Evil Dick Cheney - Enemy of the People

[BrooklynRider]

This jerk really is long overdue for his own thread:

Cheney exempts his own office from reporting on classified material
BY MARK SILVA
Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as "top secret" or "confidential," one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and "any other entity within the executive branch" to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney continues to insist he is exempt.

Explaining why the vice president has withheld even a tally of his office's secrecy when such offices as the National Security Council routinely report theirs, a spokeswoman said Cheney is "not under any duty" to provide it.

That is only one way the Bush administration, from its opening weeks in 2001, has asserted control over information. By keeping secret so many directives and actions, the administration has precluded the public - and often members of Congress - from knowing about some of the most significant decisions and acts of the White House.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the administration has based much of its need for confidentiality on the imperative of protecting national security at a time of war. Yet experts say Bush and his closest advisers demonstrated their proclivity for privacy well before Sept. 11:

Starting in the early weeks of his administration with a move to protect the papers of former presidents, Bush has clamped down on the release of government documents. That includes tougher standards for what the public can obtain under the Freedom of Information Act and the creation of a broad new category of "sensitive but unclassified information."

Not only has the administration reported a dramatic increase in the number of documents deemed "top secret," "secret" or "confidential," the president has authorized the reclassification of information that was public for years. An audit by a National Archives office recently found that the CIA acted in a "clearly inappropriate" way regarding about one-third of the documents it reclassified last year.

The White House has resisted efforts by Congress to gain information, starting with a White House energy task force headed by Cheney and continuing with the president's secret authorization of warrantless surveillance of people inside the United States suspected of communicating with terrorists abroad. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., recently threatened to withhold funding for the surveillance program unless the White House starts providing information.

The administration has withheld the identities of, and accusations against, detainees held in its war on terror, and it censored the findings of a joint House-Senate committee that investigated the events leading to Sept. 11, including a 27-page blackout of Saudi Arabia's alleged connections to the terrorists.

While maintaining a disciplined and virtually leakproof White House, senior members of the administration have been accused of leaking information to punish a critic of the war in Iraq. The grand jury testimony of a former White House aide reportedly asserts that Bush himself selectively authorized release of once-classified information to counter criticism.

A tension has always existed between the presidency and the public, with concerns about security and confidentiality competing with the public's right to know about its government. But the balance seems to be tipping toward secrecy in a more pronounced way than at any time in the past three decades.

"Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government," Bush said in his executive order on classified information. "Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens."

Bush and Cheney have made it clear they are intent on reclaiming presidential powers lost by Bush predecessors. That erosion of power started with Richard Nixon's losing fight over the privacy of his papers after the Watergate scandal and continued through Bill Clinton's impeachment.

"This is a presidency in which, from the start, there were important forces to accentuate the executive prerogative, and all of that became more important after 9/11," said Fred Greenstein, professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University and author of "The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino maintains that the White House has "struck the right balance" between national security and openness.

"We need to ensure that national security information is properly classified and protected," Perino said. "We endeavor to make as much information available to the public as possible. ... We are accountable to the American people. The president doesn't want it any other way."

But to some, the administration's penchant for secrecy has curtailed crucial public debate.

"It determines the character of our political system," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "Is it a political process that is open to wide-ranging debate, or is it more like a closed circle of elite decision-makers? I think we've learned, often to our disappointment, that it's the latter."

To others, the insistence that information considered important be kept confidential is part of the Bush White House's insistence on discipline and order.

"I really think they think of it in terms of good governance," said James Carafano, senior fellow for national security and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "It's a very corporate style of leadership."

Bush has a partner - some say mentor - in Cheney, who from the start resisted all efforts to disclose the inner workings of a task force devising the administration's energy policy. He defeated an unprecedented lawsuit by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to unveil that task force and carried his fight successfully to the Supreme Court.

And as the administration has sealed an increasing number of documents as secret or sensitive, and cut the number of documents being declassified each year, the refusal of Cheney's office to report on the number of its decisions stands out.

A directive from the National Archives, acting under the authority of the executive order bolstered by Bush in March 2003, requires all agencies and executive branch units to report annually on their classification and declassification of files.

Cheney's office maintains that its dual executive and legislative duties make it unique, as the vice president also serves as president of the Senate.

"This matter has been carefully reviewed," said spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride. "It has been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to the office of the vice president."

To many, the administration's acts are part of a broader campaign to boost the powers of the presidency.

"It's pretty clear that there were certain players in the administration, including the vice president, who felt that the executive branch had not fully exerted all of its constitutional authorities," said David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general.

Walker, as head of the GAO, filed that office's only lawsuit against a government agency in April 2002 as it sought to open the records of Cheney's energy task force. A federal judge dismissed the suit as a struggle between the executive and legislative branches that courts were not empowered to adjudicate.

The White House, in asserting a more powerful executive office, believed "that some of its authorities and privileges had eroded through the years and wanted to redraw that line," Walker said. "We just happened to be one of many situations that they chose to try to test."

Organizations including the Sierra Club also carried the fight to the Supreme Court, which in 2004 voted 7-2 to uphold "a paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation" and returned the case to an appeals court, which last year ruled in favor of the White House.

The administration started asserting its power over paper soon after Bush's inauguration by placing a hold on the release of the records of former presidents - beginning with the papers of Ronald Reagan's presidency - and later issuing an executive order granting past presidents a veto over releases.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978, enacted in response to Watergate-era court battles over Nixon's papers, had placed a hold on release of "confidential communications ... between the president and his advisers" for 12 years after the conclusion of a presidency.

The order Bush issued in 2001 enabled former presidents, or their representatives if the president has died, to screen any request for records and withhold ones considered "privileged." It gave the same authority to vice presidents.

Before the end of its first year, the administration also reversed a long-standing policy on how agencies respond to public requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.

Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, had insisted on "a presumption of disclosure." But Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, arguing that "no leader can operate effectively without confidential advice and counsel," implored all agencies to disclose information requested by the public "only after full and deliberate consideration ... of the privacy interests that could be implicated."

The administration's policy, stated by Ashcroft in an Oct. 12, 2001, memo, had been in the drafting for months.

But after the Sept. 11 attacks, and amid growing concern about information that terrorists might obtain from the government, then-Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card issued an order in March 2002 demanding that any "Sensitive but Unclassified Information" related to homeland security be released only after careful consideration "on a case-by-case basis."

That has led to a proliferation of documents stamped "Sensitive but Unclassified" or simply "For Office Use Only," according to experts who track government record-keeping.

The Bush administration is "objectively more secretive" than its recent predecessors, Aftergood said.

"Anyone who calls or writes a government agency for information encounters barriers that were just not there a decade ago," he said. "The government is undergoing a mutation in which we are gradually shifting into another kind of government in which executive authority is supreme and significantly unchecked."

[BrooklynRider]

Russia's energy minister hits back at Cheney
Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET May 7, 2006

The Russian government has hit back at accusations by US vice-president Dick Cheney of using its energy resources as "tools of intimidation and blackmail". It called on the west to recognise Russia's progress towards market principles and democracy.

Writing in Monday's Financial Times, Viktor Khristenko, the Russian energy minister, says Russia is "deeply puzzled by recent commentary in the west that distorts Russian energy policies". He calls on international leaders to work together at the G8 summit Russia will host this summer to establish a plan to achieve global energy security.

"The truth of the matter is that Russia has moved away from Soviet-era arrangements of subsidising energy prices to our neighbours and turned to market-based pricing mechanisms," Mr Khristenko says. "We are aware that old impressions fade slowly, but it is time for the west to recognise and acknowledge the maturing role and state of progress that Russia has achieved."

Also this weekend, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, issued a direct rebuttal of Mr Cheney's speech in Lithuania last week – even suggesting he had been misinformed by advisers. President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, is expected to deliver a toughly worded state of the nation address on Wednesday in which he will lay out his vision of Russia's place in the world.

The responses reflect frustration at what Moscow sees as misinterpretation by the west of recent energy moves, including the decision by Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, to cut off gas to Ukraine in a pricing dispute in January.

Mr Cheney last Thursday accused Russia not just of using energy policy for political ends, but of restricting citizens' rights.

Russia has also faced calls from José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, and Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, to open Gazprom's pipeline monopoly to independent producers, and warnings that the EU wants to diversify its energy suppliers.

Separately, Radek Sikorski, the Polish defence minister, last week compared Russia's deal to build a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany, bypassing Poland and the Baltic states, to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that divided eastern Europe between the Nazis and Soviets.

Reaching for different historical analogies, some Russian newspapers described Mr Cheney's speech as marking the start of a new cold war. Mr Khristenko makes no direct reference to Mr Cheney, but warns of a need to avoid falling back into the rhetoric of the past. He notes he was "received with open arms" on a US trip last autumn.

"Let us hope that, this July, when the leaders of our fellow G8 countries come together in St Petersburg, they will do so in the same spirit of serious dialogue and practical collaboration and not let our worthy goals be derailed by cold war-era ghosts of the past," he writes.

Mr Lavrov's comments were more direct. "I think that a person who holds such a high government post should have the full amount of objective information," he said of Mr Cheney.

White House officials said Mr Cheney's comments were vetted at the highest level of the administration.

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

[BrooklynRider]

Cheney has no regrets over Iraq invasion
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday May 4, 2006
The Guardian

Three years into the war that has come to define the legacy of the Bush administration Dick Cheney, the vice-president, has said he has no regrets about the decision to invade Iraq.

Mr Cheney's refusal to admit to doubts about going to war highlights his isolation from an administration which has demonstrated a degree of candour about Iraq, as well as the rest of the country where only 37% approve of the White House's handling of the conflict. Mr Cheney has even less support; his approval ratings have dipped below 20%. But in an interview to appear in June's Vanity Fair magazine, he remained a picture of certitude.

Asked whether in his "darkest nights" he ever doubted the decision to go to war, he said: "I think what we've done has been what needed to be done."
Mr Cheney was unmoved by postwar disclosures about the use of hyped and faulty intelligence to make the case for the invasion - some of which has been tied directly to his office.

He said: "In the end, you can argue about the quality of the intelligence and so forth, but ... I look at that whole spectrum of possibilities and options, and I think we did the right thing."

Mr Cheney's refusal to countenance doubt caps a career in politics and business where he was chairman of Halliburton in the 1990s, guided by deeply conservative views. According to Vanity Fair Mr Cheney's first thought on visiting Moscow's Red Square in the 1980s was: "'Well, I guess we're at ground zero'" of any American nuclear strike."

Other members of the government have admitted to mistakes in the war. Last month Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said the US had made thousands of tactical errors.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz and some other ardent supporters of the war have left the administration. Those departures have left Mr Cheney diminished within a government in which he had earlier been viewed as the guiding force. In the early days of George Bush's term Mr Cheney assembled a bigger national security staff than any of his predecessors. He also wanted to preside over meetings of the National Security Council in the president's absence - but was thwarted.

Although Mr Cheney has suffered four heart attacks, there are hardline Republicans who would like him to run for president. But in recent months his power appears to be waning and he is increasingly viewed as a liability.

In the interview Mr Cheney acknowledged that he had image problems, but appeared disinclined to repair that image. "My image might be better out there, this caricature you talk about might be avoided, if I spent more time as a public figure trying to improve my image, but that's not why I'm here," he said.

[MrSpice]

Russia's energy minister hits back at Cheney


I think this one of few examples when Cheney was right to point out to the world that Russia is sliding away from democracy. The US has an obligation to point out when the largest country on the face of the earth with huge nuclear arsenal curtails freedom of speech, bans independent political organizations and uses its natural resources to pressure the neighboring democratic states like Uraine and Georgia. Let's not everything together. Iraq war is one thing, his comment about Russia is another.

[LeCom]

uses its natural resources to pressure the neighboring democratic states like Uraine and Georgia.
So Ukraine stealing billions of dollars worth or Russia's natural gas is fine, yet Russia complaining about it is infringement on democracy. I see.

Also seems like harboring Chechen militants that terrorize local villages and take hostages on a regular basis in a valley just across the border on Georgia's side is fine too, eh?

[MrSpice]

So Ukraine stealing billions of dollars worth or Russia's natural gas is fine, yet Russia complaining about it is infringement on democracy. I see.

Also seems like harboring Chechen militants that terrorize local villages and take hostages on a regular basis in a valley just across the border on Georgia's side is fine too, eh?

I don't think stealing anything anywhere is fine. I did not say that Ukraine is a shining example of a great democracy. It's is a developing, poor and unstable democracy and has its own faults. What I was referring to was the statement Cheney made recently about Russia for which he was harshly critisized by Russian officials. See here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1921641

[lofter1]

Dick Cheney:

"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize ... ".

Hmmm ... sounds like he could be referring to some companies closer to home ...

Gas Prices: http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=254700

Enron: http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/EnronCalifCrisis.html

Manipulation: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/2003/0327enron.htm

Price Gouging: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=111

[lofter1]

How can I be so tough on someone who spends every waking minute toiling to ensure our security?

Cheney sleeping again at key meetings (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/cheney-sleeping-again-at-key-meetings.html)

by John in DC - 5/12/2006 12:29:00 PM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/cheney-sleeping-again-at-key-meetings.html

http://americablog.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/cheney-sleeping-again-746570.jpg

Okay, something is up with VP Cheney (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060512/ids_photos_ts/r497767846.jpg). This is the second time in 2 weeks that he's been unable to stay awake in meetings. (Is that a copy of Mary's book in his lap?)

Copyright 2005 - John Aravosis

[BrooklynRider]

Mubarak's Son Met Secretly With Cheney
May 15, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt — The son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is widely seen as his father's heir-apparent, met secretly last week with top White House officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Al-Jazeera reported Monday.

The talks came amid increasing criticism from the Bush administration of the Mubarak government for its crackdown on the political opposition, and Mubarak's comments that he does not take orders from Washington.

Egypt did not report Gamal Mubarak's trip to Washington, and its disclosure by the Arab satellite channel came as Cairo's state-owned newspapers criticized the Bush administration for interfering in Egypt's internal affairs.

Neither Egyptian authorities nor the White House responded to requests for comment.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3865153.ht...


More proof who really runs this country. I hope Mubarak told him to go Cheney himself.

[lofter1]

Specter's Uneasy Relationship With White House Is Revealed in a Letter to Cheney

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/washington/08specter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
By CARL HULSE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/carl_hulse/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and JIM RUTENBERG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/jim_rutenberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
June 8, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 7 — A senior Republican lawmaker went public on Wednesday about his often tense and complicated relationship with the Bush White House in a remarkable display of the strains within the party.

The lawmaker, Senator Arlen Specter (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arlen_specter/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, accused Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of meddling behind his back in the committee's business, bringing into the open a conflict that has simmered for months.


In a letter to Mr. Cheney that the senator released to the news media, Mr. Specter said the vice president had cut him out of discussions with all the other Republicans on his own committeeabout oversight of the administration's eavesdropping programs, a subject on which Mr. Specter has often been at odds with the White House.
Read the angry three-page letter (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/06/07/cheney.pdf) (pdf) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter sent to Vice President Dick Cheney, arguing Cheney "sought to influence, really determine" the committee's investigation in to the NSA spy program.

The trigger for Mr. Specter's anger was a deal made by Mr. Cheney with the other Republicans on the committee to block testimony from phone companies that reportedly cooperated in providing call records to the National Security Agency.

Mr. Specter, who had been considering issuing subpoenas to compel telephone company executives to testify, learned of Mr. Cheney's actions only when he went into a closed meeting of the committee's Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, shortly after encountering the vice president at a weekly luncheon of all Senate Republicans.

Mr. Specter's tone in the letter was restrained, but he made no effort to hide his displeasure at having been outmaneuvered and, in his view, undermined, by Mr. Cheney.

"I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence, really determine, the action of the committee without calling me first, or at least calling me at some point," Mr. Specter wrote. "This was especially perplexing since we both attended the Republican senators caucus lunch yesterday and I walked directly in front of you on at least two occasions en route from the buffet to my table."

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Lea Anne McBride, said Wednesday night that the vice president "has not had an opportunity to study" the letter.

"We're going to continue to work with members, listening to their legislative ideas," Ms. McBride said, although she added that it was "not necessary to have legislation to carry out the terrorist surveillance program."

She had no comment on the assertion that Mr. Cheney had worked behind the chairman's back.

Mr. Specter's evident frustration underscored the growing unease on Capitol Hill, among some Republicans as well as many Democrats, over the administration's efforts to exert executive power. At the same time, the White House has been trying to repair its relations with Congress.

One Republican with close ties to the administration, who was granted anonymity to discuss the thinking at the White House, said Mr. Specter had been increasingly nettlesome to the administration with his persistent criticism, especially of the surveillance programs.

Noting that the White House was ultimately pleased with Mr. Specter's help in securing the confirmations of Mr. Bush's Supreme Court nominees, this Republican said, "All of that good will he's built up has really been dissipated because he keeps smacking them around."

A senior White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president's chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joshua_b_bolten/index.html?inline=nyt-per), had reached out to Mr. Specter on Friday to press the administration's case for how to handle the phone companies.

The official described the conversation as "cordial but not productive."

"That's when we started reaching out to other members," the official said. "It was not out of disrespect."

The official went on, "The chairman's position is well known, and he knows our position, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work with other members who may be more open to our position."

Mr. Specter has been the leading Republican voice raising questions about the legal underpinnings of the surveillance programs.

In his letter, Mr. Specter told Mr. Cheney that events were unfolding in a "context where the administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight."

Mr. Cheney, by contrast, has led the White House's effort to defend the surveillance programs on legal and national security grounds.

The vice president has also been the primary force behind the administration's efforts to expand executive power in a wide variety of areas, a stance that has at times put him in direct conflict with Mr. Specter.

