The not-so-innocent bystander

The article is not explicit, but an underlying theme of the Washington Post’s profile on Dick Cheney is that his unprecedented power is only possible because Bush is anxious to get out of the way.

Waxing or waning, Cheney holds his purchase on an unrivaled portfolio across the executive branch. Bush works most naturally, close observers said, at the level of broad objectives, broadly declared. Cheney, they said, inhabits an operational world in which means are matched with ends and some of the most important choices are made. When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.

Before the president casts the only vote that counts, the final words of counsel nearly always come from Cheney.

“Side-by-side wing chairs”? I’m reminded of the embarrassing point in 2004 in which the President agreed to talk to the 9/11 Commission, but only if Cheney could sit with Bush, and help answer questions, during the discussion.

When Bush, an inexperienced governor in a state where the governor has limited power, was running for the White House in 2000, his supporters insisted the nation need not worry — Bush had assembled a team of capable “advisors” who would help guide his hand.

What the equation didn’t consider is what happens when the advisors disagree and the President has to make a decision. As the Post’s profile makes clear, Bush has spent the better part of the last six years simply going along with Cheney’s demands. Dan Quayle characterized this as Cheney taking on the role of “surrogate chief of staff.” The reality is more disconcerting — Cheney has routinely been the “surrogate President,” with Bush putting his signature on the VP’s ideas because the VP told him it was the right thing to do.

When it came to creating military commissions, Cheney and his team crafted the policy, excluded administration officials, and limited Bush’s access to information and cabinet officials. What did Bush do? He signed the document Cheney put in front of him.

When it came to the NSA’s domestic warrantless-search program, the same thing happened. What did Bush do? He endorsed Cheney’s policy because, well, it was Cheney’s policy.

When it was time to brief the chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees on the surveillance at the White House, lawmakers assumed “a conversation of that gravity would involve the commander in chief.” It didn’t. “We met in the vice president’s office,” recalled former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), because Cheney had “the portfolio for intelligence activities.”

When it came to ignoring the Geneva Conventions, Cheney made his decision before Bush did.

On Nov. 14, 2001, the day after Bush signed the commissions order, Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not “deserve to be treated as prisoners of war.”

The president had not yet made that decision. Ten weeks passed, and the Bush administration fought one of its fiercest internal brawls, before Bush ratified the policy that Cheney had declared: The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield.

Meet George W. Bush, the not-so-innocent bystander of his own presidency.

Too bad Bush has a chin. Then he would look like his personality.

  • As much as I realize that normal rules and assumptions don’t apply to this regime, I gotta wonder if Cheney has something on Bush. Blackmail explains this admin as well as anything.

  • For some reason, as I read the above, I see in my mind’s eye Hedley Lamarr and Governor LePetomaine from Blazing Saddles. One more thing that used to be funnier before the Bush administration.

    (The others include the Witch Scene from Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail — much less amusing now that the same deductive approach is being employed with stem cells and global warming. Also, every episode of M*A*S*H — now that the country is being run by Frank Burns. )

  • Yep – and don’t forget the movie “Dave” and the Chief of Staff in that movie.

  • I don’t know how anyone who reads this series can come away from it not scared to death. And not just afraid because of what these people may be able to manage to do between now and January, 2009, but for the precedents being set.

    A lot of people have been thinking that the 2008 presidential election is important because we need someone who can get us out of Iraq – and that’s true, we do. But, increasingly, I am looking at it from the standpoint of, which candidate is most likely to be tempted by and use the precedents set by Bush/Cheney for his – or her – own distorted and dangerous vision? Who are the people the candidate is likely to surround himself (or herself) with, and will they be of the “screw them” persuasion?

    It isn’t that I don’t think there’s a Democrat not craven enough to misuse the power of the presidency, but I worry about the weakening wall between church and state, the flimsiness of Roe v. Wade, and I worry about foreign policy – in the hands of any of the Republicans who are currently seeking the office. I worry about one of these guys continuing the Bush/Cheney model of flipping the bird to anyone who objects to their actions and just going full speed ahead.

    And that’s why I believe, like I have never believed before, that it isn’t going to be enough to put a Democrat in the White House; Cheney and Bush have to be stopped, and the only way that’s going to happen is for the House to vote articles of impeachment – all it takes is a simple majority – and for a trial to ensue in the Senate. So what if it doesn’t look – now – like there are enough votes in the Senate to convict? What’s to say there would not be by the time all the evidence was in?

    If we don’t send a message now – to future presidents of whatever party – that there are lines that cannot be crossed without accountability, I think we are taking a huge risk with both the immediate future, as well as with the post-2008 election future.

