Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

You Could Deal With That Guy

James Fallows observes the spectacle that is Dick Cheney and marvels over the discontinuity from the Dick Cheney he knew back when Cheney worked for Gerald Ford and Fallows worked for Jimmy Carter:
As chief of staff in Gerald Ford's White House, he was in charge of the transition to the Jimmy Carter team after Ford narrowly lost in 1976. Anyone who dealt with him then was impressed by his openness, his awareness of continuing national interest, his lack of bitterness -- and overall his resemblance to the George W. Bush of 2009. Whatever happened to that Dick Cheney is a matter of mystery.
I have friend whose experience parallels Fallows'. My friend worked as a GOP operative in New York City back in the 70s--that would be the Lindsey administration, maybe even Jacob Javits, when the NYC GOP was a hotbed and heartbed of Eastern Liberalism. My friend says: yes, he was conservative, but you oculd deal with that guy--he kept his word.

Anyway, she--my friend--thinks it's the history of heart problems. Cheney had his first heart attach in 1978, not long after he left the Ford White House. He had a pacemaker installed early in the Bush years. Or maybe it was a Darth Vader control device.

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Reid, Biden and the Vice-Presidency

Well, good news for somebody, I suppose (link):
In a move to reassert Congressional independence at the start of the new presidential administration, the vice president will be barred from joining weekly internal Senate deliberations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun.

Reid’s decision to exclude Vice President-elect Joe Biden from the Senate arena where he spent most of his adult life is intended to restore constitutional checks and balances that tilted heavily toward the executive branch during the Bush presidency.
That's Lisa Mascaro in (guess what) the Las Vegas Sun. The point, as she reminds us, is to redirect form the era of Dick Cheney in which every Tuesday morning "traffic in the Senate halls came to a standstill ... as Secret Service agents cleared the way for the VP and his entourage." Just for good measure, Mascaro reports that the incoming vice-president, barely-former senator Joe Biden, thinks this is just fine "“He and Senator Reid see eye to eye on this,” Mascaro quotes a spokesperson as saying.

Couple of thoughts:
  • One's first impulse is: boy, Obama will come to regret that. On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe it's another whiff of an unsettling scent around the Obama administration: the suggestion that the incoming president may want not so much as to lead as to reign. If he doesn't want to assert himself over the Senate, what will he do when the Senate undertakes to assert itself over him?
  • On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a Senate--a Congress--more passive and supine than the current item (Republicans and Democrats alike). If anything--anything--puts a bit of zing back in their zinger, the republic may be the winner.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Cheney Channels Buce!

Okay, so you knew this already, but I just found out: the Vice-President’s name is not CHAY-nee; it is CHEE-nee. I heard this from some wallpaper talking head on TV yesterday—maybe it was Chris Matthews—and sure enough, it’s easy to track down on the web; see e.g., link.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, there seems to be some latter day question about how to correctly pronounce your last name. How do you pronounce it? How do you want us to pronounce it?

CHENEY: How do I pronounce my last night [sic--name?] and how do I want you to pronounce it? Well, the family's always said Cheney with an "e" and that was especially true West growing up. I find, when I came East, that the tendency was to say Cheney with an "a". I'll respond to either. It really doesn't matter.

So, if it is old stuff, then why am I telling you now? Glad you asked. The point is, that I once had the same problem. When I was in the Army national guard, I had a captain who regularly mispronounced my name. He wasn’t a bad guy, actually, but he wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer and in any event, he controlled my life, at a time when and in a way that I emphatically did not want it to be controlled.

So I took my revenge on him. How? By not correcting him. Ha! I’ll show you! I’ll let you languish in ignorance! I’ll let you mispronounce my name!

Lame, you say? You bet it was lame, but at the moment, it seemed like the best I could do (actually, I committed a few more acts of passive aggressive nerdery, some more weird and funny, but I won’t clutter the record now).

