Un-Cheney My Heart

Remembering Why We Loathe Dick Cheney – Conor Friedersdorf – Politics – The Atlantic

 

CONCLUSION

Dick Cheney was a self-aggrandizing criminal who used his knowledge as a Washington insider to subvert both informed public debate about matters of war and peace and to manipulate presidential decisionmaking, sometimes in ways that angered even George W. Bush.

After his early years of public service, he capitalized on connections he made while being paid by taxpayers to earn tens of millions of dollars presiding over Halliburton. While there, he did business with corrupt Arab autocrats, including some in countries that were enemies of the United States. Upon returning to government, he advanced a theory of the executive that is at odds with the intentions of the founders, successfully encouraged the federal government to illegally spy on innocent Americans, passed on to the public false information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and became directly complicit in a regime of torture for which he should be in jail.

Thus his unpopularity [13% Approval] circa 2008, when he left office.

Good riddance.

 


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

21 comments on “Un-Cheney My Heart

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. It amuses me that Conor is so verklempt, at real ‘gutsy calls’ like setting up the structure for the unit, they regarded as Cheney’s Death Squad, Seal Team 6

  2. Remember the part in “Gone with the Wind” when Rhett makes Scarlett wear the red dress as a symbol of what she has done? I think Cheney was forced by his own conscious to wear that crazy black hat and outfit at Obama’s inauguration as a symbol of what he did.

  3. @ fuster:
    You would have liked the Lawrence O’Donnell show tonight.

    LOD had Wilkerson, Powell’s former chief of staff, on, skewering Cheney’s operation, including something – a revelation to me – about how the supposed Saddam connection to AQ, a Cheney hobby horse, was thrown out by the intel professionals, but recuperated as part of the pro-war propaganda after the Cheney-ites brought forward testimony from a captive tortured in Egypt. The testimony later turned out to be false.

    Then, Bart Gelman, Cheney biographer and multi-Pulitzer winner, went through Cheney’s apparent gross fabrications regarding events, like the Ashcroft hospital visit, that have been described by other witness in completely divergent ways.

    Then, as a bonus, LOD did one of his “re-writes” on Giuliani, whom he called the most fraudulent figure in American politics, recounting among other things the tale of the “9/11 hero”‘s grossly negligent personal decision, against expert advice, to locate the NYC command and control center within a known terrorist target – the WTC.

  4. yeah, I might have liked the show.

    interesting about Gelman. was reading about him yesterday

    long ago, a young reporter at TNR was doing a story about things happening in the DoD’s mishandling of Iraq, centered on the idiot Doug Feith. prior to publication, the story was shown to Feith and others in the admin.

    Peretz, owner/publisher at that time gets a call from Cheney’s aide telling him that Cheney says the story is inaccurate for x,y, z reasons and that it’ll harm Feith and therefore Cheney tells Peretz to kill the story altogether and to fire the reporter.

    Peretz agrees, in large measure because he teaches at Harvard and Feith was one of his “boys” when he was an undergrad.
    Marty the Gerbil calls the editor and relays the instructions. The editor refuses and, after a nasty little meeting where the reporter produces rock-solid backing for the accuracy of x,y,z …the story runs, Peretz remains furious, Feith’s rep starts to unravel…the editor and Peretz remain enemies with the editor no longer printing Peretz’s stories! (that’s how and why Peretz started his own mini-blog The Spine within TNR.

    Eventually though, the editor takes a leave of absence and departs…and Marty the Gerbil gets to install another one of his boys as the new editor.

    which is a large part of why I loathe that Dick.

  5. Btw, this is the same TSP that we used ot track Sheik Ahmed to Abbotabad, luckily they had forgotten the lesson of Mr. B.J. Smegma,
    ‘of not being seen’

  6. @ miguel cervante:
    Standard Standard piece, asserting the writer’s own opinions as facts – threat posed by AQ, nature of Wilkerson’s likely involvement and knowledge, etc. – then selectively testing the adversary’s statements against the new alternative reality. It’s a lot easier to get the other guy “out” when the pitcher gets to call balls and strikes. Joscelyn and the Standard were at the time of that article – I’m not sure whether this is still the case – committed to the idea of a Saddam + AQ threat, which would be something different from possible contacts. I’m not sure there’s anyone outside the fever swamps and Dick Cheney’s entourage who still stands by that.

  7. @ miguel cervante:
    So what? Did one of the regulars at the blog write a 1,000 page manifesto full of quotations from Wilkerson, then head out and murder a large number of young people? Even if one did, would that prevent you from remaining a fan if you had already been so inclined? If so, that would be news to me.

  8. Wilkerson from Frontline interview

    – and George Tenet assuring Colin Powell that the information he was presenting at the U.N. was ironclad, only to have that same individual call the secretary on more than one occasion in the ensuing months after the presentation and tell him that central pillars of his presentation were indeed false.

    Now, do I believe George Tenet knew they were false when he told him that? Absolutely not. I just don’t believe it. I refuse to believe it. How did we get to that point? How did our intelligence community get us to that point? How did [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy] Douglas Feith, who clearly politicized intelligence, clearly cherry-picked intelligence, clearly provided some of that cherry-picked intelligence to the vice president of the United States — how did we combine all of that, plus a good dose of psychological groupthink, to come up with such an abysmal failure in regards to WMD in Iraq? It’s a mystery to me, and I will never know the answer.

    miggs, on that grain of salt about that TNR reporter……one of those “inaccurate” things that Cheney informed Peretz was cause for killing Ackerman’s story was that it said that Feith twice (or three times) returned the CIA report on Iraqi WMD with instruction that the report be amended to be more positive in asserting that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program…..

    turns out that the story was sufficiently salty.

  9. BTW, Wilkerson was pulling the punch about Tenet….George may not have been able to say that the assertions were definitely false, but Tenet and about all the senior management of CIA knew that the report was repeatedly rejected until the original conclusion that there was no real proof that Iraq had an active nuke weapons program was changed to say that there was evidence sufficient to conclude that they probably had one.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins