The Washington Post’s series on Vice President Dick Cheney tells us a lot we already suspected about the most powerful and secretive vice president in history.
He likes things his way.
But it’s galling nonetheless to read how Cheney rams through his views and undermines an open, give-and-take process of White House decision making.
Here’s Cheney in 1999, talking to a group of historians: "The process of moving paper in and out of the Oval Office, who gets involved in the meetings, who does the president listen to, who gets a chance to talk to him before he makes a decision, is absolutely critical. It has to be managed in such a way that it has integrity."
In practice, Cheney’s process on advising the president on crucial decisions such as redefining torture was to cut out of the loop Cabinet members and officials who might offer opposing views, whether former Secretary of State Colin Powell or former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
They were furious and dumbfounded to discover Cheney had sandbagged them.
Cheney never walked his talk on integrity. What’s really dangerous about him, though, is that he simply doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
116 Comments
More panty peeing over the BIG BAD EEEEVIIL Cheney….ooooooo……
You forgot to mention, Randy, Condi Rice was just a little peeved that she had no idea that the redefinition of torture was worked out behind the scenes. See the Washington Post series you cite.
What an impressive argument is being proffered by the venerable Mr. Heckler. Why it makes me want to reconsider all that I had thought on this subject.
The whole email dump thing, along with Cheney’s resistance to the National Archives, makes me wonder if we will ever actually have access to what these scoundrels have been doing.
Something tells me that Heckler will not be so passive if the Democrats win office in 2008 and their cabinet is as secretive, opaque, power-mongering, and dismissive of oversight as Bush-Cheney has been.
OOOOH that Dick Cheney, he’s one Skaiwy dude!!!!!
EEEvil I tell you…..
The Democrats are just using this as another attempt at a “fishing expedition.”
People smart enough to realize this will cause many of the Democratic Representatives to be booted out of office for continue with their style of rancor and divisiveness.
So, I say let the Democrats carry on and make fools of themselves.
They will expose their true agenda and that agenda is certainly not taking care of the People’s vital business.
Carry on Democrats! Let’s hear more of that rancor!
Since he said he’s no longer part of the executive branch doesn’t that mean he resigned? The Congress should cut off his funding if he thinks he isn’t part of the government anymore. Funny how he claimed executive privilege when he didn’t want to tell Congress who met with him to create his energy dependence bills, but now he’s not part of that executive.
The guy has lost all sense of reality and should undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
“continue with their style of rancor and divisiveness”
Pay back is a bitch, isn’t it Republank?
And the pay back will continue.
Remember Kenneth Starr and the Clinton Witch Hunt – Republican funded to the tune of $75 million? Partisan impeachment?
Pay back is a bitch.
The height of hypocrisy is a Republican complaining about rancor and divisiveness.
That’s odd WSClark…
I didn’t realize elected representatives were sent to Washington D.C. for pay back.
Could you point that out in Democratic Party Headquarters Doctrine somewhere?
Maybe it is written in the Constitution?
Please do tell me WSClark, where “payback” is part of the Constitutional duties of elected representatives.
I agree about that psychiatric evaluation! His actions don’t suggest sanity.
I thought this quote was on target: “Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration’s policy on torture to include tortured logic,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).
Payback, Republank. Your party hounded and attacked our President unrelentingly for eight years and now you are complaining that the Democrats are using their power of oversight to address issues in the current administration?
How’s that?
It was okay for the Republicans to turn loose a partisan special prosecutor on Clinton with an unlimited budget, but Democrats should not question this administration?
Damn.
Yeah, it’s payback for a lot of Republican missteps and overreaching.
No mercy.
You folks started the fight and now you are offended when the Democrats are on the offensive?
Christ.
Just a though, from one smarter than me (and that’s a lot of people). Yes, I noted this on the last open thread, but it seemed to fit better here.
On Cheney’s remarkable (and remarkably dumb, in my opinion) claim that he’s not in the executive branch. It appears that his own brief in his case a few years ago contradicted that claim.
http://volokh.com/posts/1182729380.shtml
How do you ’splain THAT to the court?
‘zactly, GMC.
Republiscam, two courts have declared Bush guilty of breaking the law. One of those laws requires a mandatory prison sentence. How many courts declared Clinton guilty of breaking the law before the Republicans started their impeachment trials?
The Supreme Court said Bush was guilty (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) of violating the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ. Yes, Bush is guilty of war crimes, Clinton had a blow job, so we impeach the guy who had sex and excuse the guy who commits war crimes.
Republiscam, you have no credibility on anything. If the President declares a dictatorship and opens up concentration camps you’ll stand by his side and cheer.
Doug,
You need to understand the reversal of legislation and assigning a guilty verdict on an individual. They are not mutually inclusive.
But perhaps in your mind, they are, so carry on.
Forget impeachment; just wait two years and turn Bush, Cheney, and whoever else needs it over to the World Court in the Hague for trial on war crimes charges. Of course that doesn’t address their crimes against the American people, but it’s the only way we’ll ever get back our credibility as a nation.
The Bush regime has already bullied numerous countries by threatening punishment if they didn’t sign an agreement to make America exempt from war crimes. The Bush regime knows they are war criminals so they had to do whatever they could to prevent reprisals. They can’t hide forever.