Anyway, restated: in my case, at least, not correcting a mispronunciation was an act of contempt and rage.

And you, Mr. C?

Fn.: Old lawyer joke:

JUDGE: Young man, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?

LAWYER: No your honor, I’m trying to conceal it.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Cheney: Not as Bad as These Guys!

Somebody tell me whether TigerHawk is kidding here:

I really find it hard to believe that Dick Cheney would be less popular than Burr or Agnew if we educated our citizenry well enough for them to know who Burr and Agnew were.

At the risk of taking a joke seriously: he might have a point with Burr (after all, Cheney only wounded his victim). But Agnew was just a jerk. In the Darth Vader Sweepstakes, he wouldn't even make honorable mention. So, advantage Cheney.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Live Possum Snot Blogging

Insert Dick Cheney (Mt. Rushmore) joke below:

Real subject: possum snot, Arroyo Grande CA.

My Two Cents on Impeachment

Lots of attention this weekend to the polling data on impeachment (link). I'm still not for it; conceded that this presidency is a train wreck, I still think there are better things for Congress to do with its time. But I am impressed that 86 percent of Republicans still oppose impeachment (with one percent undecided). That means that 13 percent of his own party -- the most loyal rump of the rump--have cut and run.

Oh, and as to "Impeach Cheney"--note that the cognoscenti were here months ago (link).

Followup: Rasmussen, via TPM, says 16 percent (sted 13) (link). TPM also points out that more people favor impeaching Bush now than favored impeaching Clinton while he was being impeached.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

The Evolving Presidency

We’ll always remember Lyndon (link):

But Valenti does tell a wonderful story about campaigning in an open car with the president, through Brooklyn, in October 1964. When riding through an Italian district, Johnson hoisted Valenti’s arm while his aide was introduced as “the closest man to the president”; a few minutes later, when they headed into a Jewish neighborhood, Johnson’s “voice was low but firm. ‘O.K., Jack, you can get out now.’ ”

That’s Thoms Mallon, reviewing a memoir by the late Jack Valenti (NYT), in which Valenti recalls his life as a faithful dogsbody to Lyndon B. Johnson. Over at the WP Berton Gellman and Jo Becker report on Vice-president Dick Cheney (link):

When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.

Can anybody imagine, even for an instant, Lyndon Johnson sitting “in side-by-side wing chairs” with his vice-president, Hubert H. Humphrey?

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Mini-Review: The Italian Letter

I’ve spent a few pleasant hours with Eisner and Royce, The Italian Letter, subtitled “How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq” (link). The “letter” would, of course, be the document, passed to an Italian journalist and thence to the CIA, that seemed to suggest that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger. The reading time was time well spent, mostly. But the downsides are several, and intertwined. For one, the title is a bit of a deception: evidently their agent told them they needed a hook, and that the letter was a good hook. But the letter is really only an anecdote in the larger story of stovepiped intelligence leading up to the great Clusterfuck. E&R know they have to put the letter into the larger context, but they can’t quite figure out how much of the larger story to tell, and how. Besides, these guys are reporters, used to thinking in 800-word blocks, and they haven’t really mastered the knack of extended narrative.

Still, there’s a certain perverse nostalgia kick in letting yourself be carried back to those palmy days before—well, before everything that has made this such a kidney stone of a decade. It’s also helpful to see these events in a larger context than day-to-day journalism (even at its best) will allow. Here you get a useful overview of the more or less constant bureaucratic push and shove that goes to define a narrative in public life. This sort of thing is always with us, but you also get the truly hair-raising overlay of Dick (don’t bother me with the facts) Cheney and his aggressive, enterprising, mischievous gang of Neocons-in-a-China-shop, so determined to let nothing stand in the way of their own apocalyptic vision. Indeed one of the enduring mysteries of this whole episode is why someone with Cheney’s undoubted skill, experience and energy could transmogrify into the batshit looney that we all know so well. E&R touch on this in a concluding chapter, but one can hardly blame them if they have failed to unravel this enigma of the human soul.