When Mr. Specter faced a difficult primary challenge in 2004, Mr. Bush sided with Mr. Specter, giving him vital political support.

In an interview, Mr. Specter described his relationship with Mr. Cheney as generally friendly and cordial. But he was clearly put out by the vice president's handling of the issue and his failure to pull Mr. Specter aside as he made several trips to the buffet for tuna salad and hard-boiled egg, salad dressing and fruit.

"He can talk to anybody he wants to," Mr. Specter said. "I think as a matter of basic protocol he ought not to exclude the chairman."

Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[MidtownGuy]

gypt did not report Gamal Mubarak's trip to Washington, and its disclosure by the Arab satellite channel came as Cairo's state-owned newspapers criticized the Bush administration for interfering in Egypt's internal affairs.

Gotta love that Al Jazeera! I think they're tremendous. I highly recommend the book Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles.

[SilentPandaesq]

On a random side note -

I was at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo a few weeks ago and the picture of Dick on the wall is downright disturbing. Bush's pic as well as Condi's are the typical "just happy to be here" photo, while Dick has the huge smirk on his face that is a little unerving... like he just stole christmas or something. I would have taken a picture but electronic devices of any kind are banned.

[ablarc]

Dick has the huge smirk on his face that is a little unerving... like he just stole christmas or something.
He always looks like that except when he's snarling.

[SilentPandaesq]

He always looks like that except when he's snarling.

Or shooting people in the face. Seriously, for the Vice-President to have that look on his face is just creepy. Didn't anyone tell him "Sir... we need to shoot that again... you look....Evil". I assume so which means that he wants to be viewed as evil (physically).

[lofter1]

... Dick has the huge smirk on his face that is a little unerving... like he just stole christmas or something.

How can you think that this guy is unnerving?

[kz1000ps]

Second picture in as many days to be from 1975......Dickey and Donnie.

The smirk in it's early days

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4501/artwork8th1933yo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[SilentPandaesq]

^^Yep. Thats the one...ughhhhhh. Just that now he is more jowely.

[lofter1]

Newly released emails suggest Army Corps lied about Cheney role in Halliburton contract

Avery Walker
Thursday June 15, 2006
RAW_STORY (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Documents_suggest_Army_lied_about_Cheney_0615.html )

http://rawstory.com/images/new/cheneycloseup.jpg

New documents obtained by a conservative watchdog group suggest that the US Army Corp of Engineers may have publicly lied regarding the involvement of the Vice President's office in awarding a 2003 multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract to Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) has learned.

RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/) has obtained a copy of the emails, which were acquired by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.

The newly released emails show the Army Corps attempting to deflect attention from Cheney's office by distributing talking points that would mask Cheney's purported role. The Corps could not immediately be reached for comment.

Among the 100 pages of newly-obtained documents is an 2003 email in which Army Corps official Carol Sanders writes, "Mr. Robert Andersen, Chief Counsel, USACE, participated in a 60 Minutes interview today in New York regarding the sole source award of the oil response contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root... [Andersen] was able to make many of the points we had planned."

Sanders subsequently provided sound bites from the interview, including, "There was no contact whatsoever (with the VP office)."

http://rawstory.com/images/other/newcheneyemail.gif

http://rawstory.com/images/other/newcheneytalkingpoints.gif

This directly contradicts another email uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2004.
That email, dated in March of 2003 was sent by an official of the Army Corps whose name was redacted. It stated, "We anticipate no issue (with the KBR deal) since the action has been coordinated w [sic] VP's office."

http://rawstory.com/images/other/oldcheneyemail.gif

The Army had earlier refused to hand over the documents. U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina released them after the group sued, arguing that they were being improperly exempted from the Freedom of Information Act.

Noting Vice President Cheney's prior relationship to Halliburton, Judicial Watch had filed its original FOIA request to obtain documents pertaining to the lucrative no-bid contract.

The vice president's associations with Halliburton "raise concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest or favoritism," Judicial Watch argued, "particularly since the contract was awarded to KBR without a bidding process and because the contract was not announced to the public until after it was approved."

"The US district judicial court judge had to get personally involved and look at these documents in private before they could be released," a Judicial Watch employee told RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/).

"And what the judge said when he saw them was, 'turn them over,'" the staffer added. "They were abusing the FOIA process -- embarrassment is not sufficient cause for exemption."

The Cheney contradiction is not the only cause for embarrassment in the documents.

One email, for example, includes a frank admission by an Army Corps of Engineer official: "I am copying you on this crap since I honestly believe the competitive procurement will never happen."

READ THE NEWLY RELEASED DOCUMENTS HERE (http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/halliburton-docs.pdf)

READ THE EARLIER 'VP' EMAIL HERE (http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/030503.pdf)

[lofter1]

PBS Frontline:
Inside the battle between Vice President Cheney and
CIA to control the 'dark side'

RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/)
Saturday June 17, 2006

RAW STORY (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/PBS_Frontline_Inside_battle_between_Cheney_0617.ht ml)


http://qpbs.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pPBS3-2853036reg.jpg

Tuesday's episode of the PBS public affairs series Frontline will probe the battle between Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA to control the 'dark side,' according to a press release for the show.

"Amid daily revelations about prewar intelligence and a growing scandal surrounding the indictment of the vice president's chief of staff and presidential adviser, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to investigate the internal war that was waged between the intelligence community and Richard Bruce Cheney, the most powerful vice president in the nation's history," says the press release.

The title for the show is derived from a television interview Cheney gave five days after September 11, 2001, when asked how the government might respond to the terrorist attacks by NBC's Tim Russert.

"I'm going to be careful here, Tim, because I -- clearly it would be inappropriate for me to talk about operational matters, specific options or the kinds of activities we might undertake going forward," Cheney said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html). "We do, indeed, though, have, obviously, the world's finest military - they've got a broad range of capabilities - and they may well be given missions in connection with this overall task and strategy."

"We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will," Cheney added. "We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world."

"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful," Cheney continued.

"That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective."

Cheney also told Russert that he envisioned a "very thorough sort of reassessment of how we operate and the kinds of people we deal with," and that the "mean, nasty, dangerous dirty business out there" neccessitated putting "some very unsavory characters" on the payroll.

According to the PBS press release, "The Dark Side" draws from "more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents," providing "a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war." Michael Kirk served as producer, writer and director while Jim Gilmore co-produced.

A brief trailer for the episode can be viewed at PBS' Frontline Website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/).



Excerpts from the PBS press release:
After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies, and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there's a new line on it. There's a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it's as though there's a private line, private communication between those two," former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet's CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE tells the story of how questionable intelligence was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public.

....

From stories of Nigerian yellowcake to claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with Iraqi agents in Prague, The Dark Side dissects the now-familiar assertions that led the nation to war. The film also examines how that stovepiped intelligence was used by the vice president in unprecedented visits to the CIA, where he questioned mid-level analysts on their conclusions. CIA officers who were there at the time say the message was clear: Cheney wanted evidence that Iraq was a threat.

At the center of the administration's case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report's principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made. Pillar also reveals that he regrets participating in writing a subsequent public white paper on Iraqi WMD. "What was the purpose of it? The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it," Pillar says.

For the first time, FRONTLINE tells of George Tenet's personal struggle in the runup to the Iraq war through the accounts of his closest advisers.

"He, I think, asked himself whether or not he wanted to continue on that road and to be part of it. And I think there was a lot of agonizing that George went through about what would be in the best interest of the country and national interest, or whether or not he would stay in that position and continue along a course that I think he had misgivings about," says John O. Brennan, former deputy executive director of the CIA.

Tenet chose to stay, but after the failure to find Iraqi WMD, the tension between the agency and Cheney's allies grew to the point that some in the administration believed the CIA had launched a covert war to undermine the president. The film shows how in response, Cheney's office waged a campaign to distance itself from the prewar intelligence the vice president had helped to cultivate. Under pressure, Tenet resigned. Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, would later admit to leaking key sections of the NIE -- authorized, he says, by Cheney. Libby also stated that the vice president told him that President Bush had declassified the material. Insiders tell FRONTLINE that the leak was part of the battle between the vice president and the CIA.

[lofter1]

Gorbachev: 'Americans Have a Severe Disease'

15 Years After Being Deposed From Power, Former Leader Discusses Russia, U.S.



On Cheney & Rumsfeld:
"They are just hawks protecting the interests of the military -- shallow people"


ABC NEWS (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2182020&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)
By CLAIRE SHIPMAN

July 12, 2006 — - Mikhail Gorbachev is generally regarded as the man who broke down the "iron curtain" that separated the communist world from the West and thawed the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Now, 15 years after a coup removed him from power and the Soviet Union dissolved, he has some stern words for the United States, whose relationship with Russia has soured lately.

"We have made some mistakes," he said, referring to recent attacks on Russia's democracy. "So what? Please don't put even more obstacles in our way. Do you really think you are smarter than we are?"

The former general secretary of the Soviet Union Communist Party accused Americans of arrogance and trying to impose their way of life on other nations.

"Americans have a severe disease -- worse than AIDS. It's called the winner's complex," he said. "You want an American style-democracy here. That will not work."

Gorbachev found a partner in former President Bush in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

During their time in power, communism fell in East Germany, when Germans tore down the legendary wall separating the democratic West from the communist East.

The collapse of communism quickly spread across eastern Europe, and the leaders worked together to create a partnership in the changing world
Gorbachev, however, is wry about the current president, George W. Bush.

"He's very determined," Gorbachev said. "You can't say he does not have character."

The former Soviet leader had severe criticism for two of the most important people in the Bush administration: Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"They are just hawks protecting the interests of the military -- shallow people," he said.

Criticism for Putin

Gorbachev also often has stern words for the Russian government, but frequently advises President Vladimir Putin, who is under fire for his authoritarian tactics.

"I told him I did not understand why he had canceled state elections. There is no glasnost," he said, referring to the Soviet push toward a more open society in the 1980s. "No elections here like there used to be in '89 and '90."

"Vladimir Putin is walking on a razor's edge," he said. "Putin has used and he will continue to use authoritarian measures, but Russia will form a democracy. I know Vladimir Putin. He is a moral person."

Gorbachev said he was ultimately a Putin supporter and was impressed by the president's need to create stability out of chaos.

Although he has assumed the role of senior statesman and remains active in Russian politics, Gorbachev said he was "75 years. Enough is enough."

He has not given up the dream of Russian democracy and hopes to see his two granddaughters live in freedom.

"I want my grandchildren to live in a democratic country -- in a peaceful world," he said. "But it's hard to imagine because there are so many answers we still need to find."

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[lofter1]

Cheney:
Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’ thinkprogress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/cheney-ct/)

As the Mideast sits on the brink of regional war, Vice President Dick Cheney spent his time yesterday holding a teleconference to discuss the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut.

Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman” was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.” He explained:

The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.Cheney’s argument assumes that the war in Iraq is helping the United States defeat terrorists. He’s wrong. His own State Department found last April that Iraq had become a safe haven for terrorists and attracted a “foreign fighter pipeline (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/terror.report/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)” linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world. An overwhelming bipartisan majority (84% (http://web0.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html)) of national security experts believe we are losing the war on terror, and 87 percent (http://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/thepopularfront.htmlhttp://web1.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/thepopularfront.html) think Iraq has had a negative impact.

Cheney should spend less time analyzing the Democratic primary in Connecticut and more time acknowledging the administration’s critical policy failures and trying to fix them. (A good place to start is the American Progress plan, Strategic Redeployment 2.0 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1613929).)

Read the full Cheney transcript HERE (http://thinkprogress.org/cheney-teleconference).

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Watch it and see what you think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbFzY1OooCw&mode=related&sear ch=

[lofter1]

http://www.woostercollective.com/images/zolt3.jpg

http://www.woostercollective.com/2004/05/02-week/

[lofter1]

Arrest over Cheney barb triggers lawsuit

rockymountainnews.com (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5039230,00.html)
By Charlie Brennan
October 3, 2006

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.
The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.

***

Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek

puntiki.blogspot.com (http://puntiki.blogspot.com/2006/06/dick-cheney-in-beaver-creek.html)
posted by Rob Good
Saturday, June 17, 2006

BEAVER CREEK, Colorado. A man was arrested by Secret Service agents when he tried to approach Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek Village yesterday afternoon, said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren.

This explains to me why I saw 2 armor plated Cadillac Limo's when I arrived at the Eagle Vail airport being followed by 2 secret service Surburbans. There was also a C17 Globemaster parked on the tarmack.... There have been military copters flying past the house also....All comes to place now.

Cheney is attending the AEI World Forum conference in the Vail Valley, an unofficial summit, created and hosted by former president Gerald R. Ford. Former world leaders, current government officials, scholars and business leaders from around the world are invited to discuss important global issues, organizers say.

I wonder who is here? HMMM, maybe they will invite me next year.

***

[Ninjahedge]

But he was a "national security threat" and therefore, by the Constitutional Rape act, oh, I mean Patriot Act and all corollaries, he can be arrested for no reason if the VP does not like him... I mean, "sympathises with the terrorist forces or poses a terrorist threat to myself, the US, or any US citizen"....


:p

I hope they take Cheney for every PRIVATE asset he has.

[ablarc]

Let's see ...this is the USA ...right?

[LeCom]

Let's hope Bush stays alive; otherwise, we'll get this nut as the President.

[MidtownGuy]

"Nut" is right. In the film "Death of a President" that I just watched, Cheney becomes Pres after Bush is assassinated. He promptly manufactures the pretense to bomb Syria.
Cheney is pure evil, through and through.

[lofter1]

Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek

Dick's wife, Lynne, might have visited there, as well (despite her protestations) ...

MRS. CHENEY'S LITERARY MASTERPIECE

Lynne Cheney's "lesbian" novel--free down load!! >>> http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp (http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp)

http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/images/sisters/sister-cover-sm.jpg (http://www.whitehouse.org/administration/images/sisters/sister-cover.jpg)

[deezee]

Let's hope Bush stays alive; otherwise, we'll get this nut as the President.

cheney was the perfect choice as vice president for bush.....no one in their right mind was gonna "off" bush with this guy as next in line. it must have been reassuring for bush to know that he'd make it through his presidency alive. let's not forget the tendency to see presidents "elected" ( i use the term lightly as we all know he wasn't elected) in years ending in "0" to be asassinated or die in office.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Cheney and Rumsfeld are the two pillars of evil acting as the frontmen for the neocons and the military/industrial complex that even Eisenhower warned us against all those years ago - unfortunately those warnings were not heeded and we are today in the grip of a new secret government that wishes to terrorise its own people in order to control them and secondly wishes to impose its will on the world through military/economic force.

[Punzie]

The trouble with being as dishonest and evil as Dick Cheney is that everything you do in all walks of life is questioned.


Below is a short article on his Christmas party. As soon as I saw that it was "sponsored" by Snow Queen Vodka, I assumed either:

(1) Cheney owns a share in the company, or

(2) He has a hidden political agenda for Kazakhstan, or

(3) Both.


But.. suppose he really does just love Snow Queen Vodka?
Nah.


Brought to you by Kazakhstan’s finest vodka

Borat wasn’t on the list, but at least one product of Kazakhstan managed to gain access to Vice President Dick Cheney’s holiday party on Tuesday night [12/12/06] at his Massachusetts Avenue residence.


Snow Queen vodka, a product of the central Asian country, was the “official liquor donor” at the 400-strong party of high-powered pols and their staffers. Among those on the list who braved the “blinding” lights on Mass Ave. and the long security procedure to rub elbows with the Veep: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Afghan Ambassador Said Jawad, Jordanian Ambassador Karim Kawar, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rima Al-Sabah, wife of the Kuwaiti ambassador.


“People were amazed at the cheap decor (think IKEA),” writes our source, but they were amazed at the “fabulous artwork throughout (on loan, one would assume).”


Despite the free-flowing vodka, no one in the “stuffy” crowd “lost their composure,” we hear.

http://www.examiner.com/a-455441~Yeas_and_Nays__Thursday__Dec__14.html

[Punzie]

Lately Rangel has been a jerk with his proposed military draft, but sometimes you can't help liking the guy:



The New York Post
January 6, 2007

RANGEL BOOTS VEEP

EVICTS CHENEY FROM CHOICE CAPITOL DIGS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01042007/photos/news010.jpg
Vice President Dick Cheney points out a
feature of his palatial — and now-former —
Capitol office to staffers.
It now belongs to Rep. Charles Rangel.



By GEOFF EARLE and IAN BISHOP,
Post Correspondents

January 4, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Rangel has evicted Vice President Dick Cheney from his office in the Capitol, and the Harlem heavyweight is moving into the prime digs today, The Post has learned.

Gilded letters were freshly painted atop the office door yesterday proclaiming "Ways and Means Committee" - confirming that the office now belongs to Rangel, the House panel's new chairman.

Sources said Cheney's and his staff's belongings were removed over the holidays.

The new digs give Rangel some of the choicest and most politically central real estate in all of Washington - as well as a measure of sweet revenge.

Rangel moved at lightning speed to boot the man he once told The Post is a "son of a bitch."

Even before Rangel officially took charge as the new chairman - which will happen at noon today - Capitol workers expunged the last traces of Cheney and brought in Rangel's plush furniture.

The ornate room is just yards off the House floor and the Democratic cloakroom where power brokers meet, and has a spectacular view of the Capitol's East Front.

Rangel was giddy at the prospect of giving Cheney the boot the day after Democrats delivered Republicans a crushing defeat on Election Day.

"Mr. Cheney enjoys an office on the second floor of the House of Representatives that historically has been designated for the Ways and Means Committee chairman," Rangel said after the election.

Republicans gave the historic room to Cheney after he captured the vice presidency, but got him to sign a letter saying the gift wasn't permanent.