The entire administration should be tried. They’ll easily be found guilty and they should have their ill gotten wealth stripped from them (Cheney, a war profiteer has a long history of violating the law trading with countries like Iran despite an embargo). Don’t bother telling Republiscam, he loves crime and treason committed by the Bush regime.
Can the president pardon himself? Why do I have a feeling that we may have the answer to this question soon?
“Can the president pardon himself?”
Yes.
It was a potential issue with Nixon, but Ford most likely had a prior agreement with him to do it for him.
We have a sociopath, and and a psycho/sociiopath for our administration.
Wow, WS, I was being facetious. I knew that Ford probably had an arrangement with Nixon. It didn’t even cross my mind that Nixon was contemplating pardoning himself. Scary
I took this from Dan Froomkin’s White House Watch. I don’t have a subscription to the New York Times so can’t post the link.————-
Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column (subscription required): “It’s hard to imagine how Dick Cheney could get more dastardly, unless J. K. Rowling has him knock off Harry Potter next month. . . .
“I’ve always thought Cheney was way out there — the most Voldemort-like official I’ve run across. But even in my harshest musings about the vice president, I never imagined that he would declare himself not only above the law, not only above the president, but actually his own dark planet — a separate entity from the White House.
“I guess a man who can wait 14 hours before he lets it dribble out that he shot his friend in the face has no limit on what he thinks he can keep secret. Still, it’s quite a leap to go from hiding in a secure, undisclosed location in the capital to hiding in a secure, undisclosed location in the Constitution.”
Pull the money, make Cheney come before Congress and ask for funding since he claims he is not a part of the Executive Branch.
As soon as he admits he is a part of the Executive Branch, hold up disbursement of the money until he complies with numerous Congressional requests.He goes out of his way to say he’s NOT part of the executive …branch, screw him, let him live in an outhouse on the WH lawn. Don’t even buy TP for the bastard…let him spend some of his own cash for a change…the guys got more money than God anyway…—–
Naw leave,
The evil Cheney will just pull the “Polar Bear Endangerment” funds from the Wildlife Department and have the treasury transfer the funds to the office of the Vice President. (smiles perversely)
repuklican…
why don’t you go give some money to support your criminal administration…better yet, why don’t you go fight in Iraq? Oh thats right, you are fine with it as long as it doesn’t touch you personally…
well, I have been touched “personally” twice by this pathetic administration. I lost my best friend on 9/11 and have lost a nephew in the Iraq needless war
what have you lost? Get lost
‘The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming’http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/1On page 2,”… But what Whitman didn’t grasp was that when it came to climate, the president was largely irrelevant.
Whitman should have had her doubts. Prior to joining the Cabinet, she sought personal assurance from Bush that the EPA would be able to call its own shots without deferring to the CEQ – the Council on Environmental Quality, a policy arm of the White House. As Whitman recalls it, Bush made no effort to mask his bureaucratic ignorance. “What’s CEQ?” he asked blankly.
Cheney took full advantage of the president’s cluelessness, bringing the CEQ into his own portfolio. “The environment and energy issues were really turned over to him from the beginning,” Whitman says. The CEQ became Cheney’s shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots.”
Continues with lots of details. Also see video/slide show.
I know it’s off topic, but – Nixon’s resignation and pardon came up and this followed:
“It was a potential issue with Nixon, but Ford most likely had a prior agreement with him to do it for him.”"I knew that Ford probably had an arrangement with Nixon.”
There’s absolutely NO evidence of that, that I’m aware of. You have heard of evidence, haven’t you?
Ford consistently stated that there was no deal, and that he did what he did because he believed the nation needed to put the episode behind it and get on with real business. Those who knew Ford were not surprised by his action; it was consistent with his character. Nixon always denied there was a deal. There is NO witness, NO tape, NO evidence at all that I know of to indicate that there was a deal. Certainly, Ford’s explanation is facially not only plausible, it makes a great deal of sense, though certainly reasonable people can disagree.
Yet you claim there probably was a “deal.”
I raise this not because it’s particularly important at this point; rather, it’s an illustration of a deeper problem. We are often so convinced we are right, we find it hard to imagine that reasonable people could possible disagree with us, that we assume that anyone who disagrees must per se be unreasonable and thus engaged in a conspiracy, have the darkest motives, or here, there must be a “deal.”
Why is that? Why must we demonize those we disagree with? And please, for goodness sake, skip the “they did it first” defense. 2nd grade is over, and that argument wasn’t valid then nor now.
Do Republicans really, actually, really, possibly, in some way, in any way, actually APPROVE of this administration?
Heckler, Republican–What have they done that you think has worked?
Would you tolerate the same tactics and level of achievement from a Democratic president?
From what I can see all either of you two do is react whenever someone else levies an accusation.
Tell us–why do you defend them? Honestly, I would like to hear your take, because like Richard Luger, Joe Scarborough, and Chuck Hegel, I can’t understand it.
Count GMC’s post from Eugene Volokh, conservative legal lapdog, among the many who have managed to find, Heckler, that Cheney is a scary MFer, because he uses power in unchecked and irresponsible ways.
