Posts Tagged: Dick Cheney


21
May 09

How can I miss you when you won’t go away?

Both Obama and Cheney have spoken.  Obama’s transcript is at ThinkProgress; The NYTimes Caucus blog provides a summary and links to the full-text at AEI [PDF].

Via the Great Orange Satan:

Photobucket
Obama’s National Security Speech: “Chill, I Got This S*#T!”

Photobucket
Cheney’s Personal Insecurity Speech: “OMGZ!  Teh Feer!  Iz Scerd!
As always thanks to Wordle

Cheney ‘rebuttal speech’ was framed by the press as portraying him as an equal to the President, with the press loving the conflict, even if its imagined. The Elected-President with a 60% popularity rating is going to be challenged by the Former Vice-President (of the losing party no less) with the 30% approval rating.  The story should be looking at Cheney’s audacity.


5
Jan 09

Compare and Contrast [Nixon v. Cheney]

From the Nixon-Frost Interview (via Throwing Things):

Frost: Are you really saying the President can do something illegal?
Nixon: I’m saying that when the President does it, that means it’s not illegal!
Frost: …I’m sorry?

From a recent interview with Dick Cheney (via Raw Story, emphasis mine):

SCHIEFFER: Do you believe that the president in time of war, that anything he does is legal?

CHENEY: I can’t say that anything he does is legal. I think we do and we have historic precedent of taking action that you wouldn’t take in peacetime but that you will take sometimes in war time in order to do the basic job that you sign up to when you take the oath of office which is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. If you hark back in our history you can look at Abraham Lincoln who suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the middle of the Civil War.

SCHIEFFER: But nobody thinks that was legal.

CHENEY: Well, no. It certainly was in the sense he wasn’t impeached.

Quite the precedent, huh?


23
Sep 08

The Political Component of the Bailout.

First off, the die has been cast. No matter how much money we’ve thrown at the situation, it will simply have the effect of taking your shoes off at the airport – creating an illusion of safety. Post-bailout, we will have $1.3T reasons to feel that all will be well, and that the disaster has passed. But those will be illusions.


8
Sep 08

What books does your Vice-Presidential Candidate want banned?

As we approach Banned Book Week, and without the opportunity to speak to Dick Cheney from his undisclosed location, Sarah Palin while she is avoiding journalists and cramming on policy and positions sequestered in Alaska, it may be helpful to reflect on this bit of Mrs. Palin’s biography.

The story is as follows – in 1996, then Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin was approached by a constituent, Anne Kilkenney,  with a list of books that they wanted banned. From Time Magazine [via]:


10
Aug 08

There Has Never Been A Successful Conspiracy in the History of the United States.

It’s a damn shame, the things that we’re left to wonder.  Can you safely assume there was no shooter on the grassy knoll?  That ‘DC Madam’ Palfrey committed suicide?  Or that alleged anthrax-attacker Bruce Ivins worked alone?  Or that the heroic passengers of Flight 93 brought the plane down, and not a US missile?

Did you see this story in the Post (and reprinted today on page 2 in the Inky)?


24
Jul 08

OF COURSE they did [Flight 93].

Atrios points to a little piece of opening commentary from the trial of Osama Bin Laden’s driver that contradicts the accepted folklore behind Flight 93.

“If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome,” Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal’s chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the “dome” was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

“Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew,” Stone said.


1
May 08

Daily Links


4
Apr 08

Yoo can always get what yoo want.

I’ve wanted to write something about John Yoo and the torture memos, but it’s depressing and secondly I don’t like to write things that the more well-read political junkies already know, and I’m not sure how to sum up the intricacies of the entirety of Yoo, Bush, and the law in a way that will challenge any of the uninformed, misinformed, or Bush cheerleaders.  Regardless, I’m tackling it anyway.

John Yoo, an Ivy League educated scholar, American Enterprise Institute scholar and fellow, current professor at UC Berkley, and former clerk for two Supreme Court Justices, has been a central figure in many of the central rethinking controversies of President Bush’s administration, including (via ThinkProgress):


30
Nov 07

Presidential Daily Briefs are Based on News Coverage, Frequently Informed by Leaks from the Executive Branch

Presidents are incredibly tight-lipped about the contents of their PDBs, or Presidential Daily Briefings.  Very few of them have ever seen the light of day via FOIA request and subsequent declassification, with very few exceptions.  The most recent and notorious example was that of President Bush's August 6, 2001 PDB, pre-9/11, which was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike US", detailing various avenues and methods of attack.  In Scooter Libby's obstruction case, the defense attempted to gain access to PDB-related documents, hoping to use a greymail defense – one that was only partially effective .

The Nixon library just released a bundle of documents, as reported by the Federation of American Scientists at the Secrecy News blog , including some that shed insight on the PDB process, specifically indicating that PDB's are often contain 'intelligence' from newspapers and other journalistic resources. 

As for the selection process that determines what to include in the PDB, Mr. Marshall wrote in his Top Secret Codeword report, "It is derived… to a large extent, I believe, from a sense of what's timely as judged from the New York Times, press, and wire service coverage."

This is particularly troubling, given allegations of partisanship and declining journalistic standards, and especially as there are no safeguards in place to prevent a bad-actor from planting a story to advance the agenda of a group, nation, corporation, or individual.  Who can tell if the same processes are in place today?  We've heard that 'chatter' from blogs has even made it to the PDBs.  And it's not as though this administration has ever indicated that they wouldn't just pay for the news they want.

As a hypothetical, Dick Cheney was the firewall to George W. Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war.  The neocons are well connected through the press and various think tanks – for example, Judith Miller stenography towards advancing their goals.  When biased reporting, originating from neocon corners and con-men, get laundered in the newspapers, and then get legitimized as actionable intelligence by our government, the consequences are much more dear than journalistic integrity. 


8
Jun 07

Cheney, Libby, and an earlier, daming leak from Bush the Elders Administration.

All emphasis below (bolded) are mine.

  • Meta

  • Pages

  • Statcounter


    View My Stats