"I'm trying to find some way to be gentle as I restore the dignity of that office," Rangel chuckled at the time. "You gotta go, you gotta go."

Rangel was so eager to bounce Cheney from the office, he phoned new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) less than 12 hours after the polls closed to get her approval.

Cheney's office took the high road yesterday. Spokeswoman Mary McGinn told The Post, "It was always our understanding that that office was on loan."

geoff.earle@nypost.com

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01042007/news/nationalnews/rangel_boots_veep_nationalnews_geoff_earle_______a nd_ian_bishop______post_correspondents.htm

[BrooklynRider]

NBC: CIA leak case figures reject Cheney immunity
Wilson, Plame claim that vice president is not shielded from civil lawsuit
By Joel Seidman
Updated: 11:05 p.m. ET Jan 16, 2007

As jury selection began Tuesday in the criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, claim that the vice president cannot assert immunity from their complaint.

The Wilsons have sued Libby, Cheney, senior White House adviser Karl Rove, former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and nine unnamed government officials, accusing them of conspiring to destroy Plame's career at the CIA.

The Wilsons claim they were seriously injured by "retaliatory revelation" in revealing Plame's CIA employment. The court filing states the Wilsons' "fear for their safety and for the safety of their children." And, the filing says, "disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's covert identity makes her and her family a target for those persons and groups who bear hostility to the United States and/or its intelligence officers."

Attorneys for the Wilsons write that, "No case ever has accorded the Vice President absolute immunity." The court filing states that the fact that Cheney is a part of the executive branch "does not warrant according him absolute immunity."

The Wilsons allege that Plame's name was leaked to reporters in retaliation for a July 2003 op-ed column published in The New York Times by Wilson, refuting U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program.

The Wilsons' attorney, Melanie Sloan, writes they are seeking "money damages as compensation for the substantial harms they have suffered from the violation of constitutional and common right laws."

Statements to 'Hardball'
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who is presiding over Libby's criminal trial, strongly admonished Sloan on Dec. 20 for her appearance on the MSNBC program "Hardball," where she predicted a jury could find Libby guilty of making false statements.

Sloan told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "I think a jury could easily still find him guilty without being the first to leak because that's not what he's been charged with. He's not charged with leaking. He's charged with making false statements."

Walton wrote in an opinion that "The Court would not tolerate this case being tried in the media."

Walton added that “making disparaging comments in a television interview about a criminal defendant in a highly publicized case on the eve of trial could cause potential members of the jury pool to engender negative attitudes about the defendant.”

In Tuesday's filing, Sloan writes that after syndicated columnist Robert Novak published Plame's name, Rove called Matthews and told him that Plame was "fair game."

Sloan adds, "Rove attempted to make this statement targeting Mrs. Wilson off the record and on the condition that he not be identified as its source, so as to avoid detection for the wrongdoing."


Motions to dismiss
Lawyers for Cheney and Libby have filed motions to dismiss the civil complaint. Cheney's attorneys argue that the suit should be dismissed on various grounds including that, "the Vice President is entitled to qualified immunity," and that Cheney is "absolutely immune from suits for civil damages."

The lawyers for the Vice President, who is expected to be a witness for Libby, also contend that the Wilsons' civil action arose after the statute of limitations for such filings had passed. Cheney's attorneys write that the Wilsons "have not pled that the Vice President ever made any public disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's alleged CIA employment status. The sole pertinent factual allegation is that the Vice President communicated the fact of her CIA employment to his national security advisor and chief of staff."

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has spent nearly three years investigating who revealed Plame's identity to Novak and Washington Post editor Bob Woodward in 2003, but no one was ever charged with that leak. Armitage last summer revealed that he was the first source of Plame to both reporters.

Joel Seidman is an NBC producer based in Washington, D.C.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16661267/

[ablarc]

More on America's unelected ruler:

Ex-Cheney aide shares media manipulation

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer, January 27, 2007

WASHINGTON - A smorgasbord of Washington insider details has emerged during the perjury trial of the vice president's former chief of staff.

For example, when Dick Cheney eally needed friends in the news media, his staff was short of phone numbers.

No one served up spicier morsels than Cheney's former top press assistant. Cathie Martin described the craft of media manipulation — under oath and in blunter terms than politicians like to hear in public.

The uses of leaks and exclusives. When to let one's name be used and when to hide in anonymity. Which news medium was seen as more susceptible to control and what timing was most propitious. All candidly described. Even the rating of certain journalists as friends to favor and critics to shun — a faint echo of the enemies list drawn up in Richard Nixon's White House more than 30 years ago.

The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby owes its very existence to a news leak, the public disclosure four summers ago of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity.
A private brainstorm of Plame's in 2002 brought a rain of public attacks on Cheney the following year. Cheney was accused of suppressing intelligence and allowing President Bush to present false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Plame's husband, ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, started the attack. Her unit at the CIA had sent him to Niger in 2002 to check a report Iraq was buying uranium for nuclear weapons. Cheney and the departments of State and Defense wanted to verify that.

Wilson thought he had debunked the report, but Bush mentioned it anyway in his State of the Union address in 2003. The story helped justify war with Iraq.
Wilson claimed Cheney's questions prompted his trip and Cheney should have received his report long before Bush spoke.

Wilson's charges first surfaced, attributed to an unnamed ex-ambassador, in Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column. But Martin testified she felt no urgency to set him straight because Kristof "attacked us, our administration fairly regularly."

But by July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote his own account in the Times and appeared on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

After that much exposure, Cheney, Libby and Martin spent the next week trying get out word that Cheney did not know Wilson, did not ask for the mission to Niger, never got Wilson's report and only learned about the trip from news stories in 2003.

Cheney personally dictated these points to Martin. She e-mailed them to the White House press secretary for relay to reporters.

When the story did not die, Martin found herself in a bind because Cheney's office was known for disclosing so little.

"Often the press stopped calling our office," Martin testified. "At this point, they weren't calling me asking me for comment."

So she had to call National Security Council and CIA press officers to learn which reporters were still working on stories.

Once Martin got names, Cheney ordered his right-hand man, Libby, rather than lowly press officers, to call — a signal of the topic's importance.

Top levels of the Bush administration decided that CIA Director George Tenet would issue a statement taking the blame for allowing Bush to mention the Niger story. Cheney and Libby worried Tenet would not go far enough to distance the vice president from the affair.

Libby asked Martin to map a media strategy in case Tenet fell short.

A Harvard law school graduate, Martin had succeeded legendary Republican operative Mary Matalin as Cheney's political and public affairs assistant. Matalin had brought Martin to Cheney's office as her deputy and trained her.
Martin offered these options in order:

_Put Cheney on "Meet the Press."

_Leak an exclusive version to a selected reporter or the weekly news magazines.

_Have national security adviser Condoleezza Rice or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hold a news conference.

_Persuade a third party or columnist to write an opinion piece that would appear in newspapers on the page opposite the editorials.

Not only did Tenet leave unanswered questions about Cheney, his remarks came out late on a Friday, the government's favorite moment to deliver bad news.

Why?

"Fewer people pay attention to it later on Friday," Martin testified. "And in our view, fewer people are paying attention on Saturday, when it's reported."

As Martin rated their options, putting Cheney on "Meet the Press," NBC's Sunday morning talk show, "is our best format." Cheney was their best person for the show and "we control the message a little bit more," according to Martin.

The downside was that Cheney could "get pulled into the weeds and specifics. We like to keep him at a pretty high level," she said. Also, it "looks defensive to rush him out on `Meet the Press.'"

Next they could give an exclusive or leak to one reporter and she considered David Sanger of The New York Times, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, or Time or Newsweek.

Because reporters are competitive, "if you give it to one reporter, they're more likely to write the story," Martin testified.

Plus an official can demand anonymity in return for the favor. "You can give it to them as a senior administration official," she said. "You don't have to say this is coming directly from the White House."

The news weeklies offered a focus on the big picture and opinion-editorial writers and columnists could voice opinions.

Ultimately, Cheney crafted an on-the-record statement to be attributed to Libby by name along with some anonymous background information. Libby personally called Matt Cooper of Time, who had e-mailed questions to Martin earlier.

But when Libby suggested calling Newsweek in fairness, Cheney's aides were at a loss.

"We were scrambling for a number for a reporter that we know there named Evan Thomas," Martin testified. "We were looking around for a number. I didn't have it with me." Eventually, they found a number and left a message.

But Cooper did not use the full quote and Martin called to complain. "I put Scooter on the phone with him, which we didn't do very often on the record with a quote," she testified, "and he took just a piece of it." The result "wasn't helpful" and the story did not fade away.

So the following week, two senior Bush aides — communications director Dan Bartlett and Rice's deputy, Steve Hadley — briefed White House reporters.

Cheney invited a group of conservative columnists to lunch at his residence.

[lofter1]

"Under Oath" must be the two scariest words to Dick and company ...

[lofter1]

Fitting ...

http://velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/JALBUM%20ALL-Images/7.jpg


http://velvetpaintings.com/Velvet/JALBUM%20ALL.html

[Punzie]

:eek: And what about all those lovely black pets -- doggies, kitties and bunnies -- that are named "Velvet"?

[ZippyTheChimp]

February 4, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

Why Dick Cheney Cracked Up

By FRANK RICH

IN the days since Dick Cheney lost it on CNN, our nation’s armchair shrinks have had a blast. The vice president who boasted of “enormous successes” in Iraq and barked “hogwash” at the congenitally mild Wolf Blitzer has been roundly judged delusional, pathologically dishonest or just plain nuts. But what else is new? We identified those diagnoses long ago. The more intriguing question is what ignited this particularly violent public flare-up.

The answer can be found in the timing of the CNN interview, which was conducted the day after the start of the perjury trial of Mr. Cheney’s former top aide, Scooter Libby. The vice president’s on-camera crackup reflected his understandable fear that a White House cover-up was crumbling. He knew that sworn testimony in a Washington courtroom would reveal still more sordid details about how the administration lied to take the country into war in Iraq. He knew that those revelations could cripple the White House’s current campaign to escalate that war and foment apocalyptic scenarios about Iran. Scariest of all, he knew that he might yet have to testify under oath himself.

Mr. Cheney, in other words, understands the danger this trial poses to the White House even as some of Washington remains oblivious. From the start, the capital has belittled the Joseph and Valerie Wilson affair as “a tempest in a teapot,” as David Broder of The Washington Post reiterated just five months ago. When “all of the facts come out in this case, it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great,” Bob Woodward said in 2005. Or, as Robert Novak suggested in 2003 before he revealed Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer in his column, “weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger” are “little elitist issues that don’t bother most of the people.” Those issues may not trouble Mr. Novak, but they do loom large to other people, especially those who sent their kids off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent uranium.

In terms of the big issues, the question of who first leaked Ms. Wilson’s identity (whether Mr. Libby, Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove) to which journalist (whether Mr. Woodward, Mr. Novak, Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) has always been a red herring. It’s entirely possible that the White House has always been telling the truth when it says that no one intended to unmask a secret agent. (No one has been charged with that crime.) The White House is also telling the truth when it repeatedly says that Mr. Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson on his C.I.A.-sponsored African trip to check out a supposed Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. (Another red herring, since Mr. Wilson didn’t make that accusation in the first place.)

But if the administration is telling the truth on these narrow questions and had little to hide about the Wilson trip per se, its wild overreaction to the episode was an incriminating sign it was hiding something else. According to testimony in the Libby case, the White House went berserk when Mr. Wilson published his Op-Ed article in The Times in July 2003 about what he didn’t find in Africa. Top officials gossiped incessantly about both Wilsons to anyone who would listen, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby conferred about them several times a day, and finally Mr. Libby, known as an exceptionally discreet White House courtier, became so sloppy that his alleged lying landed him with five felony counts.

The explanation for the hysteria has long been obvious. The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war. When Mr. Wilson, an obscure retired diplomat, touched that raw nerve, all the president’s men panicked because they knew Mr. Wilson’s modest finding in Africa was the tip of a far larger iceberg. They knew that there was still far more damning evidence of the administration’s W.M.D. lies lurking in the bowels of the bureaucracy.

Thanks to the commotion caused by the leak case, that damning evidence has slowly dribbled out. By my count we now know of at least a half-dozen instances before the start of the Iraq war when various intelligence agencies and others signaled that evidence of Iraq’s purchase of uranium in Africa might be dubious or fabricated. (These are detailed in the timelines at frankrich.com/timeline.htm.) The culmination of these warnings arrived in January 2003, the same month as the president’s State of the Union address, when the White House received a memo from the National Intelligence Council, the coordinating body for all American spy agencies, stating unequivocally that the claim was baseless. Nonetheless President Bush brandished that fearful “uranium from Africa” in his speech to Congress as he hustled the country into war in Iraq.

If the war had been a cakewalk, few would have cared to investigate the administration’s deceit at its inception. But by the time Mr. Wilson’s Op-Ed article appeared — some five months after the State of the Union and two months after “Mission Accomplished” — there was something terribly wrong with the White House’s triumphal picture. More than 60 American troops had been killed since Mr. Bush celebrated the end of “major combat operations” by prancing about an aircraft carrier. No W.M.D. had been found, and we weren’t even able to turn on the lights in Baghdad. For the first time, more than half of Americans told a Washington Post-ABC News poll that the level of casualties was “unacceptable.”

It was urgent, therefore, that the awkward questions raised by Mr. Wilson’s revelation of his Africa trip be squelched as quickly as possible. He had to be smeared as an inconsequential has-been whose mission was merely a trivial boondoggle arranged by his wife. The C.I.A., which had actually resisted the uranium fictions, had to be strong-armed into taking the blame for the 16 errant words in the State of the Union speech.

What we are learning from Mr. Libby’s trial is just what a herculean effort it took to execute this two-pronged cover-up after Mr. Wilson’s article appeared. Mr. Cheney was the hands-on manager of the 24/7 campaign of press manipulation and high-stakes character assassination, with Mr. Libby as his chief hatchet man. Though Mr. Libby’s lawyers are now arguing that their client was a sacrificial lamb thrown to the feds to shield Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby actually was — and still is — a stooge for the vice president.

Whether he will go to jail for his misplaced loyalty is the human drama of his trial. But for the country there are bigger issues at stake, and they are not, as the White House would have us believe, ancient history. The administration propaganda flimflams that sold us the war are now being retrofitted to expand and extend it.

In a replay of the run-up to the original invasion, a new National Intelligence Estimate, requested by Congress in August to summarize all intelligence assessments on Iraq, was mysteriously delayed until last week, well after the president had set his surge. Even the declassified passages released on Friday — the grim takes on the weak Iraqi security forces and the spiraling sectarian violence — foretell that the latest plan for victory is doomed. (As a White House communications aide testified at the Libby trial, this administration habitually releases bad news on Fridays because “fewer people pay attention when it’s reported on Saturday.”)

A Pentagon inspector general’s report, uncovered by Business Week last week, was also kept on the q.t.: it shows that even as more American troops are being thrown into the grinder in Iraq, existing troops lack the guns and ammunition to “effectively complete their missions.” Army and Marine Corps commanders told The Washington Post that both armor and trucks were in such short supply that their best hope is that “five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky.”

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of Colin Powell’s notorious W.M.D. pantomime before the United Nations Security Council, a fair amount of it a Cheney-Libby production. To mark this milestone, the White House is reviving the same script to rev up the war’s escalation, this time hyping Iran-Iraq connections instead of Al Qaeda-Iraq connections. In his Jan. 10 prime-time speech on Iraq, Mr. Bush said that Iran was supplying “advanced weaponry and training to our enemies,” even though the evidence suggests that Iran is actually in bed with our “friends” in Iraq, the Maliki government. The administration promised a dossier to back up its claims, but that too has been delayed twice amid reports of what The Times calls “a continuing debate about how well the information proved the Bush administration’s case.”

Call it a coincidence — though there are no coincidences — but it’s only fitting that the Libby trial began as news arrived of the death of E. Howard Hunt, the former C.I.A. agent whose bungling of the Watergate break-in sent him to jail and led to the unraveling of the Nixon presidency two years later. Still, we can’t push the parallels too far. No one died in Watergate. This time around our country can’t wait two more years for the White House to be stopped from playing its games with American blood.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[lofter1]

Dick Cheney Was Briefed by CIA on Niger (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/04/dick_cheney_was_briefed_by_cia_on_niger)

tpmcafe.com (http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/04/dick_cheney_was_briefed_by_cia_on_niger)
By Larry Johnson
Feb 4, 2007

One of the peripheral benefits from the Scooter LIbby trial (apart from the pleasure of watching the Bush Administration lies exposed) is the release of documents that provide concrete evidence of the events that produced Nigergate (or, if you prefer, Plamegate). Scooter may be claiming a foggy memory but if you read and compare the new documents with previous material, such as the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Iraq released in the summer of 2004, the fog will lift and you'll glean some new insights.

We have known all along that Dick Cheney asked the CIA to follow up on a DIA report about Iraq's effort to get uranium from Niger. Thanks to the latest document dump we now know that Dick Cheney received a preliminary brief from the CIA and the the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its 2004 report, covered up this fact.

On a chilly Tuesday morning almost five years ago, February 12, 2002, Dick Cheney’s CIA briefer arrived with a piece of finished intelligence that set in motion a series of events that exposed the identity of a CIA undercover officer, destroyed a CIA front company and compromised its various assets, and sent Scooter Libby to trial for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Dick Cheney read an article written by an analyst at the Defence Intelligence Agency titled, "Niamey signed on agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium to Baghdad". This report was based on intelligence obtained by CIA field operatives and published as an intelligence report (i.e. TD) on 5 February 2002. The source, our buddies the Italians. Thanks to the CIA memo introduced (http://www.paulweiss.com/files/upload/US%20v%20Libby%20DX64.pdf) during the first week of the Libby trial, the CIA reported that Iraq and Niger allegedly signed an agreement in July of 2000 to purchase uranium.