GMC, Bob Woodward recently gave a speech at the Gerald Ford Center at the U of Michigan that has been broadcast on C-Span a few times. Woodward states unequicvocally that Ford thought Nixon was unfairly treated, a victim of an untrustworthy staff, and should not have resigned; regarding Watergate and Nixon’s role, Woodward said Ford “didn’t get it.”
Seems to lend credibility to the idea that there was no deal.
“like Richard Luger, Joe Scarborough, and Chuck Hegel,…”
Until yesterday, all you had was Hegal. Now you have Luger. Big deal. Scarborough isn’t elected. That’s pretty pitiful.
delsol:
1) the post is from Orin Kerr, not Volokh.
2) Please read my post at 4:21 and tell me how the attack phrase “conservative legal lap dog” added to the debate. Are you saying that reasonable persons could not possible hold Volokh’s views? That Volokh (or even Kerr) must be ‘paid’ or there must be a quid pro quo?
So just how does that pejoratove add to the debate? Or does it just make you feel important?
“that has been broadcast on C-Span a few times.”
I can’t afford cable. I mean, there is nothing on cable. I mean, I’m too busy to watch TV. I’m going to go run.
GMC, my point was that Volokh is notoriously conservative and that few would consider him an objective source.
So if quotes from him or his blog are questioning Cheney’s legitimacy, then there must be an issue there.
Repost from Open Thread. This applies to the VP office also.
“I keep thinking the Republicans are going to have to lie in the bed they are making regarding Executive powers and privileges.
Most certainly, the next President will not be a Republican. That next President is going to do the same things the current one is doing, only then, it will not be as fun for the GOP.
Posted by: brian | June 26, 2007 at 01:24 PM “
“Yet you claim there probably was a “deal.”
As I am now, I was highly politically active during the Watergate years, GMC. There was a lot of speculation at the time that Nixon would pardon himself. This was a president that stated that “if the president did it, it can’t be illegal.” (or words to that effect.)
Many at the time were surprised that Nixon did not pardon himself on his way out the door.
I was surprised.
As for Ford, I was a resident of Michigan at the time and had respect for Ford, although I lost that when he pardoned Nixon.
Perhaps there was a deal. Perhaps there was not.
Gerald Ford was an unlikely candidate for VP after the resignation of the disgraced Agnew.
There were many, many people at that time that suggested that Ford must have made a deal to get the VP slot.
That was the prevalent thought in 1974.
It is not my “conspiracy theory” GMC. Go back and read the reports from that time frame.
“Why must we demonize those we disagree with?”
Other than Capn’America, GMC, I am the most demonized poster on this blog. Some days, we are tied.
If the horns fit…
:D
I can not wait until 2008
all the corruption of the Bush admin will come to light and the repukes will be cryin until 2020 about the dem presidentS and all the bad they are doing. I will be saying things like Respect the President, if you question the President then you must be a terrorist
What’s going to happen, Brian, is that all this power-gathering and constitution-bashing under the bogus “Unitary Executive” theory made up by John Yoo, Antonin Scalia, and David Addington will suddenly, magically disappear the VERY MOMENT DEMOCRATS TAKE OFFICE IN ‘08.
And we will return to checks and balances and separation of powers.
Delsol,
You have far greater confidence in politicians (of any party) than I have. Power once gained is not easily let go.
“I can not wait until 2008″
I agree. I can’t wait. You people will find a way to shoot yourselves in the foot.President Fred Thompson will pick another couple of Supremes.
Littlejohn,
Yep.
And now, back to work.
I have confidence in Republicans’ ability to get away with anything they want, and in Democrats’ inability to do anything.
oh boy…freddie thompson…rush’s man crush. I gotta tell you if you all are relying on him to get the women voters, then you will be waiting a long long time.
sorry he won’t get it unless bush shares his vote stealing secrets
But what I am really saying, littlejohn, is that the magic bullet(s) used to justify, defend, and empower this administration will shrivel and disappear the moment the tables are turned.
“bush shares his vote stealing secrets”
Do you mean Naders secrets or maybe Thompson would actually win his own state?
Dear Messr. Cheney,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that entitlement is no longer agentleman’s sport. Indeed, the blood of thousands has been shed in the nameof protecting, and defending a document that outlines a priceless vision offreedom which has recently been trampeled and eviscerate. While no one issuggesting this is solely your doing, your fingerprints are everywhere insight.
And, though it may have felt like it at times, over the past six plusyears,the nation’s capital was not named after you. Indeed, the letters “D.C.”stand for District of Columbia, and not Dick Cheney. What’s more, thepresident was inaugurated, back in January, 2000, not coronated, which meansthere can be no exemption from adhering to the laws, even if they were ofhis own devising. Being elected means always having to be accountable.
There’s only so far massaging the truth can get you, and only history, notelected executives, has immunity. A quick refresher course in Constitution101 will assure you that yes, the vice presidency finds itself in theexecutive branch of government, and the oath of office doesn’t exempt onefrom congressional, and judicial oversight. Adherence to the law is not amatter of convenience, or conscience; it is a pre-requisite for leadership.
When the framers wrote about “checks” and balances, they weren’t referringto the kind made payable to Halliburton.