  • It appears that the dullard Shrub is just a facade assembled by Rove, Gonzales and Cheney. Harriet Miers was just a window washer brought along to polish “Bush’s History” which is now seen as an impossible task. Like a poorly constructed building, once one of the legs supporting the wobbly presidency of Herr Bush is removed the entire facade will come tumbling down. Cheney appointed himself puppetmaster of Prestooge Bush by choosing himself as VP because he knew he could manipulate Bush the Dumber to follow his twisted plans. I feel that we should leave Shrub alone for now and go after the weakest columns supporting the facade of arrogance and stupidity. Nail Rove for the Hatch Act in politicizing government agencies or remove Abu Ghraib Gonzales for perjury and Shrub will self destruct anyway. Then like turning the lights on to see the roaches, we will be facing the true evil powering the current misadministration. If Cheney can be taken down for placing himself in some political “netherworld” between the legislative and executive branches and ignoring oversight, all the better, but he is the strongest column supporting Shrub and probably the most difficult to take down.

    Another thing worth mentioning is that Shrub’s gullibility and stupidity is unlikely to be repeated by future presidencies and because of that, the full court press is on to persuade Shrub to bomb Iran before leaving office in disgrace. I don’t feel he can be trusted to complete his presidency without entangling us in another bloodbath in the ME.

    Off topic: Watching the Sunday morning talking heads, I was struck by the fact that mention of “Iraq” is almost absent. It’s all about Immigration Bill and the ’08 election campaign with a lot of noise about a 3rd party. Sam Waterston, another f__king actor, making noise about a new party, which I guess will be a refuge for Republicancers too embarrassed to admit they are members of the Republicancer Party, now forever soiled by Bush and his reckless misadministration.

  • Holy Shit! I have not been able to identify a single mechanism which will stop Cheney if he decides to launch WWIII – I mean it, what is he doing with our intelligence? Secrecy for secrecy’s sake? Why did he go to Saudi Arabia? Why is he lurking in the bushes during press conferences. Who does Karl Rove really work for?

    This is now way past an intellectual exercise in bad governing – we are in immediate danger from an all powerful person whose motives are completely hidden.

  • Agree with Anne #5.

    Cheney has usurped power against the wishes of the voters. For that alone he should be removed.

  • Though sad to be a cynic, loathing the Chainthing’s politics, and reluctant to be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, this, in the article, was the creepiest bit of all, for me :

    In a bunker beneath the East Wing of the White House, Cheney locked his eyes on CNN, chin resting on interlaced fingers. He was about to watch, in real time, as thousands were killed on Sept. 11, 2001.

    […]

    “There was a groan in the room that I won’t forget, ever,” one witness said. “It seemed like one groan from everyone” — among them Rice; her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley; economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey; counselor Matalin; Cheney’s chief of staff, Libby; and the vice president’s wife.

    Cheney made no sound. “I remember turning my head and looking at the vice president, and his expression never changed,” said the witness, reading from a notebook of observations written that day. Cheney closed his eyes against the image for one long, slow blink.

    Three people who were present, not all of them admirers, said they saw no sign then or later of the profound psychological transformation that has often been imputed to Cheney. What they saw, they said, was extraordinary self-containment and a rapid shift of focus to the machinery of power. While others assessed casualties and the work of “first responders,” Cheney began planning for a conflict that would call upon lawyers as often as soldiers and spies.

    — Almost like he knew all along…

    If I were Bush I’d be scared too.

  • bcinaz @ 7, Cheney will not directly start WWIII and Shrub may not either. I think our main role in the Gulf of Hormuz is to absorb Iranian retaliation after Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities. With that scenario, Shrub will be able to say he didn’t start the war. He was only defending our allies. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be too surprised if a Gulf of Tonkin incident isn’t manufactured and I would lay the blame for that squarely on Cheney’s shoulders.

  • Cheney has to be given credit for dark genius in realizing that the office of the Vice Presidency is a weak spot in American government that provides a perfect hidey-hole for someone who wants to be a eminence grise. Up to now, the office has been universally scorned as powerless, with all the consideration accorded a spare tire (at least until you actually need it), with the VP playing mushroom except for being brought outdoors every once in a while for a state funeral. The standard response of everyone to questions about what a VP has been doing has always been, “who gives a hoot?” Things barely changed for Gore, even though Clinton gave him up-to-then unparalleled power, access, and involvement.

    Cheney, however, realized the extent of what he could accomplish by virtue of a combination of an unusually pliable and incompetent president, the anonymity of the vice-presidency, and the complete lack of traditions concerning policing the office, media coverage of the VP’s comings and goings and expenditures, and so forth.

    I suspect that all Cheney’s gaping barn doors will be closed, albeit after the Bush regime is over, if only by Republicans who are unwilling to cede power to a Democratic vice president.

    It would be useful to turn over all the rocks and shine some sunlight on the Vice-Presidency. When that happens, I think he’ll hiss, scurry around a bit and spread some slime, and then quickly shrivel.