This TD was a follow up to information the CIA obtained in October 2001, also from the Italian intelligence service, which claimed the negotiations had started in 1999 and came to fruition in 2000.

We know from the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) report (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf) that the CIA analysts viewed the October report as uncorroborated and noted that even if this was true Iraq had no capability to process the yellowcake (see p. 36 of the SSCI July 2004 report).

DIA was less skeptical than the CIA and left the impression that it was a done deal. As the Senate Intelligence Committee reported in 2004, Dick Cheney asked his briefer to find out what the CIA knew about this. When a Vice President or President asks a question or makes a substantive comment in response to the briefing material, the Briefer always goes back to CIA Headquarters and sits in on a morning meeting of Senior CIA officials. When the CIA briefer got back to Headquarters, he briefed the Director of Operations (or his Deputy) and the the Director of Intelligence (or his Deputy).

This led to two courses of action. First, the Director of Intelligence sent the rock rolling down the hill until it hit an analyst in WINPAC -- the analytical shop in CIA tasked with monitoring Iraq's WMD program. According to the CIA memo released in the Libby trial (http://www.paulweiss.com/files/upload/US%20v%20Libby%20DX64.pdf), we now know that In response to this tasking the analyst produced a Senior Power Executive Intelligence Brief on 14 February 2002 that concluded:

information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated.

Now here is the bullshit. The Republican led Senate Select Intelligence Committee claimed in July 2004 that:
The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service.BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!! No. Unlike the DIA analyst, who accepted the report at face value, the CIA expressed skepticism and clearly conveyed that the information was suspect. Moreover, the CIA morning briefer gave this information to Vice President Cheney on Thursday morning, 14 February 2002.

Second, on Tuesday morning, 19 February 2002, the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division chaired an interagency meeting to discuss whether to send Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger. As noted in a previous post (see Joe Wilson Vindicated (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/joe_wilson_vind.html#more)), Joe even tried to talk them out of sending him but, as a good American, accepted the so-called boondoggle to Niger. And, when he returned, an intelligence report was generated.

Be sure of this, Dick Cheney was briefed on the results of Joe's trip. He may not have remembered the substance because the report -- based on the debriefing of Joe Wilson -- told a story that Dick Cheney did not want to hear.

There is no way that a CIA Briefer, who knew of the Vice President's keen interest in the issue of Iraq, Niger, and uranium, would not present a piece of raw intelligence to the Vice President that addressed Cheney's question. In fact, the Vice President received the report on March 8, 2002 or March 9, 2002. Look for yourself. On page DX64.4 of the CIA memo, paragraph 6, we are informed that the CIA's Directorate of Operations widely disseminated the report and that the sensitive source, Joe Wilson, is highly reliable.

Cheney was given an intelligence report in response to his original query on 12 February, 2002. The report made clear that Niger was playing ball with the U.S. and was not about to even meet with Iraqis, much less sell them uranium. But Cheney and Bush had other plans. They were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what the intelligence said. But we now have a clear picture that the intelligence community was trying to tell them uncomfortable truths that Bush and Cheney did not want to hear. Just remember that as the U.S. death toll in Iraq continues to soar.

Copyright © 2006 TPM Media LLC.

[lofter1]

Cheney son-in-law used revolving door
to stop chemical security regulations

rawstory.com (http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Cheney_soninlaw_used_revolving_door_to_0216.html)
Michael Roston
Published: Friday February 16, 2007

The son-in-law of Vice President Dick Cheney, Philip Perry, has entered and exited the Bush administration twice, and as a consequence helped free the chemical industry from upgraded security measures in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, according to an article in the March edition of the Washington Monthly.

Philip Perry is married to Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, also a former executive branch official. An article in the coming month's Washington Monthly penned by Art Levine details his work in and out of the Bush administration since 2000. He describes Perry by saying that "A flippant critic might say the father-in-law has been prosecuting a war that creates more terrorists abroad, while the son-in-law has been working to ensure they’ll have easy targets at home."

Before entering the Bush administration Perry worked in the powerful Washington, DC-law firm Latham and Watkins, and also on the Republican side of the Senate. After joining the Bush-Cheney transition team in late 2000, he became the third-ranking official in the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft. In 2002, he moved to the White House's Office of Management and Budget where he served as General Counsel.

It was in this role that he first blocked security upgrades on the chemical industry. When the EPA attempted to gain authority to regulate security at chemical industry facilities, Perry used the OMB to block the move. Levine reports that at a 2003 meeting in the White House, he told gathered executive branch officials that "If you send up this legislation, it will be dead on arrival on the Hill."

He then left government in 2003 and re-joined Latham and Watkins, which includes a major chemical industry trade group on its list of clients Levine writes. But in 2005, when Michael Chertoff became Secretary of Homeland Security, Perry joined the Department as General Counsel.

In this position, Levine says, Perry completed another pro-chemical industry move. When the Department of Homeland Security Regulations were released, "Hill staffers noticed that the department had effectively granted itself the power to set aside state laws," decreasing the amount of security regulation that the chemical business might face.

In January, Perry announced his intention to leave the government again to spend more time with his family, including his wife Liz who recently gave birth to the couple's fifth child.

The full story can be read at the Washington Monthly's website. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.levine.html)

[Punzie]

Cheney Seeks Allies' Support for Iraq War as His Luster Fades

By Holly Rosenkrantz and Brendan Murray

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Vice President Dick Cheney is finding it harder and harder to locate a welcome mat.

Cheney arrives today in Australia to meet with Prime Minister John Howard, a U.S. ally in the Iraq war who has resisted calls to withdraw his country's 1,600 troops. The visit comes two days after the vice president's meetings with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, when he was greeted by shouts of ``Yankee go home'' from a loudspeaker outside the U.S. embassy and a controversy over Japan's defense minister terming the war a ``mistake.''

Even today, Cheney will have to tread carefully: A Feb. 16- 18 poll in the Australian, a national newspaper, showed that 68 percent oppose the war. ``The vice president won't be walking the streets of Australia, so he won't have to be worried about being subjected to verbal abuse on this stop,'' said Stephen Yates, who served as his national security adviser until 2005.

Cheney, 66, is also coping with growing criticism at home, where adversaries say he demonstrates a combativeness that may reflect frustration with his diminished role in an administration reeling from Iraq and trying to come to terms with a Democratic Congress.

``He's not dominating administration policy and he's taking some shots, even from fellow Republicans,'' said Joel Goldstein, a vice presidential scholar at St. Louis University in Missouri. Cheney's ``operating style is not conducive to creating a reservoir of good feeling,'' Goldstein said.
Pugnacity on Display

His pugnacity has been displayed in the divisive debate over Iraq. In recent weeks, he has feuded publicly with two prominent Republicans -- Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Arizona's John McCain, a leading contender for the party presidential nomination.

Last month, Cheney told Newsweek magazine that he's having a hard time restraining himself from assailing Hagel over the Nebraskan's opposition to a Bush-Cheney plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

On Wednesday, Cheney told ABC News that McCain, who has been one of Bush's strongest war supporters, ``said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized.''

Noting McCain's past criticism of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney added: ``Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld.''

Sounding Board

While one of Cheney's responsibilities is to serve as a sounding board for congressional Republicans, some members say they doubt he is fully committed to the exchanges.

``He tends to take things in rather than engage,'' said Susan Collins, a Maine Republican. ``I'm not sure he takes advice very easily from members of the Senate.''

Capitol Hill Democrats say that Cheney hasn't made any nods toward bipartisan cooperation, even though Bush made numerous overtures since the November elections.

Cheney ``has not met with me, other than his presence at those meetings at the White House, where he typically doesn't speak,'' said Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In his first-term heyday, the vice president helped draft Bush's energy policy, twisted arms in the Senate to line up votes for the president's tax cuts and allied with Rumsfeld to press the case for invading Iraq.

Missing Rumsfeld

Cheney seems to have suffered from the loss of close ally Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and the rise of Bush favorite Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. Under Rice, the State Department has intensified Middle East peace efforts and brokered a nuclear-disarmament deal with North Korea.

At the same time, Cheney remains a powerful voice within the administration and retains his close personal relationship with Bush. For instance, he prevailed over outside adviser James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, in urging the president to escalate military pressure on Iraqi insurgents rather than to begin the phased reduction of the U.S. troops that Baker favored.

``When you're sitting around in that room and ideas come up, he doesn't speak just to hear himself talk,'' said Douglas Feith, a former Bush undersecretary of defense. ``He is measured and careful about what he says. He is still going to be considered a heavy hitter.''

Cheney, for his part, dismisses the notion that his clout declined. When asked last month by Newsweek about Republican critics who say he misrepresented the case for war with Iraq, the answer was vintage Cheney: ``Well I'm vice president, and they're not.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in Washington at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aecLxJUZ9Vuo

[Ninjahedge]

I did not read the full thing, but this is something that has been annoying me:


U.S. ally in the Iraq war who has resisted calls to withdraw his country's 1,600 troops.

1600.

1600!!! That's it! An entire country with a leader that insults Bush's critics can only muster 1600 men to send over?

That isn't enough to do jack!

And the media is really a lot to blame on this. Why give so much air-time to his comments without addressing them for what they are.

Hot air from a supporter that will yell a lot, but not actually provide much when push comes to gun.

[Punzie]

Dick Cheney has just been treated for a blood clot (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/washington/06cheney.html) in his left leg.

Is anybody thinking what I'm thinking?

What a great time to resign from the vice presidency!

Health reasons!

"Health comes first."

The ultimate face-saver!

[lofter1]

Won't save him from the civil suit filed by Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame.

Revenge can be sweet. Especially when served up on a legal platter.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Heard on Imus this morning, on the phone with White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, outside the WH. While discussing the Scooter Libby case and Cheney, the sound of sirens in the background.

O'Donnell: "I don't know if you can hear that, but I think Cheney just arrived at work."

Imus: "Or they're coming to get him."

[Punzie]

"A blood clot was discovered in Dick Cheney's left leg. Democrats on Capitol Hill are concerned about his health. They've offered to take him for treatment at Walter Reed Hospital."

- Comedy Writer Alan Ray

[lofter1]

Cheney tells agency that Vice President's office
is not part of the executive branch

RawStory (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html )
Filed by Michael Roston
06/21/2007

http://www.rawstory.com//images/new/cheneybeserk.jpg

The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that for purposes of securing classified information, the Vice President's office is not an 'entity within the executive branch' according to a letter released Thursday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, you exempted the Office of the Vice President from the presidential executive order that establishes a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified national security information," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Committee's chairman, wrote in a letter to Cheney.

"Your decision to exempt your office from the President's order is problematic because it could place national security secrets at risk. It is also hard to understand given the history of security breaches involving officials in your office."

Waxman noted that Cheney's office had declared itself not affected by an executive order amended by President George W. Bush in 2003 regarding classification and declassification of government materials.

"Your position was that your office 'does not believe it is included in the definition of 'agency' as set forth in the Order' and 'does not consider itself an 'entity within the executive branch' that comes into the possession of classified information,'" a National Archives official claims Cheney chief of staff David Addington wrote to him.

The Vice President's office's refusal to comply with the executive order and the National Archives's request prompted the National Archives to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office. But the Justice Department has not followed up on the Archives's request.

In response, Waxman issued a set of questions to which he requested answers by July 12.

The full set of documents from Waxman's office can be found at the Oversight Committee's website. (http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1371)

[Punzie]

Does Cheney believe what he's saying?

[MidtownGuy]

No, he's just evil like the title of the thread.

[eddhead]

I am stunned by his argument. Completely stunned.

[Ninjahedge]

Well then.

If he is not part of teh executive office, he really should not be allowed to speak for the president, now should he? ;)

Why are so many reporters afraid to rip into him in an interview? Wolf asked him about his daughter and looked like he was going to wet himself when Dick gave him the evil eye.....

[lofter1]

Well, Wolf Blitzer is a joke. He can talk fast ... that's about it. His habit of repeating a word when leading into a "new story" makes me want him dead ...

[MidtownGuy]

There's a special place in hell for "journalists" like him.

[Ninjahedge]

Heh...



Wolf Spritzer - A newsreporter for the fictitious Newstime Live programme. A parody of Wolf Blitzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer). Appears in Broadcast Nuisance.

From Wiki..... (Animaniacs)

The episode was called "Broadcast Nuisance"

Info:

http://www2.cruzio.com/~keeper/UAbroadc.html

Or just google it:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-13,GGLJ:en&q=%22Broadcast+Nuisance%22


(there used to be a YouTube of it, but it got removed...)

I miss political satire on animated series.....

[ZippyTheChimp]

July 1, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

When the Vice President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal

By FRANK RICH

WHO knew that mocking the Constitution could be nearly as funny as shooting a hunting buddy in the face? Among other comic dividends, Dick Cheney's legal theory that the vice president is not part of the executive branch yielded a priceless weeklong series on "The Daily Show" (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=89163) and an online "Doonesbury Poll," (http://cgi.doonesbury.com/cgi-bin/view_poll.cgi) conducted at Slate, to name Mr. Cheney's indeterminate branch of government.

The ridicule was so widespread that finally even this White House had to blink. By midweek, it had abandoned that particularly ludicrous argument, if not its spurious larger claim that Mr. Cheney gets a free pass to ignore rules regulating federal officials' handling of government secrets.

That retreat might allow us to mark the end of this installment of the Bush-Cheney Follies but for one nagging problem: Not for the first time in the history of this administration — or the hundredth — has the real story been lost amid the Washington kerfuffle. Once the laughter subsides and you look deeper into the narrative leading up to the punch line, you can unearth a buried White House plot that is more damning than the official scandal. This plot once again snakes back to the sinister origins of the Iraq war, to the Valerie Wilson leak case and to the press failures that enabled the administration to abuse truth and the law for too long.

One journalist who hasn't failed is Mark Silva of The Chicago Tribune. He first reported more than a year ago, in May 2006, the essentials of the "news" at the heart of the recent Cheney ruckus. Mr. Silva found that the vice president was not filing required reports on his office's use of classified documents because he asserted that his role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, gave him an exemption.

This scoop went unnoticed by nearly everybody. It would still be forgotten today had not Henry Waxman, the dogged House inquisitor, called out Mr. Cheney 10 days ago, detailing still more egregious examples of the vice president's flouting of the law, including his effort to shut down an oversight agency in charge of policing him. The congressman's brief set off the firestorm that launched a thousand late-night gags.

That's all to the public good, but hiding in plain sight was the little-noted content of the Bush executive order that Mr. Cheney is accused of violating. On close examination, this obscure 2003 document, thrust into the light only because the vice president so blatantly defied it, turns out to be yet another piece of self-incriminating evidence illuminating the White House's guilt in ginning up its false case for war.

The tale of the document begins in August 2001, when the Bush administration initiated a review of the previous executive order on classified materials signed by Bill Clinton in 1995. The Clinton order had been acclaimed in its day as a victory for transparency because it mandated the automatic declassification of most government files after 25 years.

It was predictable that the obsessively secretive Bush team would undermine the Clinton order. What was once a measure to make government more open would be redrawn to do the opposite. And sure enough, when the White House finally released its revised version, the scant news coverage focused on how the new rules postponed the Clinton deadline for automatic declassification and tightened secrecy so much that previously declassified documents could be reclassified.

But few noticed another change inserted five times in the revised text: every provision that gave powers to the president over classified documents was amended to give the identical powers to the vice president. This unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout, though spelled out in black and white, went virtually unremarked in contemporary news accounts.

Given all the other unprecedented prerogatives that President Bush has handed his vice president, this one might seem to be just more of the same. But both the timing of the executive order and the subsequent use Mr. Cheney would make of it reveal its special importance in the games that the White House played with prewar intelligence.

The obvious juncture for Mr. Bush to bestow these new powers on his vice president, you might expect, would have been soon after 9/11, especially since the review process on the Clinton order started a month earlier and could be expedited, as so much other governmental machinery was, to meet the urgent national-security crisis. Yet the new executive order languished for another 18 months, only to be published and signed with no fanfare on March 25, 2003, a week after the invasion of Iraq began.

Why then? It was throughout March, both on the eve of the war and right after "Shock and Awe," that the White House's most urgent case for Iraq's imminent threat began to unravel. That case had been built around the scariest of Saddam's supposed W.M.D., the nuclear weapons that could engulf America in mushroom clouds, and the White House had pushed it relentlessly, despite a lack of evidence. On "Meet the Press" on March 16, Mr. Cheney pressed that doomsday button one more time: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But even as the vice president spoke, such claims were at last being strenuously challenged in public.

Nine days earlier Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency had announced that documents supposedly attesting to Saddam's attempt to secure uranium in Niger were "not authentic." A then-obscure retired diplomat, Joseph Wilson, piped in on CNN, calling the case "outrageous."

Soon both Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Congressman Waxman wrote letters (to the F.B.I. and the president, respectively) questioning whether we were going to war because of what Mr. Waxman labeled "a hoax." And this wasn't the only administration use of intelligence that was under increasing scrutiny. The newly formed 9/11 commission set its first open hearings for March 31 and requested some half-million documents, including those pertaining to what the White House knew about Al Qaeda's threat during the summer of 2001.

The new executive order that Mr. Bush signed on March 25 was ingenious. By giving Mr. Cheney the same classification powers he had, Mr. Bush gave his vice president a free hand to wield a clandestine weapon: he could use leaks to punish administration critics.

That weapon would be employed less than four months later. Under Mr. Bush's direction, Mr. Cheney deputized Scooter Libby to leak highly selective and misleading portions of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to pet reporters as he tried to discredit Mr. Wilson. By then, Mr. Wilson had emerged as the most vocal former government official accusing the White House of not telling the truth before the war.