I can’t believe there are still people in this country who think Cheney is a good guy! This man claimed executive privilege when asked by the Senate to testify in an investigation, then claimed he wasn’t really a part of the executive office, because, get this, he is a member of the Senate due to his being the HMFWAIC as president of the Senate.
Has there ever been a more schizoid personality inhabiting the office of the Vice-President?
This Vice-President also has the power to declassify secrets. NO other vice-president has EVER had that power. So who really runs the White House? Do you really think Bush is smart enough? If you do, you gotta be one of the 26%er’s.
fleets
I stand by my claim that bush stole the whitehouse. His brother and campaign advisor ran Florida. His cousin called it on Faux noise channel then all the others rushed to do the sameA Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml.
The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.” Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush’s Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
It seems impossible that the Republicans could have any claim on the White House for several election cycles.
See Cohen’s thoughts about this question:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501465.html?hpid=opinionsbox2
I posted this Jon Stewart routine on the open thread. He sums it up well:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
“See Cohen’s thoughts about this question:”
I’ll say it again.The Ghost of McGovern lives!
“I stand by my claim that bush stole the whitehouse.”
Knock yourself out. Go ahead and try to get around how many votes Nader pulled from Gore. Try to get around Gore losing his own state. Go see a shrink. You are living in the past. And not even the real past. The deluded past.
off topic, but wondering. Any opinions about Joe Biden?
“You people will find a way to shoot yourselves in the foot. Posted by: fleettwood | June 26, 2007 at 04:47 PM ”
So when the Americans win the 2008 elections you will not claim to be one?
no, he will be one of the constant “bashers” despite criticizing we true Americans who question the crooks in the white house now
kg, I used to like Biden, but the more I see of him the less I like him–he’s a bit of an egomaniac and takes himself way too seriously. Thinks he has all the anwers and will go to great pains to tell everyone else why he was actually correct in the first instance.
More divisive than uniting.
Personally, I wish Chuck Schumer would run.
“See Cohen’s thoughts about this question:”
I’ll say it again.The Ghost of McGovern lives!***********I think Cohen’s point is that McGovern was not such a terrible candidate, but instead he was defeated by a well coordinated disinformation campaign, reminiscent of the Swift Boaters.
Cohen’s reminder is that the Republicans should have not have won in ‘72, but did. With the right campaign, it could be history repeating itself in ‘08. That is why it is now time for the Dems to take no prisoners. Cheney will be toast, the brains and braun of the Bush presidency will be gutted. And after that, sweeping up the remaining mess should be pretty easy.
Commenting on Stweart’s routine, I remember when Cheney “came clean” on shooting the lawyer in the face; Cheney said, “it was the worst day in my life.” I recall thinking, I bet it was not such a great day for the guy you shot either.
The only way the Dems can lose the WH in ‘08 is to elect Hillary.
Their strongest candidate is by far Al Gore.
Nobody else even comes close.
I think he’s “not running” because he doesn’t want or need the attention right now.
Not running makes him much more interesting.
Six to eight months before the primaries, he’ll declare and he’ll kick ass.
He can finally get Bill Clinton off his back by running against his surrogate, Hillary.
Paired with Obama or even Wes Clark, he would take back America in a landslide . . .
GMC70,
Interesting series of posts on the Volokh Conspiracy that basically affirm what I’ve been saying here for a number of months.
I rather like Rahm Emmanuel’s suggestion that if the VP’s office isn’t really part of the Executive, that monies appropriated by Congress through the Executive really have no business going to Cheney.
The best way to counter one absurdity usually is with another absurdity. And in this case, Cheney’s absurd pronouncement that the VP isn’t part of the Executive is to lay out all the absurd implications that would have to follow were it true.
It’s getting to be high time that someone be impeached, and the someone is Dick Cheney. He is a menace to the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers and to Constitutionality as such. “The Dick Branch” of government, indeed.
Sorry–second sentence of third paragraph should read, “And in this case, the best counter to Cheney’s absurd pronouncement…”
Al Gore would absolutly wipe the floor with ANY repuke they put out even their new sexy freddie
The entire political “system” has become and absurdity. Who will win the race to the bottom, the demorat congress or the repuke president?
Leave,
Is that “Right Sad Fred” Thompson to whom you refer?
sexie freddie of Law and Order the man who is gonna swing the women vote
Congress is at a low point because we WANT IMPEACHMENT and until we get that their approval will be low
Bush is just low because he is the reverse midas
I can see Cheney sitting in the office thinking, what can I say today to really qiss these bozzos off…..
I once had a boss like Cheney. He constantly sandbagged people that worked for him, failed to communicate clearly and failed to communicate with his employees. He would often say “do it this way” and when an employee did it that way and it got messed up, he would deny telling the employee to do it that way. He would leave you hanging in the wind when the fecal matter hit the fan blades. Well one day we just all decided enough was enough and we started “working by the book” which means you do the very minumum necessary and you do all work by the book. That means that, for example, you refuse to work in “dangerous” situations so we would refuse work if there was even broken glass around the area where we worked. Then, after a very stormy weekend, we ALL called in sick Monday morning. By Wednesday that boss was gone.
