yes and yes…

Posted on Saturday 24 October 2009

‘Make no mistake. Signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries,’ Cheney said …

As much as I enjoy bashing Mr. Cheney, when I read things like this, I feel some uncharacteristic compassion for him because I think he really believes it. I think it’s his chronic way of viewing the world, but maybe it became much worse along the way. But that might be just my wish. This is from an old classic bio:
The Curse of Dick Cheney
The veep’s career has been marred by one disaster after another

Rolling Stone
by T.D. ALLMAN
Aug 25, 2004

… In an overwhelmingly Republican state, Cheney now had a safe seat in Congress for as long as he wanted. On Capitol Hill, he combined a moderate demeanor with a radical agenda. People who find Cheney’s extremism as vice president surprising have not looked at his congressional voting record. In 1986, he was one of only twenty-one members of the House to oppose the Safe Drinking Water Act. He fought efforts to clean up hazardous waste and backed tax breaks for energy corporations. He repeatedly voted against funding for the Veterans Administration. He opposed extending the Civil Rights Act. He opposed the release of Nelson Mandela from jail in South Africa. He even voted for cop-killer bullets.

"I don’t believe he is an ideologue," says former Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado. "But he is the most partisan politician I’ve ever met." Many weekends, while Congress was in session, Wirth and Cheney would take the same flight to Chicago, where they’d change planes for Colorado and Wyoming. "I spent a lot of time waiting for planes with Dick Cheney," Wirth, a Democrat, says. "He never talked about ideology. He talked about how the Republicans were going to take over the House of Representatives." Wirth adds, "It seemed impossible, but that’s exactly what happened."

Cheney knew precisely who should lead the GOP takeover. "Dick and Lynne had their eyes on the speakership," says Professor Fred Holborn of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "He and Lynne wrote a book on the speakership." As the subtitle of Kings of the Hill indicates, it is about how "powerful men changed the course of American history" through control of the House.

Cheney’s strategy for gaining power was the same one he and Rumsfeld had foisted on Ford: making sure no one in the Republican Party outflanked him to the right. This was a deeply divisive approach, because it involved pandering to racial and religious extremists and using complex matters of national security as flag-waving wedge issues. "Dick’s votes against civil rights and the environment were parts of complex deals aimed at enhancing his own power," says Barlow, his former supporter.

In 1988, Cheney was named House minority whip, the second-ranking post in his party’s hierarchy. Had he stayed in the House, it is possible that he would have become speaker. But the following year, another powerful person decided to confer great nonelective power on Cheney. When President George H.W. Bush named him to head the Defense Department, the Senate unanimously confirmed the choice. Not a single senator seems to have considered it anomalous that control of the strongest armed forces on earth was being conferred on a person who had gone to notable lengths to avoid service in those same armed forces.

Appointed to another powerful position, Cheney promptly went about screwing it up. He pushed to turn many military duties over to private companies and began moving "defense intellectuals" with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon. Most notable among them was Paul Wolfowitz, who later masterminded much of the disastrous strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq. In 1992, as undersecretary of defense, Wolfowitz turned out a forty-page report titled "Defense Planning Guidance," arguing that historic allies should be demoted to the status of U.S. satellites, and that the modernization of India and China should be treated as a threat, as should the democratization of Russia. "We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the report declared. It was nothing less than a blueprint for worldwide domination, and Cheney loved it. He maneuvered to have the president adopt it as doctrine, but the elder Bush, recognizing that the proposals were not only foolish but dangerous, immediately rejected them.

By the end of the first Bush administration, others had come to the conclusion that Cheney and his followers were dangerous. "They were referred to collectively as the crazies," recalls Ray McGovern, a CIA professional who interpreted intelligence for presidents going back to Kennedy. Around the same time, McGovern remembers, Secretary of State James Baker and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft counseled the elder President Bush, "Keep these guys at arm’s length"
Reading this, one would think that Cheney’s power orientation must be life-long. In the quote above, he’s presenting a world view. If you show any sign of "indecision," the vultures will descend on you and rip out your throat. They [the evil enemy] capitalize on signs of weakness like indecision or hesitation. That is a consistent message in everything Cheney does or says. And as for this comment from his [and Wolfowitz’s] Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, "We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," I hardly know how to even start. But even before his Congressional career, he was into trouble with his "power" obsession:
… Nixon’s resignation opened the way for Cheney’s first truly astonishing inside move up. When Gerald Ford succeeded to the presidency, he needed experienced loyalists by his side who were untainted by the Nixon scandal, so he named Rumsfeld his chief of staff. Rumsfeld brought Cheney right along with him into the Oval Office.

