties were told not to worry, because these were only going to used against mobsters and drug kingpins. Subsequently, however, they became widely extended / abused by prosecutors across the nation. The justification was that these were legal and legitimate tools in the arsenal of crime-fighting, and a good prosecutor should use all possible tools available, and should indeed be creative about expanding options for investigation and prosecution. Anyone who thinks that phone records and wire-taps will just be targeted against terrorists, as Bush essentially promised yesterday, is extremely naive. The tempation to use this information against drug trafficers and the mafia will be irrestible, and then usage will creep to to cover all manner of minor infractions. It will also be hard for those in power to resist using this sort of information against political enemies.

However, it might be possible to fight this by filing a bunch of freedom of information claims for records covering Cheney, various energy lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Jeff Gannon, Karl Rove, and all manner of other Republican embarrassments. If they’re going to claim that there’s nothing special about perusing records that telecommunication companies already gather, then it’s going to hard to claim that the results of the perusal should remain classified.

Yes, but .. the question still remains, DID Wilson’s wife send him on a junket? It seems to me that the scrawl shows a sincere desire to know if that is what happened, thus refuting the alternate being implied, that Cheney was going to claim she did, whether or not it were true. The CIA HAS to answer to the President, otherwise you have a rogue service pursuing its own political agenda, as Plame and Wilson appeared to have been doing.

Robert Allen,
Austin, Texas

Actually, N, I think that by removing Cheney first will create a vacuum in the administration. Consider that if Bush goes first, Cheney still becomes President by law. However, if Cheney goes first, Bush must not only nominate a Vice President, but the new VP requires Congressional endorsement. So—what happens if the Congress turns down all of Bush’s VP-nominees…and then impeaches Bush? The next in line, I believe, would be Speaker of the House. If the Dems hold the House, then they take control of the White House by default.

Also, I’m looking at how close Cheney and Rumsfeld are, which gives Cheney a bigger “in” with the Pentagon. Add to this the hard-core types who hold senior command positions in the Air Force, and you’ve given Cheney a better handle on the land-based bombers and silos. There are a few “extreme-rightists” in the Navy as well; I’d not want them being given executive-order priviledges over the SSBN’s. Then there’s the NSA mess, and Cheney’s long-term disgust toward the entire Arab world than makes Hitler’s distaste for the Jews look like a family get-together.

I think the only reason this hasn’t openly shown itself is that Cheney’s always in an undisclosed location. Come to think of it, puppet masters usually are….

Take a page from the Bush/Rove/Limbaugh playbook:

“There are some people who believe that betraying CIA agents is part of getting re-elected”

“My opponent doesn’t believe that any of your phone calls should be private”

“Republicans want to sell your private information to international financiers”

etc.

Yes, but .. the question still remains, DID Wilson’s wife send him on a junket?

Indeed.

After all, Nigeria is one of the world’s great vacationing hotspots.

As far as junkets go… it is one of the jet sets’ fave locations.

So yes, Valerie Plame sent him thither… both for the beaches and the black women.

Now how about some reality?

What Cheney’s scribblings show is the beginning machinations of revenge. He is pissed that someone exposed his sexed up intel about Iraq as bogus. He is NOT interested in the truth of what Wilson found out. Not one of the marginalia deals with that… Not one. He is interested in finding a wedge to split their brains open with.

Any other reading of this document is bending over backwards to suck administrative “dick”….

Maybe the coming indictment of Rove will lead to Cheneys resignation,for health reason,of course.

“President Cheney” The best two word argument against impeaching President Bush. Also on Jeopardy: Who would be an even worse President than George W. Bush?

All the PNAC guys and their disciples… there doesn’t seem to be much qualitative difference among them. It’s their shared thinking that is so destructive, and under Bush, they’ve been able to assemble into a critical mass.

Read “Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert. This former LAPD detective proves in this volume beyond a reasonable doubt that Cheney was the ringleader who supplied the NeoCons of the New American Century with the Pearl Harbor that they explicitly hungered after and which was totally essential to achieving their goals. Without 9/11, Bush would have been a “failed presidency” in 18 months. So to the other epethets for Cheney suggested above, we can add “mass murderer of American civilians.”

Anyone want to bet that Cheney isn’t the force behind Bush’s pending announcement tonight that the National Guard will be called up to patrol the Mexican border?

“If Cheney has been able to bring such darkness lurking in the wings as Vice President, it boggles the mind to think of the terror he would bring if he were President.”

kali, I have to disagree on that. One can do and will do much more damage while able to skulk around in the shadows. Once one has some “sunshine” applied, as is always the case with the President or the top dog anywhere, it becomes much more difficult to practice all/any of the dark arts. I do not think a large part of the Bush base would continue to support Bush if they actually thought he was directly responsible (i.e. came up with the ideas and really pushed for their enactment) for much of what this administration has done. But right now they can blame others in the Sadministration.

“Once one has some “sunshine” applied, as is always the case with the President or the top dog anywhere, it becomes much more difficult to practice all/any of the dark arts.”

Bubba, I think you’re misunderstanding how Cheney operates. Cheney employs aggressive subordinates like Libby and Addington to pursue his goals, so “sunshine” wouldn’t really crimp his style. (And these subordinates utilize unorthodox tactics that are difficult to track and counteract.) Worse, Cheney doesn’t really seem to care whether or not he has support for his agenda, and he doesn’t seem to think that he owes anyone anything.

It’s said that Cheney is very intelligent. Maybe so, but he strikes me as the stereotypic brainy guy who lacks common sense and always gets the answers to basic questions wrong.

Comments are closed.