Lacking substance, Heckler falls back on mockery.
Our dysfunctional media cost Gore the election in 2000.
Media aided and abetted the RNC’s character assassination of Gore — ‘Love Story’, etc.
And they mostly ignored the lies from Bush’s campaign, his failures as Gov. in TX, his business failures, etc.
Another Admin. scumbag bites the dust! Sing it, another one bites the dust.
Ah, the Dems are getting over confident. Good Good :)
well if sexy freddy is your hope…we are giggling
Former official gets 10 months in Abramoff case By Andy Sullivan1 hour, 38 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A high-ranking Bush administration official was sentenced to 10 months in prison on Tuesday for lying to Congress as it investigated a bribery scandal centered on lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
ADVERTISEMENT
Steven Griles, who served as the No. 2 Interior Department official between 2001 and 2005, had hoped to serve his sentence at home working for a charity sponsored by Walt Disney Co. and several outdoor-equipment makers.
But Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said Griles had refused to take responsibility for his actions and imposed a sentence tougher than the one sought by prosecutors.
“Even now, you continue to minimize and try to excuse your conduct and the nature of your misstatements,” Huvelle said.
Griles, 59, is the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the wide-ranging bribery scandal centered around Abramoff.
Griles pleaded guilty in March to lying to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee as it examined Abramoff’s clout in the Interior Department.
Abramoff is serving a six-year prison sentence and cooperating with investigators.
Griles was introduced to Abramoff by Griles’ sometime girlfriend, Italia Federici, shortly before he started at Interior. Federici has also pleaded guilty to obstructing Congress.
Federici acted as a go-between for the two men as they worked together to influence Interior Department actions that affected Abramoff’s Indian-tribe clients, Justice Department lawyers said.
In return, Abramoff offered Griles a lucrative job and directed money to Federici’s charity at Griles’ request, the government said.
Griles would have faced multiple felonies if he had not accepted a plea deal, Justice Department trial attorney Armando Bonilla said.
Griles’ lawyer said he did not intentionally lie to the Indian Affairs Committee and was being unfairly punished for working with a lobbyist whose name has become synonymous with corruption.
“The stench of Jack Abramoff is everywhere and they claim Mr. Griles suffers from that because he dealt with him as a lobbyist,” defense attorney Barry Hartman said.
A tearful Griles told Huvelle that he never asked Abramoff to contribute to Federici’s charity, and said she only brought up his concerns “two or three” times.
Griles is not the only official to serve prison time in the Abramoff probe.
Former Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio is serving a 30-month prison sentence for accepting bribes, while former Bush administration procurement official David Safavian has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for lying and obstructing justice during the investigation.
You now Phantom,hardly anyone besides people on this blog read this crap. Why bother to bore everyone to tears with long scroll over posts?
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime, don’t do it!
Phantom, is that the same Jack Abramoff who “donated” $5,440 to Tiahrt?
The one and only.
I can envision a Saturdan Nite Live skit: Cheney’s Aide goes to his office and says “Dick there’s some men with badges in the lobby”. Close in on Cheney sweating, feverishly trying to decide whether to grab hold of his Senate gavel, or Office of the V.P. stamp!
and all the while his little pacemaker is going crazy
and instead he calls 911 and retires
CF2K said- “Lacking substance, Heckler falls back on mockery.”
It’s just that it’s so pathetic having watched you folks the last couple of years just SLOBBER drool at the prospect of hanging somebody, ANYBODY from the White House and watching you spit blood when you can’t get it done. It’s hard to take you seriously. B.D.S.
Phantom, is that the same Jack Abramoff who “donated” $5,440 to Tiahrt oh I meant Harry Reid?
“Reid “sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002,” reported the AP. “The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid’s tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid’s group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004.”
ks gm..
that has long since been debunked but keep spinning and lying just like your party does hourly we are used to it
you repukes are all the same and all smarmy liars
MORE REPUKE DIRTY DEEDS
The response to Simpson’s affidavit (Affidavit Suggesting Rove Involvement 06-04-2007 http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rove-affidavit /)has been a series of brusque dismissive statements – all of them unsworn – from others who figured in the discussion and the federal prosecutor in the Siegelman case, who has now made a series of demonstrably false statements concerning the matter. She’s been smeared as “crazy” and as a “disgruntled contract bidder.” And something nastier: after her intention to speak became known, Simpson’s house was burned to the ground, and her car was driven off the road and totaled. Clearly, there are some very powerful people in Alabama who feel threatened
Don’t worry about KSGrm, Leave – she makes up her own “facts.” This is a pattern with her. Either she makes stuff up or she repeats crap from right wing websites.
Either way, she is scroll over territory.
Leave show me where it was debunked. The people in Bullhead, Arizona certainly think it is true.
not gonna do your dirty work, but snoopes.com and google is your friend
RW repukes lie all the time and we know it.
also, last I knew Reid represented Nevada
I’m glad that the Dems, with assist from the MSM, for whatever reason, think that by bashing theadministration, they are hurting the Republican candidates for president. Go for it.
And I realize that a lot of the comments here are from Dems who are fringe wackos(you know who you are). The Dems I know in the real world are nowhere near this strident.