At the core, though, there is still “the letter,” passed from a small time hustler named Rocco Martino to a highly regarded journalist named Elisabetta Burba—the letter that led to the fateful “16 words” in the President’s State of the Union speech on January 28, 2003:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Almost everybody (perhaps excepting Dick Cheney) now concedes that the letter is a phony, and that the entire story is near to utter hogwash. Fine, stuff happens. The more interesting point is how serious minds recognized it as hogwash almost from the moment the letter surfaced—and how, nonetheless, it survived and prospered. These are points which, as I suggested above, I think you really can’t do justice to in day-to-day journalism, no matter how competent (and god knows there is little enough of that around these days). But in the interest of trying to preserve the record, let me itemize a few key points on the general issue of implausibility:

  • This is Niger, we’re talking about, not Nigeria. Niger is one of the poorest, weakest, most forlorn countries in the world, landlocked in central Africa. Its only known commodities are uranium and dinosaur bones. Forget the bones, the uranium is under the control of the former colonial masters, the French. Whatever you say about them French, they know how to run a uranium business, and the last thing they want is to get involved with Saddam Hussein. The Nigeriens, themselves, needless to say, are desperate to stay in good grace with their Western overlords.
  • The alleged quantity of uranium in the case was 500 tons. Niger did, as I say, have uranium; it was stored in 880-pound barrels, for safety reasons filled only half way—that would be 440 pounds to a barrel. Niger is inland, with no coastline; it has scarcely any roads worthy of the name, and hardly any trucks. By my arithmetic, that means you’d need over 2000 trucks. Just packing and shipping the stuff would create enough of a rumpus to trigger the seismographs at UCLA.
  • And once they get it to port, where are they going to ship it, and on whose ships?
  • And where are they going to unload it? Basra? Izmir? Tel Aviv? Oh, give us a break.
  • And did I mention that Saddam already had uranium, and closer to bomb-ready than the crude “yellowcake” that played a central role in this drama?

In other words, anybody with a particle of knowledge about the facts on the ground would have known from this start that this story didn’t have any legs—even aside from the crude and ham-handed quality of the forgery. Except that it did have legs, and perhaps still does, and we are all the worse off for it.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The "E" Word

I suppose it is gratifying to know that Dick Cheney is meeting some blowback in Utah—Utah!—and at Brigham Young University—BYU!—and I certainly accept just about everything Carpetbagger had to say on the topic (link). But catch this bit (which CP did quote, although he did not dwell on it):

Several students said, for example, that they were appalled at Mr. Cheney’s use of an expletive on the Senate floor in a June 2004 exchange with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Holy ^&%#ing &*$#! Repeal habeas corpus, check. Pillage the national energy inventory, check. Incinerate the Middle East, check, but tell Pat Leahy to “%$# &*$” (or maybe it was “&^ *&^% $%@&!%$&”!)—ooh, Mr. Vice President, this time you’ve gone too far!

They say that Republicans pull their curtains down, and Democrats don’t, but should. “I thought commencement would be a spiritual, uplifting exercise,” one student said. Speaking as one who skipped all his own commencements, I have to admit that there are real differences in style here. These kids are entitled to a “spiritual, uplifting exercise,” if they want one, and I shouldn’t stand in their way. But, “expletive?” Sheesh.

Afterthought; CP ends by declaring that “Cheney is a mendacious clown with a mean streak and a record of incompetence.” Yes, that too.

Saturday, March 31, 2007

Must Read: Laura Rozen on Cunningham's Yacht

If you read this blog, you are probably already know about “the $140,000 pass-through.” That would be the deal whereby Mitchell Wade got $140,000 from the government for providing “anthrax screening” in the office of the Vice-President—and then turned around and spent $140,000 to buy Duke Cunningham a yacht.