Because of the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, we would learn three years later about the offensive conducted by Mr. Libby on behalf of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. That revelation prompted the vice president to acknowledge his enhanced powers in an unguarded moment in a February 2006 interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Asked by Mr. Hume with some incredulity if "a vice president has the authority to declassify information," Mr. Cheney replied, "There is an executive order to that effect." He was referring to the order of March 2003.

Even now, few have made the connection between this month's Cheney flap and the larger scandal. That larger scandal is to be found in what the vice president did legally under the executive order early on rather than in his more recent rejection of its oversight rules.

Timing really is everything. By March 2003, this White House knew its hype of Saddam's nonexistent nuclear arsenal was in grave danger of being exposed. The order allowed Mr. Bush to keep his own fingerprints off the nitty-gritty of any jihad against whistle-blowers by giving Mr. Cheney the authority to pick his own shots and handle the specifics. The president could have plausible deniability and was free to deliver non-denial denials like "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." Mr. Cheney in turn could delegate the actual dirty work to Mr. Libby, who obstructed justice to help throw a smoke screen over the vice president's own role in the effort to destroy Mr. Wilson.

Last week The Washington Post ran a first-rate investigative series on the entire Cheney vice presidency (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/). Readers posting comments were largely enthusiastic, but a few griped. "Six and a half years too late," said one. "Four years late and billions of dollars short," said another. Such complaints reflect the bitter legacy of much of the Washington press's failure to penetrate the hyping of prewar intelligence and, later, the import of the Fitzgerald investigation.

We're still playing catch-up. In a week in which the C.I.A. belatedly released severely censored secrets about agency scandals dating back a half-century, you have to wonder what else was done behind the shield of an executive order signed just after the Ides of March four years ago. Another half-century could pass before Americans learn the full story of the secrets buried by Mr. Cheney and his boss to cover up their deceitful path to war.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[MidtownGuy]

^galling.
Both he and his boss would already be undergoing impeachment procedures if our system wasn't in such a state of disrepair.
The federal executive branch needs a thorough exorcism and I guess the only way to start is a complete Republican defeat in '08.
I appeal to my fellow Republican forum members to do the right thing next year. If you really can't stomach the thought of
voting for a Democratic candidate, please vote Libertarian, Conservative, Right to Life, or any other line that appeals to you.
This nation cannot withstand 4 more years of rule by corrupt neo-conservative scoundrels.
If the corporate media were doing its job right, there would be no question about the outcome of the '08 election.

[ablarc]

Both he and his boss would already be undergoing impeachment procedures if our system wasn't in such a state of disrepair.
Don't you mean "both he and his lackey"? He gets to run the country and his lackey gets job security. Bush won't be impeached because no sane person would want Cheney as de jure president on top of de facto. Cheney is Bush's insurance policy.


The federal executive branch needs a thorough exorcism and I guess the only way to start is a complete Republican defeat in '08.
That's likely to happen unless the Democrats commit suicide again --or unless a third party siphons votes from them, as the Greens did.


I appeal to my fellow Republican forum members
You're a Republican?


This nation cannot withstand 4 more years of rule by corrupt neo-conservative scoundrels.
Aren't they really just crooks? And don't we have a kleptocracy like Russia?


If the corporate media were doing its job right, there would be no question about the outcome of the '08 election.
Karl Rove will tell you that if you put out disinformation the media feels obliged to treat it as though it might be true.

[RandySavage]

From the Daily Show in 2000:

Jon Stewart: Stephen, your thoughts on Inauguration Day?

Stephen Colbert: Well Jon its still a little too early to be sure, but this is how I see the next 4 years playing out: On Inauguration Day George W. Bush will take the Oath of Office and assume the mantle of Leader of the Free World, restoring his father's fallen Dynasty. And to insure his legitimacy, Chief Justice Rehnquist will anniont his brow with chrism. Doves will be released and lambs will be slaughtered. Bush will mount a golden chariot. Then with his aged squire Dick Cheney holding a loral wreath over his master's furrowed brow, the man who would be boy-King will take his destined throne. And in a much needed show of strength, Bush will drive his enemies before him, like leaves before a storm. He will make whores of our wives and slaves of our children. He will appoint a horse to the Senate. And he will have the oceans whipped for daring to turn their tides without his leave. And while having gangs of willowy young boys rub his body with perfumes from Persia and the fat rendered from the corpses of the persecuted poor, all about the fevered crowds will stare worshipfully at their unknowing, unseeing, girlishly giggling, Idiot Emperors head.

[MidtownGuy]

You're a Republican?

Oh dear.:eek:

My bad. Should have worded that differently!

[Punzie]

They couldn't get Al Capone down for the big thing, so they did it on grounds of tax evasion. Bring Cheney down on grounds of insanity. Cross that out - bring Cheney down on grounds of tax evasion!

[lofter1]

The Big Dick is living up to his reputation ...

Injured vets pull Dick Cheney invitation over security demands

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/07/28/amd_cheney.jpg
Ceneta/AP
Vice President Cheney was told to get lost by Disabled American Veterans,
which had invited him to its convention next month.

NY DAILY NEWS (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/27/2008-07-27_injured_vets_tell_pull_dick_cheney_invit.html)
By James Gordon Meek
Daily News Washington Bureau
Sunday, July 27th 2008

WASHINGTON - Vice President Cheney's invitation to address wounded combat veterans next month has been yanked because the group felt his security demands were Draconian and unreasonable.

The veep had planned to speak to the Disabled American Veterans at 8:30 a.m. at its August convention in Las Vegas.

His staff insisted the sick vets be sequestered for two hours before Cheney's arrival and couldn't leave until he'd finished talking, officials confirmed.

"Word got back to us ... that this would be a prerequisite," said the veterans executive director, David Gorman, who noted the meeting hall doesn't have any rest rooms. "We told them it just wasn't acceptable."

When Cheney spoke to the group in 2004, his handlers imposed the same stringent security lockdown, upsetting members, officials said.

Many of the vets are elderly and left pieces of themselves on foreign battlefields since World War II, and others were crippled by recent service in Iraq and Afghanistan. For health reasons, many can't be stuck in a room for hours.

"It was a huge imposition on our delegates," added David Autry, another Disabled American Veterans official.

Autry said vets would've had to get up "at Oh-dark-30 and try to get breakfast and showered and get their prosthetics on."

Once inside, they "could not leave the meeting room, and the bathrooms are outside," he said.

Cheney's office acknowledged the security requests, but insisted he is sensitive to combat veterans' needs.

Spokeswoman Megan Mitchell said the two-hour rule is "a recommendation, not a requirement," and "we always work to make sure the bathrooms are within the security perimeters."

"The vice president would never let us do anything that didn't help facilitate the needs of our veterans," Mitchell added.

Cheney has visited hospitalized wounded warriors and invited Walter Reed Army Medical Center patients for fly-fishing lessons around his swimming pool.

But the vice president's rules for speaking to groups seem more stringent than those of his boss.

President Bush routinely speaks at events such as large dinners where thousands of guests freely pass back and forth through Secret Service screening portals.

Gorman first invited Bush, who has never addressed the group, but the White House declined last month.

GOP presidential hopeful John McCain plans to speak in Las Vegas, and organizers expect Democrat Barack Obama will, too.

© Copyright 2008 NYDailyNews.com.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Nice photo.

[Ninjahedge]

Is he Billy Idol's Father?
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40934000/jpg/_40934679_idol_203b.jpg

[lofter1]

Rob Rogers - 8.10.2008 (http://www.robrogers.com/gallery/recent_cartoons/html/latest.html)

http://www.robrogers.com/cartoons/2008/images/081008_Evil_Driver.gif

[Jasonik]

Scholar: Cheney secrecy laying groundwork for possible 'history heist'

Nick Juliano
Published: Monday September 8, 2008
(http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scholar_Cheney_secrecy_laying_groundwork_for_0908. html)

While they might not like to admit it, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are, at the end of the day, employees of the American people, and four generations of precedent -- not to mention US law -- require that the people be allowed to audit their performance once they leave office.

Scholars and open government advocates, though, are sounding the alarm that Cheney, perhaps the most secretive and influential vice president ever, who entered government service during Richard Nixon's administration, could be returning to Tricky Dick's disdain for open government. A lawsuit filed Monday would force Cheney to comply with the 1978 Presidential Records Act, one of an array of post-Watergate reforms meant to redress Nixon's abuse of the office.

The act requires outgoing administrations to hand over executive branch documents to the National Archives, where the records are preserved for future historians. Problem is, Cheney's crafty lawyers have argued he is not a member of the executive branch, and President Bush early in his tenure amended what could amount to a giant loophole to the act that would allow Cheney to simply toss his papers into the fireplace on his way out the door.

"I think we're at a crossroad," said historian Martin Sherwin, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that would force Cheney to preserve and hand over his records. "There's a possibility here for what I call a history heist, or a historical theft from the American people."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an open-government watchdog that filed the lawsuit (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/34020), hosted a conference call Monday with Sherwin and other experts.

CREW's top lawyer, Anne Weismann, said concern that Cheney could dodge the requirements of the Presidential Records Act stems in part from a Bush executive order issued in November 2001.

The order amended the act to require disclosure of only the "executive records" of the vice president's office, meaning anything Cheney argued fell under his role as a member of the legislative branch could be kept secret indefinitely. Weismann noted that phrase does not appear anywhere in the Presidential Records Act itself nor are "executive records" mentioned anywhere in the legislative history of the law.

Because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate -- a position that amounts to essentially playing official tiebreaker in the event of a 50-50 vote -- Cheney's office has argued he is not a member of the executive branch. Cheney and his inner circle have sought this distinction to avoid all manner of oversight that would greet normal members of the executive branch; the potential they'll use it to deny historians a look at his office's inner workings is just the latest affront.

Weisman noted that CREW was hardly unfounded in suspecting Cheney might try to avoid handing over his records. Unfortunately, with a White House as prone to secrecy and as careless about keeping records as this one, even if CREW succeeds in forcing Cheney to hand over his records, no one ever will be able to say for sure what has already been destroyed.

The White House already is under fire for losing up to 10 million internal e-mails, including correspondence from Cheney's office during key days in the battle over his secret energy task force (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/WH_emails_missing_on_key_days_0121.html) and in the Valerie Plame case (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Email_missing_on_day_White_House_0121.html).

"We already know there is at least that much of a gap," Weissman told RAW STORY on Monday's call. "As far as what the vice president has done in his seven-plus years in office, it's anybody's guess."

[Ninjahedge]

You don't "lose" E-mail.

That was BS from day one.

Whether they can hide things or not (the missing minutes from the Watergate tapes anyone?) I am sure things will go missing on this one. :mad:

[lofter1]

Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302284.html?hpid=topnews)
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 14, 2008

This is the first of two stories adapted from "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency,"
to be published Tuesday by Penguin Press (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Penguin+Group?tid=informline).
Original source notes are denoted in [brackets (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html)] throughout.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/09/13/PH2008091302848.jpg
Photo Credit: By Melina Mara
David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, kept in his office controlling
documents that gave strategic direction to the nation's largest spy agency.

A burst of ferocity stunned the room into silence. No other word for it: The vice president's attorney was shouting.

"The president doesn't want this! [1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#1)] You are not going to see the opinions. You are out . . . of . . . your . . . lane!"

Five government lawyers had gathered around a small conference table in the Justice Department (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Justice?tid=informline) command center. Four were expected. David S. Addington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Addington?tid=informline), counsel to Vice President Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dick+Cheney?tid=informline), got wind of the meeting and invited himself.

If Addington smelled revolt, he was not far wrong. Unwelcome questions about warrantless domestic surveillance had begun to find their voice.

Cheney and his counsel would struggle for months to quash the legal insurgency. By the time President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) became aware of it, his No. 2 had stoked dissent into flat-out rebellion. The president would face a dilemma, and the presidency itself a historic test. Cheney would come close to leading them off a cliff, man and office both [2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#2)].

On this second Monday in December 2003, Addington's targets were a pair of would-be auditors from the National Security Agency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Security+Agency?tid=informline). He had displeasure to spare for their Justice Department hosts.

Perfect example, right here. A couple of NSA bureaucrats breeze in and ask for the most sensitive documents in the building. And Justice wants to tell them, Help yourselves? This was going to be a very short meeting.

Joel Brenner and Vito Potenza, the two men wilting under Addington's wrath, had driven 26 miles from Fort Meade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fort+Meade?tid=informline), the NSA's eavesdropping headquarters in Maryland. They were conducting a review of their agency's two-year-old special surveillance operation. They already knew the really secret stuff [3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#3)]: The NSA and other services had been unleashed to turn their machinery inward, collecting signals intelligence inside the United States. What the two men didn't know was why the Bush administration believed the program was legal.

It was an awkward question. Potenza, the NSA's acting general counsel, and Brenner, its inspector general, were supposed to be the ones who kept their agency on the straight and narrow. That's what Cheney and their boss, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, told doubters among the very few people who knew what was going on. Cheney, who chaired briefings for select members of Congress, said repeatedly that the NSA's top law and ethics officers -- career public servants -- approved and supervised the surveillance program.

That was not exactly true, not without one of those silent asterisks that secretly flip a sentence on its tail. Every 45 days, after Justice Department review, Bush renewed his military order for warrantless eavesdropping. Brenner and Potenza told Hayden that the agency was entitled to rely on those orders [4 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#4)]. The United States was at war with al-Qaeda (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Al+Qaeda?tid=informline), intelligence-gathering is inherent in war, and the Constitution appoints the president commander in chief.

But they had not been asked to give their own written assessments of the legality of domestic espionage. They based their answer in part on the attorney general's certification of the "form and legality" of the president's orders. Yet neither man had been allowed to see the program's codeword-classified legal analyses [5 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#5)], which were prepared by John C. Yoo, Addington's close ally in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/DOJ+Office+of+Legal+Counsel?tid=informline). Now they wanted to read Yoo's opinions for themselves [6 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#6)].

"This is none of your business!" Addington exploded.

He was massive in his swivel chair, taut and still, potential energy amping up the menace. Addington's pugnacity was not an act. Nothing mattered more, as the vice president and his lawyer saw the world, than these new surveillance tools. Bush had made a decision. Debate could only blow the secret, slow down vital work, or call the president's constitutional prerogatives into question.

The NSA lawyers returned to their car empty-handed.

* * *

The command center of "the president's program," as Addington usually called it, was not in the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline). Its controlling documents, which gave strategic direction to the nation's largest spy agency, lived in a vault across an alley from the West Wing [7 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#7)] -- in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, on the east side of the second floor, where the vice president headquartered his staff.

The vault was in EEOB 268, Addington's office. Cheney's lawyer held the documents, physical and electronic, because he was the one who wrote them. New forms of domestic espionage were created and developed over time in presidential authorizations that Addington typed on a Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk [8 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#8)].

It is unlikely that the history of U.S. intelligence includes another operation conceived and supervised by the office of the vice president. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had "no idea," he said, that the presidential orders were held in a vice presidential safe. An authoritative source said the staff secretariat, which kept a comprehensive inventory of presidential papers, classified and unclassified, possessed no record of these.

In an interview, Card said the Executive Office of the President, a formal term that encompassed Bush's staff but not Cheney's, followed strict procedures for handling and securing presidential papers.

"If there were exceptions to that, I'm not aware of them," he said. "If these documents weren't stored the right way or put in the right places or maintained by the right people, I'm not aware of it."

Asked why Addington would write presidential directives, Card said, "David Addington is a very competent lawyer." After a moment he added, "I would consider him a drafter, not the drafter [9 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#9)]. I'm sure there were a lot of smart people who were involved in helping to look at the language and the law."

Not many, it turned out. Though the president had the formal say over who was "read in" to the domestic surveillance program, Addington controlled the list in practice, according to three officials with personal knowledge. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Alberto+Gonzales?tid=informline) was aware of the program, but was not a careful student of the complex legal questions it raised. In its first 18 months, the only other lawyer who reviewed the program was John Yoo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Yoo?tid=informline).

By the time the NSA auditors came calling, a new man, Jack L. Goldsmith (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jack+Goldsmith?tid=informline), was chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Soon after he arrived on Oct. 6, 2003, the vice president's lawyer invited him to EEOB 268. Addington pulled out a folder with classification markings that Goldsmith had never seen [10 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#10)].

"David Addington was doing all the legal work. All the important documents were kept in his safe [11 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#11)]," Goldsmith recalled. "He was the one who first briefed me."

Goldsmith's new assignment gave him final word in the executive branch on what was legal and what was not. Addington had cleared him for the post -- "the biggest presence in the room," Goldsmith said, during a job interview ostensibly run by Gonzales.

Goldsmith did not have the looks of a guy who posed a threat to the Bush administration's alpha lawyer. A mild-mannered law professor from the University of Chicago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/University+of+Chicago?tid=informline), he was rumpled and self-conscious, easy to underestimate. On first impression, he gave off a misleading aura of softness. Goldsmith had lettered in football, baseball and soccer at the Pine Crest School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., [12 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#12)] spending his formative years with a mob-connected Teamster who married his mother [13 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#13)]. He was not a bare-knuckled brawler in Addington's mold, but Goldsmith arrived at Justice with no less confidence and strength of will.

Addington's behavior with the NSA auditors was "a wake-up call for me," Goldsmith said. Cheney and Addington, he came to believe, were gaming the system, using secrecy and intimidation to prevent potential dissenters from conducting an independent review.

"They were geniuses at this," Goldsmith said. "They could divide up all these problems in the bureaucracy, ask different people to decide things in their lanes, control the facts they gave them, and then put the answers together to get the result they want."