But what will count is when Rudy, McCain, Romney, or even Fred are on stage being compared with Hillary or Obama by the American electorate. They can’t help but see that there is no comparison in experience, accomplishments or leadership abilities. I can’t help but think, given the candidates we have, there is an excellent chance the next president will be Republican. And it will be a gift from the Dems.
Thanks Ksgrm, now I won’t vote for Harry Reid when he runs as the Representative of Sedgwick County. I didn’t realize he already replaced Tiahrt.
Leave if you looked at Bullhead you will see a fantastic bridge that goes from Nevada to Arizona. It just happens to connect land owned by Reid to Arizona close to a new ‘indian’ casino. Doug if you don’t think that the ethics of the senate leader is your business well then just don’t read about it. I happen to feel that corruption exists on both sides of the aisle and we should be aware of it. But I guess the apathy shown toward William Jefferson demonstrates more about the demos than I thought.
I am more worried about the “reps” we have here in Kansas who take lobbyist money and do not represent us.
Reid who has done nothing wrong is not my issue
our candy ass repukes here are and they all deserve to be ousted
Outlander…keep living in your fantasy world. Sexy freddie won’t be your savior. You repukes have jumped the shark and will suffer for it for years.
Meanwhile under Democratic leadership, the nation will heal and once again become prosperous for all people not just the rich.
Heckler,
Well, we DID get Rumsfeld. And we DID get Scooter Libby. And we DID replace the Republican rubberstamp Congress. I think we’ve done pretty well, considering that Bush has been balls deep in the media since 1999, and that Democrats have nothing comparable to the Right Wing Wurlitzer.
More to the point, Heckler, is the fact that for you and the majority of other Republicans, this is about what you perceive to be Democrats’ desire to get Cheney, nothing more. You obviously don’t care about the Constitution, or the integrity of the separation of powers and checks and balances. Any honest concern Democrats have about the rule of law are completely lost on you. Which shows that, frankly, you and many other Republicans don’t care about such things and feel they can be dispensed with at will.
Interestingly, Heckler, it sounds as if there are some GOP backroom deals going on to ease Cheney out of office, and to install Fred Thompson for a 2008 Presidential run.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501038.html?nav=hcmodule
Nice line (clean, too!) from the RudePundit on Cheney’s use of war as the choice cover for approving the use of torture by the American military and intelligence forces.
“Finally, the use of the war powers of the Commander-in-Chief as legal approval for anything the Chief Executive (with Cheney’s hand in his sphincter) wants to do, any law he wants to ignore, is a frightening masterstroke. If you feel that war gives you the right to unconstrained power, then what motivation do you have for ending a war? Or perhaps you create a war paradigm that allows it to never end, like a war on a concept or vaguely aligned group of individuals instead of a nation.”
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Reid’s bridge was at the request of the local government to ease crowded traffic on the small bridge that was there. That’s the problem with casinos, they create more traffic. That’s like saying there are people who are expanding Kellogg solely for the financial benefit. There happens to be a traffic problem.
There’s a huge difference between Reid getting funds for traffic improvement (hundreds of billions are handed out for transportation projects) and Tiahrt getting money from a felon who bribes government officials and defrauds Natives.
Nice try to excuse Tiahrt’s criminal connections. It’s pathetic you had to go all the way to Arizona to find one (that didn’t exist anyway).
But Doug,
that is their MO and for a while it worked, but people are wakign up. A little late, but hey I will take it.
There is NOTHIGN good about any repuke and I can so not wait for 2008
“Sexy freddie”? The guy in the photo here? Bad “hair”, bad skin, bags under his eyes, turkey throat, etc…
‘Fred Thompson Defends His Lobbying Past’http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3317935
sexy freddie
didn’t you hear oxy rush today? He says that Thompson is gonna win all the ladies away from Hillary…
He oozes sex appeal…
yea, I was driving and almost had to pull over to puke
but hey if they want to try that one…let them
By Michael AbramowitzWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A05http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Vice President Cheney’s office offered its first public written explanation yesterday for its refusal to comply with an executive order regulating the handling of classified material, arguing that the order makes clear that the vice president is not subject to the oversight system it creates for federal agencies.
In a letter to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Cheney chief of staff David S. Addington wrote that the order treats the vice president the same as the president and distinguishes them both from “agencies” subject to the oversight provisions of the executive order.
Addington did not repeat a separate argument that has been previously advanced by Cheney’s office: that it is not strictly an executive branch agency but also shares legislative functions because the vice president presides over the Senate. That argument has drawn ridicule in recent days from Democrats and on late-night television.
Addington suggested in his letter that it was not necessary to rehash that dispute. “Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an ‘agency,’ ” he wrote, “it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the legislative functions of the vice presidency. . . .” The controversy arises from the revelation last week, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), that the vice president’s office has not cooperated since 2003 with officials at the National Archives and Records Administration, who are charged with policing executive branch compliance with rules protecting classified information. In a letter to Cheney, Waxman wrote that the vice president’s office had not responded to letters from the National Archives contesting its legal position.
