where does one start?

Posted on Monday 8 June 2009


Vice: The Dispiriting Legacy of Dick Cheney
By Stephen Holmes
The Nation.
May 27, 2009
published in the June 15th issue

Gellman lavishes most of his attention on the fabrications Cheney used to enable the executive branch to circumvent constitutional checks and balances. One of the boldest involved the Bush administration’s ongoing program for intercepting domestic communications without a judicial warrant, which Gellman describes as an "operation conceived and supervised by the office of the vice president." When briefing the Republican and Democratic heads of Congress’s Intelligence Committees about this program in early 2004, Cheney (with White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, National Security Agency director Michael Hayden and others) connived to hide the fact that high-ranking lawyers from the NSA and Justice Department had expressed grave doubts about the program’s legality. "Cheney, who chaired briefings for select members of Congress, said repeatedly that the NSA’s top law and ethics officers had approved what their agency was doing," Gellman explains. Cheney was not vague about the facts of the case but conveyed inaccurate information about the legal opinions of others. To thwart Congressional oversight and thus eliminate outside review and potential criticism of a favored White House program, Cheney knowingly misled key members of a constitutionally coequal branch. 

Cheney’s "major role in bringing war to Iraq" likewise required a strategic twisting of the truth. Gellman details a private briefing in late September 2002 that Cheney provided to Republican Congressman Dick Armey, then majority leader of the House. Armey opposed an invasion of Iraq on the reasonable grounds that the United States should not attack a country that had not attacked it. Usually hawkish, Armey presented an embarrassing hurdle to the war party in the administration. As Gellman says, "If Armey could oppose the war, he gave cover to every doubter in waiting," making him "the center of gravity of the political opposition." Something had to be done, and Cheney did it. According to Gellman, Cheney, brandishing top-secret satellite photos, made statements about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear arsenal and ties to Al Qaeda that he knew to be erroneous: "In the privacy of his office, for this one crucial vote, Cheney leveled claims he had not made before and did not make again." Some of these claims "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were simply without foundation." Gellman concludes that Cheney deliberately told Armey "things he knew to be untrue," bamboozling a Congressional leader of his own party just long enough to extract a go-ahead vote. Having been preapproved on false pretenses by a gullible or complicit Congress, the misbegotten invasion was launched six months later.
Friend Shrinkrap pointed me to this story about Cheney’s con job on Dick Armey, and I wondered how I’d missed it, being such a Cheney watcher. But when I looked back, it came out on September 16th, 2008. That was when our attention had been directed towards the end of the Stock Market as we had known it [and our personal retirement plans]. I was busy…

It is the central charge against the Bush White House, that the administration lied its way into a war in Iraq…

Now comes Dick Armey, once House Majority Leader, who described a classified one-on-one briefing in the vice president’s hideaway office in the U.S. Capitol where he says Vice President Dick Cheney went beyond that into outright deception.

According to a new book on Cheney called "Angler," by Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, Armey, a Texas Republican, had spoken out against the war. Cheney was trying to change his mind. So the vice president told him the threat from Iraq was actually "more imminent than we want to portray to the public at large." In Armey’s account, Cheney told him:
    Iraq’s "ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear," had been "substantially refined since the first Gulf War," and would soon result in "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel….We now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as Al Qaeda."

"Did Dick Cheney … purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" Armey said. "I seriously feel that may be the case…Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
So, I’m ordering Angler after all. As Cheney’s year and a half between September 11th and our Invasion of Iraq becomes increasingly transparent, he begins to look Stalin-esque in the scope of his subterfuge and lies. Such a busy fellow. It’s kind of hard to know where someone would start to try to deal with it all. He was running operations in the DoD, the DoJ, the White House, Congress, the Press, the NSA, visiting the C.I.A., and who knows where else. His best defense, if he’s ever called to an accounting, will be that he can’t possibly have done as many things as we accuse him of. But, no one ever said he was a slackard.

As the stories mount up, it’s a little hard to understand how he thought he could get away with all this deceit and rule bending without being called to task somewhere down the road – or if he even thought about it that possibility. I presume he still thinks that he’s "untouchable." For example, his recent comments about Richard Clarke were so far off the mark ["he obviously missed it"] to be ludicrous – or his saying the Colin Powell wasn’t a Republican. It is not possible that the Memos he wants released say what he claims they say. And these Comey emails make him look like a boldfaced liar. Yet he prattles on. Dick Armey, a hard core Conservative, is out there saying that Cheney lied to him – his actual term was "bull-shited."

So, is he as bullet-proof as he seems to think? Obama says "no" to a truth commission. That leaves Hearings or the Courts. And where does one start?
  1.  
    Joy
    June 9, 2009 | 9:06 AM
     

    I consider “Angler” one of the best books I’ve read about Cheney. I’m not sure if it’s in this book or another that I read about Cheney but a lot of times he uses some damaging material he has on that person or that persons family(he did that when supposedly finding a VP for W such as when candidates for VP had to fill out papers of ones life. Cheney used the info to help disqualify Gov Keating who was high on the list of candidates for Bush’s VP as leverage for getting what he wants or doesn’t want from a person. I read a book about the late FBI head J Edgar Hoover and it seems Hoover was the evil master of using damaging material to get what he wanted from so-called important people. Hoover kept damaging files on almost everyone in the limelight (presidents VP, senators, rep, govs,actors,civil rights leaders,etc. at his house. The day he died his significant other pulled a station wagon up to Hoover’s house to take them out and destroy them Come to think of it, I wonder if he loaned his files to Senator McCarthy during his reign of terror. Hoover was a really bad guy and I think Cheney worked his way up to Hoover’s level of evil. I also remember Keith Olbermann or one of his guests on his show saying that Cheney had a mansize safe in his office for his files and papers. Now I can guess what files they might have been.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.