The period between August 1974 and November 1976, when Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter, is essential to understanding George W. Bush’s disastrous misjudgments — and Dick Cheney’s role in them. In both cases, Cheney and Rumsfeld played the key role in turning opportunity into chaos. Ford, like Bush later, hadn’t been elected president. As he entered office, he was overshadowed by a secretary of state (Kissinger then, Powell later) who was considered incontestably his better. Ford was caught as flat-footed by the fall of Saigon in April 1975 as Bush was by the September 2001 attacks. A better president, with more astute advisers, might have arranged a more orderly ending to the long and divisive war. But instead of heeding the country’s desire for honesty and reconciliation, Rumsfeld and Cheney convinced Ford that the way to turn himself into a real president was to stir up crises in international relations while lurching to the right in domestic politics.

Having turned Ford into their instrument, Rumsfeld and Cheney staged a palace coup. They pushed Ford to fire Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, tell Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to look for another job and remove Henry Kissinger from his post as national security adviser. Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense, and Cheney became chief of staff to the president. The Yale dropout and draft dodger was, at the age of thirty-four, the second-most-powerful man in the White House.

As the 1976 election approached, Rumsfeld and Cheney used the immense powers they had arrogated to themselves to persuade Ford to scuttle the Salt II treaty on nuclear-arms control. The move helped Ford turn back Reagan’s challenge for the party’s nomination — but at the cost of ceding the heart of the GOP to the New Right. Then, in the presidential election, Jimmy Carter defeated Ford by 2 million votes.

In his first test-drive at the wheels of power, Cheney had played a central role in the undoing of a president. Wrote right-wing columnist Robert Novak, "White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney . . . is blamed by Ford insiders for a succession of campaign blunders." Those in the old elitist wing of the party thought the decision to dump Rockefeller was both stupid and wrong: "I think Ford lost the election because of it," one of Kissinger’s former aides says now. Ford agreed, calling it "the biggest political mistake of my life"…
Cheney’s power plays since becoming Vice President are much better known to us – they were ultimately more public. Where I feel compassion for him is that as odious and destructive as his career has been, this is a very uncomfortable way to be alive. Everyone is a potential enemy. You can never falter, because of that tear out your throat thing. You can never just think about an issue. There’s always the side question of how the power dynamics might be affected. Never was that more clear than in a 2007 Politico interview after Pelosi became Speaker:

Most striking were his virtually taunting remarks of two men he described as friends from his own days in the House: Democratic Reps. John Dingell [MI] and John P. Murtha [PA]. In a 40-minute interview with Politico, he scoffed at the idea of two men who spent years accruing power showing so much deference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [CA] Murtha “and the other senior leaders march to the tune of Nancy Pelosi to an extent I had not seen, frankly, with any previous speaker,” Cheney said. “I’m trying to think how to say all of this in a gentlemanly fashion, but [in] the Congress I served in, that wouldn’t have happened.” But his implication was clear: When asked if these men had lost their spines, he responded, “They are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected”…
He couldn’t imagine Murtha acceding power to Pelosi. It never occurred to him that maybe Murtha agreed with Pelosi. It was only about power [and the Freudians are still laughing about "Big Dick" talking about a "Big Stick" and Pelosi]. My "compassion" is short lived. He’s done too much damage to linger on how people who are constantly on duty to thwart any possible threat live tortured lives. Now, he’s an old man. He should be celebrating his life by being an elder statesman in a rocking chair. Instead, still he’s on a podium, still jockeying for power.

What is he fighting for now? Why is he the first VP in history whose hobby is attacking a sitting President week after week, decision after decision? Sometimes we think he’s defending his less than stellar record. Some say he’s deflecting prosecution, keeping adversaries from tearing out his throat. His fans see him as the keeper of the flame. Is he "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger … role?"

Like his comment about Murtha, he "spent years accruing power." He just can’t let it go. For people like Dick Cheney, "carrying the big sticks" is the only thing that really matters – his raison d’etre. He was partially successful [except for the "Vice" in front of his title]. No one has amassed that much power in America in a very long time, if ever. And I don’t believe that the fact that he exercised it so poorly all throughout his entire career has much impact on him. People with his kind of personality structure can immediately brush away any criticism as envy or hatred from the other side. He will play Poppa Dick-tator for life.

Power nut or scared little boy? yes and yes…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.