Republicans who steadfastly support Cheney and Bush will continue to do so even if there was a videotape of these two con men actually plotting 9/11. The deal here has nothing to do with integrity and honesty in the White House. It all has to do with who is making money off the Iraq War and other blunders that the Bush Administration has perpetrated on the US citizens.
And anyone who can sit by and smile as they make money off of dead soldiers is not even human. So, you see, it does not matter what anyone says about Cheney or Bush, the money makers off these war mongerers don’t care about anything or anybody – just their money. They worship their true God – money.
Republicans – the party of God – yeah, right.
I have yet to see one picture of Cheney that does not look like he is sitting on some inflammed hemmorhoids. This man just looks mean and then when he speaks, he affirms the fact that he is mean. And then we wonder why the rest of the world won’t pick up the phone to call the Bush Administration?
Randy: “What’s really dangerous about him, though, is that he simply doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.”
Cheney is a driven psychopath without even a hint of a functioning conscience.
Hitler had only one testicle, whereas Cheney probably doesn’t have any. His deviousness helps him compensate.
AS unpopular as Bush and Cheney are, shows what complete sociopaths they are, in that the have the audacity to still go out in public. A person that had an ounce of concern about what his fellow man felt would be totally embarassed to be them, and would be recluses!
delsol -
“GMC, my point was that Volokh is notoriously conservative and that few would consider him an objective source.”
1) the article was from Orin Kerr, not Volokh (you’ve ignored that before)
2) Volokh is NOT a conservative, he’s a libertarian.
3) “objective source” is a myth. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE SOURCE. There never was. There are those who attempt, as best they can, to stand back and bring an objective perspective, knowing that utlimately that is impossible, and there are those who blindly believe that what they think is “objective,” lieing to themselves on a regular basis.
The real issue is – setting aside his perspective – is his analysis a valid one? You, however, choose to evaluate everyone on your judgment of their “objectivity” (read: agrees with me) rather than the logic of their position.
That’s exactly backwards. And extremely shortsighted.
Again, I don’t raise this because it’s particularly important. But it is indicative of the short-sighted tunnel vision that is so often seen on this blog, on both sides, but especially on the left.
And WS – back to the “deal.” The fact that many speculated that there may have been a “deal” at the time IS NOT EVIDENCE of same. It is, in fact, a singular LACK of evidence.
And you immediately slipped into the “they did it first” trap on your very next post. Welcome to the second grade.
Daily Show humor: Cheney claims he’s member of Supreme CourtDavid Edwards and Nick JulianoPublished: Wednesday June 27, 2007
The Daily Show offered its take Tuesday night on the swirling controversy about Vice President Dick Cheney’s efforts to define his own role in our government with no consideration paid to centuries of constitutional precedent………….
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/DailyShow_627_writeup_0627.html
GMC, I did miss that Kerr made the post, not Volokh. I didn’t actually make that mistake twice, though.
I made the statement that so bothered you only to make a quick point about Volokh’s stance that raised the “here’s someone on the same side” argument. Yes, I was not nice about it, because I hear Mr. Volokh cited an awful lot when a conservative legal position is needed. My qualifying description was a bit over the top, I’ll admit, but he seems very willing to put himself out there as a legal expert to support whatever conservative position comes down the pike. At some point that becomes more like an op-ed person, like David Brooks, Frank Rich, George Will, or E.J. Dionne, than someone who can claim even the remotest objectivity: their repeated status as “conservative opinion” or “liberal opinion” begins to precede whatever their opinions actually are, because you already know where they are going to stand. (Much like many of us on Weblog, to be sure).
BTW, “not a conservative, he’s a libertarian”????Libertarianism is not a conservative stance? Hmmm…let me go check the Ayn Rand glossary on that one.
“And WS – back to the “deal.” The fact that many speculated that there may have been a “deal” at the time IS NOT EVIDENCE of same. It is, in fact, a singular LACK of evidence.”
I was merely commenting on the prevalent thought at the time, GMC. It was not an isolated opinion or conspiracy theory. It was general consensus at the time.
As for the second grade – I got great marks at the time, but I assume that you were referring to my post about KSGrm.
Unfortunately, she is well known for making up her own facts and posting information that is also known to be false.
When I make a mistake, either through memory or misinformation, I admit it and move on. I did so yesterday regarding the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. I had wrongly remembered the failed 1996 attempt to overturn the ban by the Gingrich led Republican Congress. I was wrong – I said so. I have also asked other posters form correct information. You may remember that I specifically asked you about the gun show issue.
KSGrm never admits to her lies.
So be it.
A few years ago, Cheney refused to turn over certain documents from his meetings with big OIL… His argument then was that he is a part of the Executive Branch, and as such, had executive privilege.
NOW, he is trying to avoid turning over documents, by saying he is NOT part of the Executive Branch, but rather, the Legislative Branch…
OK — Let him win this one, and then go back and demand the “secret” meeting notes from the big OIL meetings…
To avoid that one, he will have to create a FOURTH branch of government (ooops I think he already has — Himself!!)
del -
So – are you equally dismissive when “liberal” legal opinion is cited? Do we put Lawrence Tribe, for example, in the “liberal” category and thus someone who “seems very willing to put himself out there as a legal expert to support whatever [liberal] position comes down the pike.”? Someone who cannot claim “even the remotest objectivity.”