Among all the crimes and follies of this or any other government, a $140,000 venality is actually fairly small potatoes. But it is so crude, vulgar, insolent and blatant, that it still takes my breath away. Anyway, on the off chance you are still vague about the details, take a look at Laura Rozen’s fine summary here.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

"My Way or the Highway"
Meets The Two-Way Street

I don’t spend all my spare hours home hunkered down over C-Span, but I must say the TV catch of the weekend was the rerun of the Senate Hearings on the Prosecutors (a print account is here) I mean, this is not amateur hour; these guys (the fired US Attorneys) are total pros, honed to a fine edge for the job of answering questions and making a record. Among the questioners, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the point man for the home team, was well briefed and stayed on message, with backup from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) (who seemed a bit vague from time to time). Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa), who never in his life tried for the congeniality prize, seemed to be sniping, but in fact it appears he is one of the more conspicuous Republican grumblers about this latest administration of abuse of power (but cf. Fn. Below).

The hearings also brought home a point that has eluded me before: perhaps the worst of this sorry lot we call “the Executive Branch” is Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Don’t misunderstand me here: I don’t doubt that Vice-President Cheney is more satanic, and that Karl Rove is a more fully-formed sociopath (the Narcissist-in-Chief remains, I assume, above all praise or blame). But with both Cheney and Rove (and with their ilk), you get the impression that they know what the stakes are: they know what principles of decency, civility and good order they are working so hard to subvert.

It appears that Gonzalez, by contrast, really doesn’t get it—that all his career, he has made his way by being the dutiful, colorless hireling, who doesn’t have to swallow his principles to do his dirty work because he never really had that sort of principle to begin with. You get the sense that he never really lost any sleep over those 57 clemency memos that helped to make Texas (under then-Governor George Bush) the execution capital of the free and unfree world; that it wasn’t a big deal for him to sign off on “the torture memo” that did so much to set the tone for this whole sorry administration; and you suspect that when he speculated that there is no grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution, he really believed what he said.

Compared to what has gone before, his role in the dismissal of the Gonzalez Eight—the prosecutors summarily fired in mid-term—is actually pretty small potatoes. But it offers a marvelous insight into just how clueless and tone-deaf he really is. These are political appointees; we want to buff some resumes (and perhaps stuff a few pending investigations. If we said some unkind things about the departed, well then maybe we handled things poorly, Still Gonzalez was too busy to respond to subpoenas (although apparently not too busy to approve the original list (link)—after 57 clemency memos, this particular mass execution was probably not particularly hard). At the end of the day, it’s all an “overblown personnel matter.”

I’m willing to take him at his word here: he still doesn’t seem to understand why anybody is upset. Yet in this episode (at last?) he may have bought himself the worst sort of enemy: disciplined, energetic, professional, and really, really ticked. “Loyalty,” said evangelical, straight-arrow David Iglesias, late US Attorney from New Mexico, “is a two-way street.”

Fn.: Although it seems sincere enough, Specter’s current indignation is actually pretty rich, considering that it was he who started this locomotive down the track in the first place (link). But let that be: the quick 180 for a Senator is the political equivalent of the triple lutz.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Washington Post Channels Underbelly

You heard it here first: my friend Gladys said that the reason Cheney acted so awful is that he is old and sick (link). Now, turn the mike over to Jim Hoaglund at the Washington Post:
Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind? That question, even if it is phrased more delicately, is creeping through foreign ministries and presidential offices abroad and has become a factor in the Bush administration's relations with the world.

"What has happened to Dick Cheney?" That solicitous but direct question came from a European statesman who has known the vice president for many years. He put it to me a few days ago -- even before the discovery of a blood clot in Cheney's leg and the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby, his former chief of staff, brought headline attention to the volatile state of the vice president's physical, emotional and political health. It is not new for Americans to question whether their leaders have become delusional. Editors at The Post directed reporters to find out if Jimmy Carter had suffered a nervous breakdown when he retreated to Camp David for 10 days in 1979 and abruptly fired five Cabinet officers. Remember the hubbub over Al Haig's "I am in control here" and other Captain Queegish remarks, or Richard Nixon's talking to portraits?