  • There used to be a notion, after President Kennedy’s assassination, that a sufficiently repulsive VP would discourage any future would-be assassin, hence Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle, though LBJ himself was no beauty. Al Gore is the most striking exception to this pattern, with the clear implication of being Bill Clinton’s intended successor.

    Where does Chainman fit in this sequence? From the beginning he placed himself outside precedent by his auto-nomination for the job. Since it would be below even the most craven assassin’s dignity to consider a potshot at Bushbaby, Chainman is not there for that reason. In truth, it is the other way round : Bush is there to protect Cheney. Logic and evidence permits no other conclusion.

  • “Side-by-side wing chairs”? I’m reminded of the embarrassing point in 2004 in which the President agreed to talk to the 9/11 Commission, but only if Cheney could sit with Bush, and help answer questions, during the discussion. — CB

    Like I said in the other (Sunday Discussion) thread: The Ventriloquist and his Dummy. The Dummy doesn’t make a move by itself; it has to be activated by its puppet-master. And it’s voice isn’t it’s own, either; the puppet-master is “throwing” it…

  • Cheney has to be given credit for dark genius in realizing that the office of the Vice Presidency is a weak spot in American government that provides a perfect hidey-hole for someone who wants to be a eminence grise.

    Only because people were sufficiently accustomed to weak bucket-of-piss Veeps to think that it was the holder of the office and not the office itself that was weak.

    As Steve hints, Cheney has basically imposed the Texas constitution — in which the Lt. Governor holds more power than the Governor — on the federal system. Well, that needs to be stamped right out, and impeaching the bastard is one way to make it clear.

  • Anne @ #5 writes beautifully and says what I would if I only a way with words. We need to impeach them but I am terribly afraid that won’t happen.

  • As a psychologist, I look at Cheney and see someone with extreme levels of paranoia, aided and abetted by a sociopathic personality. The only antidote to the feelings of persecution and fear that underlie the paranoia is to accumulate and use as much power as he can grab, without concern for what impact that has on other people, the nation, or the constitution.

    I’ve thought a lot about why Bush allows this, and it seems to me that Cheney represents — to him — the daddy figure who will take charge of everything, make it all okay for Bushie boy, and will never be troubled by angst or indecision (unlike his own father).

    What a recipe for disaster!

  • Speaking of paranoia…. I remember an article about a year ago… maybe in the New Republic? Maybe not. A journalist traveled with Cheney for a day or two (..that alone makes me shudder..) and she said he travels with a plastice suit to put on in case of chemical or biological attack… I mean it goes with him everywhere, in a car, plane… the dinner table?
    that is one creepy and paranoid dude…

  • Sorry, meant to quote this in #18: “Cheney and his team … limited Bush’s access to information and cabinet officials.”

  • My two cents:

    Bush’s brain is unable to cope with stress after years of addiction, hence “Bushworld” – the bubble-like environment that enables him. This impairment also renders him incapable of focusing on detail…he is – with his perfunctory gutchecks – simply a “frontman” par excellence – and Cheney handily steps into the vacuum that is Bush…

    But I also believe that Cheney’s history of cardiac disease has seriously impaired him both physically and mentally – time after time, Cheney’s judgments have been proved colossally wrong…and like Dr. Gail I can imagine that he is seriously paranoiac…

    Bottom line: worst, worst case…we have a Senate that is many votes short of conviction even if the House were to impeach Cheney and Bush, with the kicker being that, in all likelihood, we have a Supreme Court that will uphold almost anything these two borderline cases decide to undertake…

  • And another cent:

    It’s my understanding that the present-day Republican Party is very much a criminal enterprise – at every level everyone and everything has its price. (I remember a family friend active in local Republican politics – she was very much in the small government, good governance Northeast tradition – telling me she felt she had to bow out because she couldn’t in good conscience play the game…)

    I think that explains, in part, why the rest of the Party has yet to pivot away from Bush and Cheney…like any criminal mob they know they must all hang together rather than hang separately…

    And Cheney, with his vast government resources, obviously has the most dirt on everyone else…

  • Dan Quayle… @Defense Policy Board and executive at a hedge fund. Dan Quayle.

    My oh my…. if you were ever wondering about what’s gone wrong with this country…

  • One of the strongest arguments against impeaching W (in my opinion) was that Cheney would become President. Well that argument is no longer operative since Cheney has been the “Surrogate President” for the last 6 years. We now all know what a Cheney Presidency looks, feels and tastes like. The unknown is what a Shrub Presidency would look like if the Decider were left to his own devices. I shudder to think of it, and will now campaign against a Cheney Impeachment!! (Not really)

    Ronald

  • Somebody enlighten me…Can you impeach the VICE PRESIDENT? We could get along with Bush for another year and a half with Cheney gone. I’m really afraid somebody is going to blow us up if he stays at the helm.

  • Comments are closed.