I doubt that you are. So what you’re really saying is “objective” means “agrees with me.”
Further: your choice of language – “seems very willing to put himself out there as a legal expert to support whatever conservative position comes down the pike” – seems to imply that he writes what he does because he is “bought” to do so; he is in effect a legal mercenary. Is it so in concievable that an educated, rational, thinking person could simply disagree with you? Would you argue Tribe is the same?
There is no objectivity, of course. There never was. So instead of dismissing an opinion as the product of a “conservative” or “liberal” writer, how about analyzing the writing for its content?
Yes, this constant labeling and thus dismissing opinions as on the other “side,” without even considering the content of the opinion, is a bugaboo for me. If analysis is good, it’s good, even if I may disagree with it. We have this constant need, it seems, to demonize and marginalize the “other” side. It’s quite destructive. It makes compromise, and thus progress, much more difficult, as it’s difficult to work with someone you’ve just spend months bashing as the devil incarnate. It also drives many, perhaps, most, away from politics, shaking their heads and wishing a pox on both their houses. This in turn forces the players to rely more and more on their respective bases. A primary system, driven by the bases who get out and vote and a vast middle who stays home, exacerbates the problem.
Fixing this begins with adults recognizing that reasonable people will disagree. We seem to have forgotten or ignored that, and instead consider anyone who does not agree with us as unreasonable. That’s destructive.
And yes, there is a clear distinction between “libertarian” and conservative,” though they certainly overlap. It could be strongly argued that libertarians, conservatives, and classic liberals all overlap in important ways; we agree on more than we realize.
GMC, I agree with you about their being a distinction between Libertarian and conservative, but I guess I’ve always thought that “conservative” was a more of a catch-all term like “left” and “right,” and like “socialist” or “democrat” is part of the “left,” “libertarian” and “republican” would be “conservative” or “right.”
Re: the rest…I concede your points are quite valid and agree with your statements about objectivity. My point, rightly or wrongly, was to try to illustrate that your source was not a middle of the road source, but my characterization of Volokh was probably unfair.
I do have a lot of respect for David Brooks and George Will, btw. It’s Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Robert Novak, et. al. that in my opinion are really the “lapdogs” who will say whatever the party line happens to be. On the “lapdog” left, I’ll offer James Carville and Michael Moore. But Volokh does not belong in that company, to be sure.
Well, well, well: the Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpeonas to the White House and to Dick Cheney with regard to the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/wiretapping.subpoenas.ap/index.html
So if Cheney isn’t a member of the Executive Branch, he can’t exactly claim “executive privilege” as a pretext for not testifying, now can he? Funny thing about that sword–it cuts both ways.
I like the top headline, the White House says it’s “unforunate” the panel chose the “route of confrontation”–after the WH refused to anything other than off the record conversations, dumped emails, refused to comply with archiving rules, tried to abolish oversight committees, held back-room dealings only some of their staff was even in on… it’s the panel who is being “confrontational.”
Nixon, you will soon have some comrades in hell.
Jeez, the Republicans were all for oversight and subpoenas when Clinton was president.
WS
Yea, it’s hard to defend this white house sometimes. I don’t try. I also refuse to acknowledge them as “conservatives.”
CF2K notes GMC70’s intellectual integrity.
Cheney blinks?
Did Rahm Emanuel’s threat to cut off executive branch funding for the Office of the Vice President actually work? We don’t know, but it appears that something did.
In a response to an inquiry from Sen. John Kerry, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff indicates that the vice president will no longer rely on the argument that his office is part of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch in seeking to avoid compliance with an executive order on the protection of classified information.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/06/27/cheney2/index.html
EVIL IS THE WORD. WITH HIM AND BUSH, THEY ARE NOT TO BLAME. IT IS THE ELECTED (SO CALLED) LEADERS WE HAVE. THEY HAVE NO GUTS. ARE THEY LOOKING OUT FOR THE COUNTRYS AN PEOPLE’S BEST INTEREST, NO. SO DON’T BLAME THE FOX WHEN THE CHICKENS START MISSING. WHEN THE FARMER TO LAZY OR SCARED TO GET RID OF THE FOX. WHO SUFFERS. THE CHICKENS. TIME TO GET RID OF ALL THE FARMERS.
IF HE THINKS THE VICE PRESIDENT IF NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. WELL GOOD. NO EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE. GET THE SUPENA’S OUT AND LETS GET SOME ANSWERS. THE MAN THINKS HE’S ABOVE THE LAW. IF WE DON’T BREAK THIS NOW. IT WILL ONLY WORSE. WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS NOT ONE MAN. REMEMBER WHAT BUSH SAID. THE CONSTITUTION IS ONLY A PIECE OF PAPER. IF OUR ELECTED LEADERS HAD THE BALLS TO DO IT, THEY COULD USE THAT PIECE OF PAPER TO IMPEACH THEM AND THROW THIER REARS IN JAIL. BUT THEY DON’T. THEY TAKE CARE OF THE BIG MONEY AN CARE LESS ABOUT THE COUNTRY AND IT’S PEOPLE. WELL THEY CAN BE REPLACED TO.