Dec. 9, 2003, the day of the visit from Brenner and Potenza, was the beginning of the end of that strategy. The years of easy victory were winding down for Cheney and his staff.

* * *

Goldsmith began a top-to-bottom review of the domestic surveillance program, taking up the work begun by a lawyer named Patrick F. Philbin after John Yoo left the department. Like Yoo and Goldsmith, Philbin had walked the stations of the conservative legal establishment: Federalist Society (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Federalist+Society+for+Law+and+Public+Policy+S tudies?tid=informline), a clerkship with U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman, another with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Clarence+Thomas?tid=informline).

The more questions they asked, the less Goldsmith and Philbin liked the answers. Parts of the program fell easily within the constitutional powers of the commander in chief. Others looked dicier.

The two lawyers worked at the intersection of three complex systems: telecommunications, spy technology, and the statutory regimes that governed surveillance. After a few weeks, Goldsmith said, he decided the program "was the biggest legal mess I'd seen in my life."

He asked for permission to read in Attorney General John D. Ashcroft (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Ashcroft?tid=informline)'s new deputy, James B. Comey (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/James+Comey?tid=informline) [14 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#14)]. As always, he found Addington waiting with Gonzales in the White House counsel's corner office, one floor up from the chief of staff. They sat in parallel wing chairs, much as Bush and Cheney did in the Oval Office.

"The attorney general and I think the deputy attorney general should be read in," Goldsmith said.

Addington replied first.

"Forget it," he said.

"The president insists on strict limitations on access to the program," Gonzales agreed.

Weeks passed. Goldsmith kept asking. Addington kept saying no.
"He always invoked the president, not the vice president," Goldsmith said [15 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#15)].

Comey was not exactly Mr. Popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He had arrived at Justice as a 6-foot-8 golden boy, smooth and polished, with top chops as a federal terrorism prosecutor in Northern Virginia and New York City. Then came Dec. 30, 2003. Comey did something unforgivable: He appointed an independent counsel to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Valerie+Plame?tid=informline)'s identity as a clandestine CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline) officer, a move that would bring no end of grief for Cheney.

In late January, Goldsmith and Addington cut a deal. Comey would get his read-in. Goldsmith would get off the fence about the program, giving his definitive answer by the March 11 deadline.

"You're the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and if you say we cannot do this thing legally, we'll shut it off," Addington told him [16 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#16)].

Feel free to tell the president that his most important intelligence operation has to stop.

Your call, Jack.

Goldsmith wanted to fix the thing, not stop it. He and Philbin traveled again and again to Fort Meade, each time delving deeper. They were in and out of Gonzales's office, looking for adjustments in the program that would bring it into compliance with the law. The issues were complex and remain classified. Addington bent on nothing, swatting back every idea. Gonzales listened placidly, sipping Diet Cokes from his little refrigerator, encouraging the antagonists to keep things civil.

There would be no easy out, no middle ground. Addington made clear that he did not believe for a moment that Justice would pull the plug.

* * *

Mike Hayden and Vito Potenza drove down from NSA headquarters after lunch on Feb. 19, 2004, to give Jim Comey his first briefing on the program. In the Justice Department's vault-like SCIF, a sensitive compartmented information facility, Hayden got Comey's attention fast.

"I'm so glad you're getting read in, because now I won't be alone at the table when John Kerry (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000148/) is elected president," the NSA director said [17 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#17)].

The witness table, Hayden meant. Congressional hearing, investigation of some kind. Nothing good. Kerry had the Democratic nomination just about locked up and was leading Bush in national polls. Hardly anyone in the intelligence field believed the next administration would climb as far out on a legal limb as this one had.

"Hayden was all dog-and-pony, and this is probably what happened to those poor folks in Congress, too," Comey told his chief of staff after the briefing. "You think for a second, 'Wow, that's great,' and then if you try actually to explain it back to yourself, you don't get it. You scratch your head afterward and you think, 'What the hell did that guy just tell me?' "

The NSA chief insisted on limiting surveillance to e-mails, phone calls and faxes in which one party was overseas, deflecting arguments from Cheney and Addington that he could just as well collect communications inside the United States.

That was one reason Hayden hated when reporters referred to "domestic surveillance." He made his point with a folksy analogy: He had taken "literally hundreds of domestic flights," he said, and never "landed in Waziristan." That sounded good. But the surveillance statutes said a warrant was required if either end of the conversation was in U.S. territory. The American side of the program -- the domestic surveillance -- was its distinguishing feature.

By the end of February, Goldsmith and Philbin had reached their conclusion: Parts of the surveillance operation had no support in law. Comey was so disturbed that he drove to Langley one evening to compare notes with Scott W. Muller, the general counsel at the CIA. Muller "got it immediately," agreeing with the Goldsmith-Philbin analysis, Comey said.

"At the end of the day, I concluded something I didn't ever think I would conclude, and that is that Pat Philbin and Jack Goldsmith understood this activity much better than Michael Hayden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Hayden?tid=informline) did," he said.

On Thursday, March 4, Comey brought the findings to Ashcroft, conferring for an hour one-on-one. Three senior Justice Department officials said in interviews that Ashcroft gave his full backing. He was not going to sign the next presidential order -- due in one week, March 11 -- unless the White House agreed to a list of required changes.

* * *

A few hours later, Ashcroft was reviewing notes for a news conference in Alexandria when his color changed and he sat down heavily. An aide, Mark Corallo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mark+Corallo?tid=informline), ducked out and returned to find the attorney general laid out on his back. By nightfall, Ashcroft was taken to George Washington University Medical Center in severe pain, suffering acute gallstone pancreatitis. Comey became acting attorney general on Friday.

The next day -- Saturday, March 6, five days before the March 11 deadline -- Goldsmith brought the Justice Department verdict to the White House. He told Gonzales and Addington for the first time that Justice would not certify the program.

A long silence fell. It lasted three full days.

Gonzales phoned Goldsmith at home before sunrise on Tuesday, March 9, with two days left before the program expired. Obviously there was bad chemistry with Addington. Why not come in and talk, he asked, just the two of us?

Goldsmith arrived at the White House in morning twilight. Alone in his office, Gonzales begged the OLC chief to reconsider. Gonzales tried to dispute Goldsmith's analysis, but he was in over his head. At least let us have more time, he said. Goldsmith said he couldn't do that.

The time had come for the vice president to step in. Proxies were not getting the job done. Cheney was going to have to take hold of this thing himself.

Even now, after months of debate, Cheney did not enlist the president. Bush was across the river in Arlington, commending the winners of the Malcolm Baldrige awards for quality improvement in private industry [18 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#18)].

Campaign season had come already, and the president was doing a lot of that kind of thing. That week he had a fundraiser in Dallas, a "Bush-Cheney 2004 event" in Santa Clara, Calif., and a meet-and-greet at a rodeo in Houston.

Soon after hearing what had happened between Goldsmith and Gonzales, the vice president asked Andy Card (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Andrew+Card?tid=informline) to set up a meeting at noon with Mike Hayden, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+Mueller?tid=informline), and John McLaughlin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McLaughlin?tid=informline) from the CIA (substituting for his boss, George J. Tenet (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+Tenet?tid=informline)). Cheney spoke to them in Card's office, the door closed.

Four hours later, at 4 p.m., the same cast reconvened. This time the Justice contingent was invited. Comey, Goldsmith and Philbin found the titans of the intelligence establishment lined up, a bunch of grave-faced analysts behind them for added mass. The spy chiefs brought no lawyers. The law was not the point. This meeting, described by officials with access to two sets of contemporaneous notes, was about telling Justice to set its qualms aside.

The staging had been arranged for maximum impact. Cheney sat at the head of Card's rectangular table, pivoting left to face the acting attorney general. The two men were close enough to touch. Card sat grimly at Cheney's right, directly across from Comey. There was plenty of eye contact all around.

This program, Cheney said, was vital. Turning it off would leave us blind.

Hayden, the NSA chief, pitched in: Even if the program had yet to produce blockbuster results, it was the only real hope of discovering sleeper agents before they could act.

"How can you possibly be reversing course on something of this importance after all this time?" Cheney asked [19 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#19)].

Comey held his ground. The program had to operate within the law. The Justice Department knew a lot more now than it had before, and Ashcroft and Comey had reached this decision together.

"I will accept for purposes of discussion that it is as valuable as you say it is," Comey said. "That only makes this more painful. It doesn't change the analysis. If I can't find a lawful basis for something, your telling me you really, really need to do it doesn't help me."

"Others see it differently," Cheney said.

There was only one of those, really. John Yoo had been out of the picture for nearly a year. It was all Addington.

"The analysis is flawed, in fact facially flawed," Comey said. "No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it."

Gonzales said nothing. Addington stood by the window, over Cheney's shoulder. He had heard a bellyful.

"Well, I'm a lawyer and I did," Addington said, glaring at Comey.
"No good lawyer," Comey said [20 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#20)].

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Addington started disputing the particulars. Now he was on Jack Goldsmith's turf. From across the room the head of the Office of Legal Counsel jumped in. And right there in front of the big guys, the two of them bickered in the snarly tones of a couple who knew all of each other's lines.

* * *

As the sun went down on Tuesday, March 9, the president of the United States had yet to learn that his Justice Department was heading off the rails. A train wreck was coming, but Cheney wanted to handle it. Neither Card nor Gonzales was in the habit of telling him no.

"I don't think it would be appropriate for the president to be engaged in the to-and-fro until it is, you know, penultimate," Card said in a recent interview [21 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#21)]. "I guess the definition of 'penultimate' could vary from four steps to three steps to two steps to one step. That's why you have White House counsel and people who do the legal work."

Participants in the afternoon meeting, including some of Cheney's recruits, left the room shaken. Mueller worked for the attorney general, and the FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation?tid=informline)'s central mission was to "uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States." Hayden's neck, and his agency, were on the line. The NSA director believed in the program, believed he was doing the right thing. But keep on going when the Justice Department said no?

Early the next morning -- Wednesday, March 10, with 24 hours to deadline -- Hayden was back in the White House. One colleague saw him conferring in worried whispers with Homeland Security adviser John A. Gordon, a mentor and fellow Air Force general, much the senior of the two. They huddled in the West Wing lobby, Hayden on a love seat and Gordon in a chair [22 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#22)].

Jim Comey was in the White House that morning, too, arriving early for the president's regular 8:30 terrorism brief. He had heard nothing since the discouraging meeting the day before.

Comey found Frances Fragos Townsend (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Fran+Townsend?tid=informline), an old friend, waiting just outside the Oval Office, standing by the appointment secretary's desk. She was Bush's deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism. Comey had known her since their days as New York mob prosecutors in the 1980s. Since then, Townsend had run the Justice Department's intelligence office. She lived and breathed surveillance law.

Comey took a chance. He pulled her back out to the hallway between the Roosevelt Room and the Cabinet Room.

"If I say a word, would you tell me whether you recognize it?" he asked quietly.

He did. She didn't. The program's classified code name left her blank. Comey tried to talk around the subject.

"I think this is something I am not a part of," Townsend said [23 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#23)]. "I can't have this conversation." Like John Gordon and deputy national security adviser Steven J. Hadley and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tom+Ridge?tid=informline), she was out of the loop [24 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/endnotes.html#24)].

Oh, God, Comey remembers thinking. They've held this so tight. Even Fran Townsend. The president's counterterrorism adviser is not read in? Comey towered over his diminutive friend. He chose his words carefully.

"I need to know," he said, "whether your boss recognizes that word, and whether she's read in on a particular program. Because we had a meeting here yesterday on that topic that I would have expected her to be at."

He meant national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Condoleezza+Rice?tid=informline). Comey was hoping for an ally, or maybe rescue.

"I felt very alone, with some justification," Comey recalled. "The attorney general is in intensive care. There's a train coming down the tracks that's about to run me and my career and the Department of Justice over. I was exploring every way to get off the tracks I could."

Townsend had a pretty good guess about what was on Comey's mind. Cheney had kept her out of the loop, but it was hard to hide a warrantless domestic surveillance program completely from the president's chief terrorism adviser.

"I'm not the right person to talk to," she told her friend, her voice close to a whisper. Comey ought to go see Rice.

"I'm going to tell her you've got concerns," Townsend said.

Comey's concerns no longer interested Cheney. The vice president had tried to back him down. That didn't work.

Only one day remained before the surveillance program expired. Time for Cheney to take the fight somewhere else.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. Tomorrow: Bush's dilemma.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

[Jasonik]

Judge orders Cheney to preserve records of administration

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday September 20, 2008 (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_orders_Cheney_to_preserve_records_0920.html)

A federal judge ruled against the Bush administration's closed-door policy on internal documents by ordering Vice President Dick Cheney to preserve a large amount of records during his time at the White House, the Associated Press reported (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney21-2008sep21,0,1913331.story?track=rss) Saturday.

The decision is meant to prevent many records from being destroyed before they can be made public under the Presidential Records Act (http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html), which the Bush administration has attempted to narrowly define.

But U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the administration's reluctance to hand over the documents "heightens the court's concern" that they would not be preserved without judicial intervention.

A Washington watchdog group filed a lawsuit (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/09/washington-watchdog-group-sues-dick-cheney-over-vp-papers/?mod=googlenews_wsj) against Cheney early this month, challenging his refusal to hand over a majority of his papers, The Wall Street Journal reported.

"Given the unlawful policies and directives of the defendants, there is an imminent threat that even before the end of this administration, Vice President Cheney and the OVP will destroy, transfer, or otherwise dispose of many of the vice president's records under the theory they are personal records and therefore not covered" by the law, the lawsuit stated.

The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/34020), was motivated to sue after Cheney argued he is exempt because his office is not part of the executive branch (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKXn0zpu4g78bQXEplkbxWQy4euQD932QI6G0) of government, the Associated Press reported.

The Presidential Records Act was instituted in the wake of the Watergate scandal as a means of safeguarding sensitive documents from the executive office for eventual release to the public.

Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress that Cheney doesn't belong to the executive or legislative branches of government, but rather is attached to Congress by the Constitution.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Dick Cheney leaving Washington DC on Jan 20, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDx1RMFXKIw)


Additional coverage later in the day. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls)

[TREPYE]

Former VP Dick Cheney warns of nuclear attack on United States under President Obama

BY James Gordon Meek (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/James%20Gordon%20Meek)
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, February 4th 2009, 7:56 PM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/02/05/alg_cheney.jpg Balce/AP Former Vice President Dick Cheney is once again putting the fear into Americans as he warns of a likely nuclear attack during President Obama's time in office.

WASHINGTON (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Washington%2c+DC) - Dick Cheney (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Dick+Cheney) isn't finished scaring the bejesus out of America (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States).





The former vice president warned Wednesday that there's a "high probability" the U.S. will get nuked by terrorists during President Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barack+Obama)'s watch.
"The ultimate threat to the country [is] a 9/11-type event where the terrorists are armed with something much more dangerous than an airline ticket and a box cutter - a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind," Cheney told Politico.com (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Politico.com) from his latest undisclosed location - his new Virginia (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Virginia) office.
Cheney said that "perhaps hundreds of thousands of people" would perish in such a strike, and that "there's a high probability of such an attempt."
He also appeared to miss his role defending ex-President George W. Bush (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/George+W.+Bush) for "the dark side" of fighting terrorists. In his first interview since leaving office, Cheney described that effort to protect the country as "a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business."
"We're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek," Cheney added.
The ex-veep had little kind to say about Obama's plan to shut down the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Guantanamo+Bay).
Cheney griped that Democrats "are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Al+Qaeda) terrorist" than protecting the U.S. from Osama Bin Laden (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Osama+bin+Laden)'s gang.
Some think "if we just go talk nice to these folks, everything's going to be okay," he said. "They're optimistic . . . We were."

[lofter1]

You DICK: It's over ... STFU

[scumonkey]

he always reminded me of the Burgermeister,
The wheel chair just enhances the comparison!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBE-np9hdVA&feature=related

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe he should grow a spine and let people know where he is.

Undisclosed is not a good way to let people know you care.

[OmegaNYC]

Cheney would rather see Rush Limbaugh in charge of GOP, than Colin Powell

By Kenneth R. Bazinet (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Kenneth%20R.%20Bazinet)
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Updated Sunday, May 10th 2009, 2:59 PM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/05/11/alg_cheney.jpg

Cooper/AP Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on the CBS news show "Face the Nation" on Sunday.



WASHINGTON (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Washington%2c+DC) - Dick Cheney (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Dick+Cheney) dished out a harsh slapdown to his onetime pal Colin Powell (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Colin+Powell) Sunday, saying right-winger Rush Limbaugh (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Rush+Limbaugh) would make a better voice for the future of the Republican Party.



The ex-veep took the swipe at old cohort Powell even as party moderates have sought to soften the GOP (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/U.S.+Republican+Party)'s increasingly extreme image.
"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican," Cheney said on "Face the Nation" on CBS (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/CBS+Corporation).

Cheney, whose popularity ratings are barely out of the single digits, added that Powell cast his lot with the Dems when he backed President Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barack+Obama).
"I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for President this time, Barack Obama," Cheney said. "I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interest."

Pressed whether he would take Limbaugh over the former secretary of state, Cheney reiterated, "I would … Politically."
The acerbic comments were particularly startling because Powell had been friends for years with Cheney. The retired general literally saluted his former boss from the podium of the Republican Convention (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Republican+National+Convention) in 2000 after George W. Bush (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/George+W.+Bush) picked Cheney as his running mate.
Democrats said Cheney's views were typical of the increasingly narrow-minded GOP.