What is unusual is for foreigners to think about a vice president at all and to question what effect the VP's moods and internal policy defeats have on America's standing in the world.

But what goes up must come down. In the first term, Cheney was styled as the most influential vice president in history -- in more lurid versions, an evil puppeteer pulling George W. Bush's strings. So now his irascibility in television interviews triggers diplomatic cables analyzing his equilibrium -- as well as inspiring a booming industry of scathing cartoons and television one-liners here at home.

Lefties have been saying for months that Cheney will resign someday soon "for health reasons," and be replaced by, oh, I don't know, Condi. They say it as if it is a bad thing. But the Cheney influence has become so terminally awful that I'd be willing to consider almost any alternative, and on almost any terms.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Why Cheney Never Goes on the Jury

It’s way old news but I still want to showcase that wonderful bit on Letterman last week—the blink test, with Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney, side by side facing the camera behind President Bush while he delivered his State of the Union message.

So, who blinked most? You say Pelosi—aww, you peeked. But how many blinks? Did you guess 32 times in—I think it was a minute and 13 seconds. And how many times did Cheney blink?

Did you guess “zero?” Aww, you peeked again, perhaps at the 47 hits over at Google Blogs. Anyway, more than enough evidence that Cheney is a wax dummy, and that the real Cheney remains tucked away somewhere at an undisclosed location.

So, why now? Thing is, I remember Michael Caine discussing this stuff with Terry Gross—no, not Pelosi and Cheney, but blinking. Caine made the point that it is a great way to freak people out: they don’t know what you are doing, but they know you are really, really weird (chances are you can find it here). Might not work to get you out of a speeding ticket, but ought to be pretty good as an avoidance tactic at an Army inspection, or to get off jury duty.

Somebody check. I bet Cheney hasn’t been on a jury in years.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Impeach Who?

Last summer I not-entirely-flippantly suggested that we skip impeaching Bush and instead impeach Cheney (link) (my friend Fensterwald gave me its blessing).

I still think I'm right on not impeaching the President. I don't want impeachment to become a habit. Besides, I think there are a lot of better things for Congress to do with its time.

I'm here now listening to John Dean on Keith Olbermann suggesting that Congress move down the impeachment food chain --impeaching, e.g., cabinet officers. Evidently it is not without precedent: David Cannadine, in his magisterial new biography of Andrew Mellon (link), points out that Mellon resigned as secretary of treasury under the threat of impeachment.

Of course, there isn't the remotest chance of getting a convinction out of the Senate, but it might be a useful way to frame up some of the investigative issues.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Impeach Cheney?

Impeach Bush? I’m against it. Maybe he deserves it, but I really don’t want this sort of thing to get to be a habit (I assume an “Impeach Hillary” committee is already waiting in the wings). And as they say, look who is next.

But what about impeaching Cheney? My own knowledge of con law is near zero, perhaps negative. But my friend Fensterwald, who has the brain the size of a suitcase, responds to my inquiry:

I can't think of any reason why not. Article II, Section 4 provides for the impeachment of "the President, the Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States" for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Surely if the Vice-President committed treason or was bribed he should be able to be impeached without also impeaching the President. And it won't always be the case that the President and the VP are of the same party. An election that went to the House and Senate because of failure of any candidate to get a majority in the electoral college could result in Presidents and Vice-Presidents of different parties. This would suggest further reason to doubt that Presidents and Vice-Presidents must stand or fall together. Indeed, impeaching Bush and Cheney for only crimes Cheney committed would seem to be a constitutonal violation itself, because in that view Bush himself would not have committed an impeachable offense.

Hello, Speaker Pelosi...