"What's really telling of the state of a Republican party whose popularity continues to dwindle, is that . . . Dick Cheney chose to endorse Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Colin Powell and suggest that Secretary Powell was no longer a real Republican because he dared to disagree with the party," said Democratic National Committee (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Democratic+National+Committee) spokesman Hari Sevugan (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Hari+Sevugan).
In a interview that was provocative even by his sharp-tongued standards, Cheney also ratcheted up his now-familiar Obama-bashing rhetoric, accusing the President of leaving the country more vulnerable to attacks by wiping out Bush-era policies like torture and domestic wiretapping.
Cheney took issue with the Obama administration's argument that the U.S. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States) can't morally rage against the evils of terrorist tactics if it adopts practices that then world sees as torture.

"Well, then you'd have to say that, in effect, we're prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America," Cheney said, later adding he had "no regrets" over the decisions he and Bush made after 9/11.
"I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives," Cheney said.

Jim Jones (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/James+L.+Jones), President Obama's national security adviser, shot back at Cheney, saying on ABC (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/ABC+Inc.)'s "This Week" program, " I would take issue with some of those allegations. And I think, frankly, in the Bush administration there wasn't complete agreement with the vice president on that score."

[MidtownGuy]

Dick Cheney is pure evil, I have never seen so much evil wrapped up in one man. A complete monster with no conscience. He should be in prison somewhere or be struck by lightning.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Cheney would rather see Rush Limbaugh in charge of GOP, than Colin Powell Excellent!

[TREPYE]

Dick Cheney is the visual definition of a Knave (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knave).

[lofter1]

Wanda Sykes (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/wanda-sykes-jok.html) nailed both this old cretin and RL during the WH Correspondents dinner Saturday night. Folks there played like they were shocked, but she said what apparently about 90% of the American people are thinking in private.

GOP RIP.

Good riddance.

[BrooklynRider]

I wish the guy would drop dead (literally), but he is the best argument not to vote Republican out there.

[Ninjahedge]

They should have just asked him if the reason he wanted Rush in there was because his addiction to painkillers made him easier to influence and control than Colin.


And how he felt about his gay daughter and her partner. If he wants to hit everyone below the belt, now is the time to start swinging at him (now that he is out of office).

[Ninjahedge]

OMG, the narrow minded comments on that Blog are HORRIBLE.

Yes, Goering was mentioned, socialism, and the ruin of the country.

So many of these people who laugh so readily at any joke defaming the Democrats in any way are offended by RUSH LIMBAUGH being slammed (and, OMG, Obama chuckling about it. HOW DARE HE?!?!?!?!)

Geez. The problem I see is that these guys that do the most posting do NOT represent the majority, but they definitely get HEARD by the majority. It is generally only the loudmouth loonies that get the most web-time these days.....


/me closes web-rant before me risks shooting me-self more obviously.....

[MidtownGuy]

Liz Cheney joins her father in the Circle of Doom. After seeing her in a clip from "Morning Joe" (a hateful and narrow minded show) I've determined that she's just as evil as her old man.

[scumonkey]

The cherry does not fall fall from the tree...

[BrooklynRider]

This is my take on it...

http://vofua.blogspot.com/

Excuse the shameless plug of my blog, but subscribe if you like it!;)

[lofter1]

Dick the Second may overtake Dick the First (Richard Mihouse) as the biggest pile in the fetid outhouse of US politics:

Cheney And The Tanks

Andrew Sullivan
The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-latest-in-the-yoo-chronicles.html)
July 27, 2009

Cheney wanted to use (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=2&hp) the military to round up terrorist suspects on US soil:




A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property. The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.

What interests me here is the fact that the task was easily within the capabilities of the FBI who did the job. What Cheney was doing here was making a point: that he believes that the president can impose the equivalent of martial law inside the country at any moment he feels it's necessary, even if it isn't. What Cheney was about was making a point about his own untouchable power outside the constitution to wage a war, even in America itself against American citizens. Remember also that Cheney strongly believes in the power of torture as well - as integral, as he has put it, to American constitutional practices.

One day, we will realize what a threat Cheney was - and remains - to America as a constiitutional republic and to the national security of the West as a whole.

[kz1000ps]

Dick Cheney is pure evil....

Writing off ANYONE as "pure evil" only blinds you to anything good they may do, even Dick Cheney. It's folly, plain and simple.

[MidtownGuy]

Oh good lord, now I'm getting it from you too today?

[kz1000ps]

Not sure what that's in reference to.. but yeah sure, why not. Folly is folly any day of the week.

Edit: to elaborate, a big reason why I don't like Cheney, Bush, et al. is because they see the world in either black or white... no greys. You're either good or evil, with us or against us, ect. And well, looking at your statement, I see the same clear cut judging going on, and I don't care what side of the political spectrum you fall on, thinking that way isn't the answer.

[MidtownGuy]

So maybe "pure evil" was a comic book way to describe him, it wasn't meant to be taken that I thought he was Beelzebub! Jeez...I'm sure he once petted a dog or something and it didn't go nuts;)
Anyway, it got me the ol' "shades of grey" thingy, and that is funny because I'm usually the one giving that lecture to someone else...but in this case let me tell you something: Cheney is a dark dark dark shade of charcoal...approaching black with an inky blue tinge on that shady grey scale. As close to a heart of blackness as they come!:D:eek:

Yes...I have a hardened view on the man known as Dick Cheney.

[kz1000ps]

Cheney is a dark dark dark shade of charcoal...approaching black with an inky blue tinge

Perfect! ;)

[MidtownGuy]

Liz Cheney joins her father in the Circle of Doom. After seeing her in a clip from "Morning Joe" (a hateful and narrow minded show) I've determined that she's just as evil as her old man.

I would like to renew that sentiment I expressed back in May, in light of seeing her recently appear in this clip from Larry King
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/liz-cheney-defends-birthe_n_242555.html

[OmegaNYC]

Bush admin pressured ex-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge to raise terror warnings pre-election

BY James Gordon Meek (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/James%20Gordon%20Meek)
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Thursday, August 20th 2009, 7:52 PM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/08/21/alg_tomridge.jpg

Monsivais/AP
In his new book, Tom Ridge wrote he received pressure by the Bush
admin. to raise the terror warning pre-election.
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/08/21/amd_tomridge.jpg

Edmonds/AP

The Bush administration had polled well on terror issues before the 2004 election.


Top advisers to George W. Bush (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/George+W.+Bush) pressed for a politically-motivated terror alert a few days before the 2004 election, ex-Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Tom+Ridge) charges in a new book.
In a chapter of “The Test Of Our Times” titled “The Politics of Terrorism,” Ridge alleges ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Donald+H.+Rumsfeld) and ex-Attorney General John Ashcroft (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+Ashcroft) argued for an Orange Alert — or “high” threat — because of an Oct. 29, 2004, video by Osama Bin Laden (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Osama+bin+Laden)
“Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld,” Ridge writes in the book due out Sept. 1 by St. Martin’s Press (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/St.+Martin's+Press+LLC).

No intelligence hinted of a new attack. Ridge aides objected to the White House (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+White+House) and no change was made to the threat level.
Mark Corallo (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Mark+Corallo), Ashcroft’s spokesman in 2004, denied the ex-AG played politics with national security, and said Ridge should “use his emergency duct tape” on himself.

But exhaustive research by the Daily News in 2004 found that Ashcroft’s Justice Department (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ashcroft's+Justice+Department) rolled out terrorism announcements frequently to give Bush a boost in the polls against Democrat John Kerry (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+Kerry).
Ridge’s first hint that Bush political aides were leveraging fear of terror attacks — an issue where Bush polled well — came in May 2004.
Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Robert+Mueller) held a press conference to warn about American-Al Qaeda (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Al+Qaeda) Adam Gadahn (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Adam+Gadahn) and other suspects.

A top source said the Bush White House orchestrated the event. The red-faced FBI (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation) chief would appear with Ashcroft only once more.
But even Ashcroft had limits. He rebuffed a close aide’s request to make announcements of indictments and “be-on-the-lookouts” for terror suspects in political battleground states, a top Justice source told The News.
jmeek@nydailynews.com (jmeek@nydailynews.com)

[lofter1]

Set your alarm clocks:

Cheney to Face Searing Questioning on Torture Sunday

The Washington Independent (http://washingtonindependent.com/56951/cheney-to-face-searing-questioning-on-torture-sunday)
By Spencer Ackerman
8/28/09

When he goes on Fox News! Yes, the former vice president is going to sit down with Chris Wallace on Sunday to discuss the CIA’s torture disclosures and the discrepancy between what they say and what he said they’d say.

Right, Chris? Yeah?

[OmegaNYC]

So, Dirty Dick, goes to Fox News, to talk about tortue.

Talk about getting beaten with a wet noodle.

[lofter1]

Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/chris-wallace-a-teenage-girl-interviewing-the-jonas-brothers.html#more)
Andrew Sullivan
August 30, 2009

Here are the tough and penetrating questions asked by Chris Wallace of a man whose critics accuse of war crimes, and whose administration presided over the death of over a hundred prisoners in interrogation, who authorized torture techniques once trade-marked by the Khmer Rouge:


Why are you so concerned about the idea of one administration reviewing, investigating the actions of another one?

Do you think this was a political move not a law enforcement move?

The attorney general says this is a preliminary review, not a criminal investigation. It is just about CIA officers who went beyond their legal authorization. Why don't you think it's going to stop there?

The inspector general's report which was just released from 2004 details some specific interrogations -- mock executions, one of the detainees threatened with a handgun and with an electric drill, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times. First of all, did you know that was going on?

So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it?

President Obama has also decided to move interrogations from the CIA to the FBI that's under the supervision of the National Security Council, and the FBI will have to act within the boundaries of the Army Field Manual. What do you think that does for the nation's security? And will we now have the tools if we catch another high-value target?

Republicans have made the charge before, do you think Democrats are soft on National Security?

Do you think that it was a mistake, while you were in power, while your administration was in power, not to go after the nuclear infrastructure of Iran?

Was it a mistake for Bill Clinton, with the blessing of the Administration, to go to North Korea to bring back those two reporters?


Now look: there are softball interviews; and then there are interviews like this. It cannot be described as journalism in any fashion. Even as propaganda, which is its point, it doesn't work - because it's far too cloying and supportive of Cheney to be convincing to anyone outside the true-believers. When it comes to Cheney, one of the most incompetent vice-presidents in the country's history, with a record of two grotesquely botched wars, war crimes and a crippling debt, Chris Wallace sounds like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.

My two favorite moments:




CHENEY: I am going to -- if I address that, I will address it in my book, Chris.

WALLACE: It is going to be a hell of a book.

CHENEY: It is going to be a great book.


And then the apology for asking the questions Cheney wanted asked:




WALLACE: Well, we want to thank you for talking with us and including in your private life putting up with an interview from the likes of me.

CHENEY: It's all right. I enjoy your show, Chris.

WALLACE: Thank you very much, and all the best sir.

When future historians ask how the United States came not only to practice torture but to celebrate it and treat torturers as heroes, a special place in hell among the journalists who embraced and justified it should be reserved for Chris Wallace.

[OmegaNYC]

Former Vice President Cheney says he would have attacked Iran over nukes, but Bush said no

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sunday, August 30th 2009, 2:19 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/08/31/alg_george-bush_dick-cheney.jpg
Garcia/Bloomberg
Former President George W. Bushand former Vice President Dick Cheney disagreed over issues, says Cheney.






WASHINGTON — Did they disagree on national security policy decisions? Certainly. But was Dick Cheney frustrated or even disappointed when overruled by his boss, President George W. Bush? Not at all, the former vice president says.

"The fact of the matter is, he encouraged me to give him my view on a whole range of issues. I did," Cheney said in an interview broadcast on "Fox News Sunday."
"Sometimes he agreed. Sometimes he did not. That was true from the very beginning of the administration," Cheney said.
Among their disagreements: Cheney supported taking military action against Iran's nuclear program. Bush, however, wanted to try engaging Iranian leaders first.

"It was not my decision to make," Cheney said. "The president made the decision and, obviously, we pursued the diplomatic avenues."
Earlier reports cast Bush and Cheney at opposite ends on several other issues. Cheney reportedly disagreed with Bush's decision to stop waterboarding terror suspects — a harsh interrogation tactic that critics call torture. He also reportedly differed with the president on whether to pursue diplomatic talks with North Korea.

On the flip side, Cheney reportedly agreed with Bush on closing secret prisons where interrogators have greater latitude to question terror suspects than at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay.
Asked directly about each, Cheney punted.
Does he feel Bush was less tough on foreign policy during his second term in office than in his first?

"I wouldn't say that," Cheney told Fox News.
Cheney also said the Obama administration shouldn't be driven by a deadline to leave Iraq if the country isn't stable enough by then to remain secure.

"I think there's a danger there that you're going to let the drive to get out overwhelm the good sense of staying long enough to make certain the outcome is what we want," he said.

However, the deadlines in the U.S. security agreement with Iraq — which calls for all American combat troops to leave by the end of 2011 — was negotiated by the Bush administration.
In the end, being a consummate Washington power player, Cheney plugged his upcoming book to provide the answers about where he butted heads with Bush.
"I think you are going to have wait and read my book," he said.

[lofter1]

MG: Don't you look at the thread before posting? ;)

Or did comparing Chris Wallace to a teenage girl tickle you so much that you thought it worth repeating?

:D

[MidtownGuy]

No, i never read any thread, i just post whatever tickles my fancy...;)

Sorry lofter, I'm deleting the duplicate post.

[lofter1]

Back to Mr. Cheney and the question of Torture Policies as laid down by the Bush Administration:

As much as I dislike Cheney, his minions / cronies and their penchant for an over-reaching Executive Branch, I wish that those now in charge would focus on what seems to be the more important aspect of this situation:

The Constitutional Question regarding the limits of power as held by the Executive Branch.

The entire Torture / EIT policy is based upon the Cheney / Bush belief that the Constitution allows the POTUS to do any and everything to protect the nation. And that said security (whether real or perceived) stands above all else, including written laws & treaties. And that the POTUS can do whatever he so chooses in order to maintain the security that the POTUS and pals determine is required to protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic.

This is an argument as old as the Republic.

Clarifying what is allowed vis a vis the Constitution and the Executive Branch is far more important than any possible prosecutions or future vengeance.

Politically the nation is now too divided to adequately prosecute the wrongs that have been committed in our name. This is unfortunate and sad, but it is the case. What we do not need is finger pointing and punishment only of those who worked on the lower levels of this enterprise.

In order to get to the bottom of where we now stand and to take the politics out of it, the course to take should be a blanket de-criminalization without vindication for any and all involved. Then dig deep and find out the truth as to how we have arrived at this point. In regards to those who set the policies and carried them out: Let history be the judge.

[lofter1]

Sorry lofter, I'm deleting the duplicate post.
Awww, not necessary really. I liked seeing it repeated.

btw: Did you hear that a certain Fox "reporter" has the nutz of a teeny-bopper?

[MidtownGuy]

:D

I really can't look at FOX for more than one minute without starting to yell obscenities at the monitor.
Without this propaganda outlet barraging the populace every day with vicious lies, I really think this nation could be in a different, much better place. Propaganda sure is powerful. It scrambles peoples' brains and turns them to mush.

[Ninjahedge]

The thing that bothers me more than the "reporting" is people believing it and repeating it at things like Town Hall meetings.

I love the quote from Barney Frank asking that woman "What planet are you from?" and "I would have a more productive conversation with a desk". He is the only (annoyingly so at times) frank (pun NOT intended) congressman I have seen on these things. Everyone else is walking on eggshells and broken glass.


As for Cheney, he is doing it again. Calling out everyone in the current administration and absolving himself of not only his war crimes, but any mistakes he may have made. I sadly DO have respect for the man in only that he was able to get this far with such questionable motives and ethics. He is a truly scary individual.

the one thing I wonder though, and it is something we may never learn. Does he truly believe in what he is saying, or does he know that it is but a mechanism to instill fear in the general population that will give him, and his associates, unparelleled power in our countries machinations? Did he ever know that there were no WMD's? Was he privvy to all this from the start, or was he more of what we perceive Bush to have been, a misinformed and misguided under-articulate individual put up as a figure-head trying to do what he felt was right, while at the same time getting tripped up on his own ego?


I fear, admire, and loathe this man all at the same time. :eek::o:mad:

[MidtownGuy]

my take...he always knew everything. He knew it was all lies and he was behind a lot of them. The man is a demon...as in Beelzebub.

His daughter is just like the old man, she's constantly on the "news" shows to the point of making me wonder, who the hell is opening all of the doors for this b**ch and why is she suddenly on my television every day.

Too bad the odds of a piano falling on her face and smashing her into a pancake are so low.

[OmegaNYC]

Too bad the odds of a piano falling on her face and smashing her into a pancake are so low.


Damn, Liberals, and the Falling Piano act of 1960. :mad:


http://pointlessbanter.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/un-falling-piano-symbol.png

[lofter1]

Get that decrepit elecronically-controlled (http://www.hrspatients.org/patients/treatments/cardiac_defibrillators/vp.asp) hypocritical old arse (http://heliosj.iddings.us/main/node/217) back into the underground bunker (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788) and STFU (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=1057711) ...

Bitter And Afraid

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/bitter-and-afraid.html)
December 1, 2009

The former vice president, the man who imported torture into the American constitutional system, failed to capture bin Laden, invaded a country under false pretenses, allowed the Afghanistan campaign to disintegrate, and added $5 trillion to the next generation's debt burden, is attacking a sitting president (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30024.html) on a day he announces a critical military strategy in front of his troops.

It is, again, a breathtaking piece of dishonor from this bitter, angry man. To accuse your successor of "weakness" because he has actually conscientiously tried to figure out the right thing to do in a war Cheney and Bush clearly botched is a new low in American politics and the partisan politicization of war and peace.

The attack on Obama is an accusation of treason:


“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.”

Specifically, Cheney said the Justice Department decision (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29486.html) to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/Sept11) attacks, in New York City is “great” for Al Qaeda (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/AlQaeda).

“One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.”

Accusing the president of giving aid and comfort to the enemy is such a disgusting charge, such a deeply divisive, unAmerican tactic, it would be excoriated if it came from some far right blogger. That it comes from a former vice-president, violating every conceivable protocol (as he did in office), reminds me of why Cheney and Cheneyism remain such a threat to core American and Western values.

If you truly use a position of such authority to show contempt for the sitting president, to accuse him of treason, to attack him on the day he addresses the nation in a critical address, to divide him from the troops, to use sacred issues of war and peace which a president is solemnly engaging as a political weapon or as a vain and self-serving attempt to make your own record look better, then you have no core respect for the institutions and traditions and civility that make a constitutional democracy possible.

Look also at the focus of his attack: the civil trial of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. All Cheney can see is the opportunity for such a figure to grandstand, as if KSM's rantings will have any effect but to demystify him. What Cheney cannot see - because he has no deep appreciation of it - is the beauty of treating a monster like KSM to the stringent calm of Western justice. And what Cheney fears - for he is no fool - is that the trial will also reveal Cheney's torture regime, how it distorted intelligence, prevented bringing suspects to justice and tarred the US for ever as a country that now does what its enemies used to do: abuse, torture and mistreat prisoners in wartime.

I might add that one wonders what the circumstances were in which Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei took a trip to interview Cheney the day before Obama's Afghanistan address. What was the news hook? Did Cheney summon them to transcribe his vile assault? Did they request a newsy interview the day before Obama's speech?

Here's what I fear: that in a media era in which pageviews count more than actual news, Politico has allowed itself to become a conduit for political actors, rather than an independent voice covering news. This kind of story - which is really about itself - certainly doesn't defuse such fears.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Sullivan

[Daquan13]

Cheney has been badmouthing Obama ever since Obama took office, yet it was himself and Bush who failed to successfully capture Binladen.

Broken promises and false hopes. He needs to mind his own buisiness and shut the hell up!! He's not in office any more, so what the hell business of that is his what Obama does now?!

[lofter1]

SNAP!

Take that, Mr. Big Mouth (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/cheney-on-flight-253-obama-trying-to-pretend-we-are-not-at-war.php) ...

Did Cheney Understand We Were At War?

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/did-cheney-understand-we-were-at-war.html)
07 Jan 2010 03:23 pm

Dick Cheney is the former vice-president whose national security expertise was central to his appeal in 2000 as Bush's running mate. Yet within nine months, Cheney presided over the worst attack on American soil in US history, failed to capture its perpetrators, failed to bring any of its plotters to justice, made convicting them much harder because he secretly and illegally authorized their brutal torture, and recruited a new and young wave of Jihadists by the exposure of the barbarism at Gitmo, Bagram, Camp Cropper, Camp Nama and the various black torture sites he helped set up across the globe. For good measure, Cheney also lost the war in Afghanistan and his closest confidant Don Rumsfeld lost the war in Iraq (the success of the subsequent "surge" will be tested this year as troops withdraw). Under Cheney, for good measure, both Iran and North Korea made huge strides toward getting nukes.

Not only did Cheney allow bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora, he also helped radicalize many actually innocent prisoners (three quarters of those thrown into the torture camp at Gitmo were innocent of any charges), and then set many of these radicalized new Jihadists free to wreak further terror on the US and the world.

In fact, an Obama administration official has asserted (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/obama-admin-all-gitmo-terror-recidivists-may-have-been-released-under-bush/) that all the former Gitmo prisoners who have become Jihadists upon release were set free by Bush and Cheney. Just as Cheney had bin Laden in his grasp and allowed his fathomless incompetence to lose him, he has actually helped create and then unleash Jihadists across the world.

How this utter failure gets to pontificate on terror after his disastrous record is beyond me. But then, Mike Allen (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/mike-allen-cheneys-chief-spokesman.html) would have fewer pageviews, wouldn't he?

[lofter1]

Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Waterboard3-small.jpg

The Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/cheney-i-was-a-big-supporter-of-waterboarding.html#more)
Andrew Sullivan
14 Feb 2010 10:40 pm

That seems to me to be the big news out of Jonathan Karl's interview (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-vice-president-dick-cheney/story?id=9818034&page=3) with the former vice-president today. There is not a court in the United States or in the world that does not consider waterboarding torture. The Red Cross certainly does, and it's the governing body in international law. It is certainly torture according to the UN Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The British government, America's closest Western ally, certainly believes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7515517.stm) it is torture. No legal authority of any type in the US or the world has ever doubted that waterboarding is torture. To have subjected an individual to waterboarding once is torture under US and international law. To subject someone to it 183 times is so categorically torture is it almost absurd to even write this sentence.

To give the Wikipedia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding):


Waterboarding is a torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) technique that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying. In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_reflex). It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_drowning), damage to lungs, brain damage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage) from oxygen deprivation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_deprivation), other physical injuries including broken bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture) due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.


So the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime. I repeat: the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime.

There is no statute of limitations for such a crime; and the penalty under law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Punishment) is either the death penalty or a prison sentence for life:


Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#cite_note-8)] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility), and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place. The principle of universal jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction) also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yug oslavia) were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.

The question is therefore not if, but when, he is convicted as a war criminal - in his lifetime or posthumously.

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn't. Cheney's clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Sullivan

[OmegaNYC]

They're all war criminals, and they should be charged as such. Though, I won't bet on it.

[Ninjahedge]

When too many people on the winning side of a "war" are charged with war crimes, they have a tendency to never materialize or be actualized.

Guarantee you, even if Cheney PERSONALLY admitted to dumping a bucket on someone, he has covered his tracks enough with either legal means, or the bodies of his subordinates and connections, to prevent his hide from being dragged in.


I am just tired of the news even paying attension to him. He is gone, the worst blow to an egomaniac is not being heard.

[lofter1]

As long expected, it is now verified that Dick Cheney has no pulse ...

As demonstrated tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show by Dr. Allan Stewart (cardiac surgeon, New York Columbia Presbyterian Hospital), the pump that Cheney had implanted into his heart causes continuous flow of blood (much like a garden hose) and therefore the heart no longer pumps, ergo: No Pulse.

Cheney underwent heart surgery last week

Former Vice President had pump implanted to assist heart function

MSNBC (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38248507/ns/politics-more_politics/)
by Pete Williams
July 14, 2010

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that he underwent surgery last week to have a tiny pump implanted to assist in the functioning of his heart as he experiences "increasing congestive heart failure.

The surgery, to insert a left ventricular assist device, was performed at Fairfax Hospital in Virginia.

Cheney, 69, has suffered five heart attacks, the first when he was 37. His most recent heart attack, described as "mild," was in February, but late last month he was admitted to George Washington University Hospital for a few days after reporting he was not feeling well. He received medication to treat a fluid buildup related to his aggressive form of heart disease.

"A few weeks ago, it became clear that I was entering a new phase of the disease when I began to experience increasing congestive heart failure," Cheney said in a statement. "After a series of recent tests and discussions with my doctors, I decided to take advantage of one of the new technologies available and have a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implanted."

A doctor, who is part of his medical team, told NBC News that Cheney is "doing well now," but that the former vice president was short of breath and was experiencing "heart failure" before the device was implanted. He was "running on 3 cylinders. Now he's on 8," the doctor said.

The American Heart Association website defines the LVAD device as "a battery-operated, mechanical pump-type device that's surgically implanted. It helps maintain the pumping ability of a heart that can't effectively work on its own."

*

One version of the LVAD:

http://www.micromedcv.com/imagesfordownload/Heart_Device_callouts.jpg

And how they do it (http://www.mcg.edu/medart/MI-Awards-BA.html):

http://www.mcg.edu/medart/images/Art-BA-Awards.jpg

[ablarc]

Bionic Man.

[Daquan13]

You took the words out of my mouth. Hah!!

"We can rebuild him. We have the capability and power to make the world's first bionic man. Dick Cheney will be that man. We can make him better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster!"

[scumonkey]

Scary Things (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/scary_things/)
Dick Cheney Literally Has No Pulse

By Joe Coscarelli (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/author.php?author_id=1917), Tue., Jan. 4 2011 @ 6:02PM


[/URL]


http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/cheneyfruit.pngDick Cheney Eating Fruit​The former Vice President of the United States is now officially the robot he was always accused of being. A feature in the New York Times [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05cheney.html?_r=1&src=tptw"]reveals new details (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/scary_things/) of Dick Cheney's mechanical heart pump, which saved his life when it was installed in July. Skinnier, but still going hunting and looking mean, Cheney even showed the thing off at a party. And while he taught his daughter how to cook Christmas dinner and even saw True Grit ("two thumbs up"), Cheney is not the same as he once was. He's scarier.
It works like this, according to the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05cheney.html?_r=1&src=tptw):


With most patients, a power line emerges about waist level and connects to a controller, a minicomputer that plugs into a pair of one-and-a-half-pound, 12-volt batteries. Patients wear a black mesh vest over their clothing that holds the controller and batteries. They usually cannot shower and have to be satisfied with sponge baths. A little gross, to be sure, but here's the most terrifying part, both because of the health implications and because it is Dick Cheney:


His new mechanical pump -- a partial artificial heart known as a ventricular assist device -- leaves patients without a pulse because it pushes blood continuously instead of mimicking the heart's own beat. Most pulse-less patients feel nothing unusual, but the devices do pose significant risks of infection. They are implanted as a last resort either for permanent use or as a bridge to transplant until a donor heart can be found. Cheney must now decide whether he wants to pursue a full heart transplant or continue to frighten little children.
After Procedure, Cheney Resumes Old Life (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05cheney.html?_r=1&src=tptw) [NYT]

[lofter1]

From that same NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05cheney.html?_r=2&src=tptw):



On Jan. 20, he is to fly to Texas for the 20th anniversary of the Persian Gulf war with the first President Bush, the emir of Kuwait and a host of alumni of that administration ...

Brought to you by (http://bush.tamu.edu/scowcroft/events/) ...


5 p.m.
Commemoration Event
Hosted by George Bush, 41st President of the United States,
Reed Arena

Sponsored by Shell Oil Company and the
Bush School of Government and Public Service
.....
This event is free and open to the public.
All participants will be required to go through security scanners.
Please limit bags and personal items.

There are a few other things to commemorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_20) that day: a certain inauguration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) (or another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy) -- or two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt)).

Not to mention a birthday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Fellini) (although, given the subject of this thread, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arte_Johnson) seems oddly fitting -- as does this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lynch)).

Ironically, that day will also be the 25th anniversary of the first celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Day)

[lofter1]

At CPAC the heartless old buzzard tries to laugh off his crimes ...

Paul Supporters Hijack Cheney-Rumsfeld Reunion (Video) (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/paul-supporters-hijack-cheney-rumsfeld-reunion.php?ref=fpb)

Audience Member AT CPAC Yells To Cheney 'You're A War Criminal'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ucaI-i26fY

[Ninjahedge]

What the hell is a "usual spirited exercise"?

I was not aware he spoke doublespeak.....

[lofter1]

His view of democracy: Let the rabble exhaust themselves, and meanwhile we'll rule with Shock and Awe.

Separated at birth:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/958098217_f9968412ea.jpg

[BBMW]

If the Republicans win in 2012, he may be Secretary of Defense again.

[lofter1]

That will win them LOTS of votes from the non-base Repubs.

[212]

If the Republicans win in 2012, he may be Secretary of Defense again.

Or, they could give the job to Ronald Reagan's walking corpse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyKYiJkvg98) :eek:

[eddhead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/us/politics/25cheney.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


August 24, 2011

Cheney Says He Urged Bush to Bomb Syria in ’07By CHARLIE SAVAGE (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charlie_savage/index.html?inline=nyt-per)WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per) says in a new memoir that he urged President George W. Bush (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site in June 2007. But, he wrote, Mr. Bush opted for a diplomatic approach after other advisers — still stinging over “the bad intelligence we had received about Iraq’s stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” — expressed misgivings.

“I again made the case for U.S. military action against the reactor,” Mr. Cheney wrote about a meeting on the issue. “But I was a lone voice. After I finished, the president asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the vice president?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.”

Mr. Bush chose to try diplomatic pressure to force the Syrians to abandon the secret program, but the Israelis bombed the site in September 2007. Mr. Cheney’s account of the discussion appears in his autobiography, “In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir,” which is to be published by Simon & Schuster next week. A copy was obtained by The New York Times.

Mr. Cheney’s book — which is often pugnacious in tone and in which he expresses little regret about many of the most controversial decisions of the Bush administration — casts him as something of an outlier among top advisers who increasingly took what he saw as a misguided course on national security issues. While he praises Mr. Bush as “an outstanding leader,” Mr. Cheney, who made guarding the secrecy of internal deliberations a hallmark of his time in office, divulges a number of conflicts with others in the inner circle.

He wrote that George J. Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, resigned in 2004 just “when the going got tough,” a decision he calls “unfair to the president.” He wrote that he believes that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell tried to undermine President Bush by privately expressing doubts about the Iraq war, and he confirms that he pushed to have Mr. Powell removed from the cabinet after the 2004 election. “It was as though he thought the proper way to express his views was by criticizing administration policy to people outside the government,” Mr. Cheney writes. His resignation “was for the best.”

He faults former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for naïveté in the efforts to forge a nuclear weapons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) agreement with North Korea, and Mr. Cheney reports that he fought with White House advisers over softening the president’s speeches on Iraq.
Mr. Cheney acknowledged that the administration underestimated the challenges in Iraq, but he said the real blame for the violence was with the terrorists.

He also defends the Bush administration’s decision to inflict what he called “tough interrogations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/cia_interrogations/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)” — like the suffocation technique known as waterboarding (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) — on captured terrorism suspects, saying it extracted information that saved lives. He rejects portrayals of such techniques as “torture.”

In discussing the much-disputed “16 words” about Iraq’s supposed hunt for uranium in Niger that were included in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of_the_union_message_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) to help justify the eventual invasion, Mr. Cheney said that unlike other aides, he saw no need to apologize for making that claim. He writes that Ms. Rice eventually came around to his view.

“She came into my office, sat down in the chair next to my desk and tearfully admitted I had been right,” he wrote.

The book opens with an account of Mr. Cheney’s experiences during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when he essentially commanded the government’s response from a bunker beneath the White House while Mr. Bush — who was away from Washington and hampered by communications breakdowns — played a peripheral role. But Mr. Cheney wrote that he did not want to make any formal statement to the nation that day.

“My past government experience,” he wrote, “had prepared me to manage the crisis during those first few hours on 9/11, but I knew that if I went out and spoke to the press, it would undermine the president, and that would be bad for him and for the country.

“We were at war. Our commander in chief needed to be seen as in charge, strong, and resolute — as George W. Bush was.”

Mr. Cheney appears to relish much of the criticism heaped on him by liberals, but reveals that he had offered to resign several times as President Bush prepared for his re-election in 2004 because he was afraid of becoming a burden on the Republican ticket. After a few days, however, Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Bush said he wanted him to stay.

But in the Bush administration’s second term, Mr. Cheney’s influence waned. When Mr. Bush decided to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense after the 2006 midterm elections, Mr. Cheney said he was not given a chance to object.

Mr. Cheney praised Barack Obama’s support, as a senator from Illinois, for passing a bank bailout bill at the height of the financial crisis, shortly before the 2008 election. But he criticizes Mr. Obama’s decision to withdraw the 33,000 additional troops he sent to Afghanistan in 2009 by September 2012, and writes that he has been “happy to note” that Mr. Obama has failed to close the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as he had pledged.

Mr. Cheney’s long struggle with heart disease is a recurring theme in the book. He discloses that he wrote a letter of resignation, dated March 28, 2001, and told an aide to give it to Mr. Bush if he ever had a heart attack or stroke that left him incapacitated.

And in the epilogue, Mr. Cheney writes that after undergoing heart surgery in 2010, he was unconscious for weeks. During that period, he wrote, he had a prolonged, vivid dream that he was living in an Italian villa, pacing the stone paths to get coffee and newspapers.

[lofter1]

Dick Cheney's Dream Of Italy
(http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/dick-cheneys-dream-of-italy)
— I am just fascinated by the idea of Dick Cheney's comatose Italian reverie. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/us/politics/25cheney.html) Like, who was he in these dreams? Was he Dick Cheney as we know him, unrepentant son of a bitch with a total disregard for the great American principles? Was he some kind of fantasy Dick Cheney, who had never done anything wrong and was living out his life as a retiree in some lovely Italian beach town? Or was he like Michael Corleone at the end of the bad Godfather movie, abandoned by his family, bereft of companionship, forced to spend the duration of his days in contemplation of the horrific deeds he had committed and how they tore everyone he loved asunder? I mean, I guess I could buy the book and find out, but you think I want to put money in that guy's pocket? I'm just gonna tell myself it's the third option outlined above and move on.

[eddhead]

I too, vote for the third option.

Incidently, here is something I did not know about Cheney (from Wikipedia):


Cheney is a distant cousin of both Harry S. Truman (http://wirednewyork.com/wiki/Harry_S._Truman) and Barack Obama (http://wirednewyork.com/wiki/Barack_Obama); the three share a common ancestor in Mareen Duvall (http://wirednewyork.com/wiki/Mareen_Duvall), a Huguenot who fled from France to England in the 17th century and later settled in Maryland.[6] (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/#cite_note-5)

[Ninjahedge]

Inbred power.

Meh, I bet they are both related to Kevin Bacon too.

[lofter1]

The heartless one wants to be absolved, but he'll never get it (I won't even touch his "don't get wrapped up in your underwear") ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8MmwNGILI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-KXAJxGk_Y