Deconstructing Cheney - Kick-Ass Op-Ed in The Boston Globe

This morning's op-ed by James Carroll rips Cheney a new one.

At world-shaping moments across a generation, Cheney reacted with an instinctive, This is war! He helped turn the War on Poverty into a war on the poor. He helped keep the Cold War going longer than it had to, and when it ended (because of initiatives taken by the other side), Cheney refused to believe it. To keep the US war machine up and running, he found a new justification just in time. With Gulf War I, Cheney ignited Osama bin Laden's burning purpose. Responding to 9/11, Cheney fulfilled bin Laden's purpose by joining him in the war-of-civilizations. Iraq, therefore (including the prewar deceit for which Scooter Libby takes the fall), is simply the last link in the chain of disaster which is the public career of Richard Cheney.

•  Cheney

  How long can Cheney last?  It seems that the tide is going out on Herr Cheney.

  Tips please

  by Kitty on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:36:06 AM PDT

  •  America needs Cheney to last.

    Cheney resigning for "health reasons" or the classic "to spend more time with his family" will be disasterous. Bush will just appoint a new VP to be groomed for a 2008 presidential run.

    Unfortunately, and no thanks to our media, America's addicted to the cult of personality. A majority is willing to shallowly blame individuals for government failures without looking into the underlying policy. Joe CNN Viewer will see a new VP as "a breath of fresh air" but the destructive policies we've seen for the past 5 years will continue.

    Cheney needs to stay and Democrats need to tie this asshole inextricably to Republicans and the neoconservative movement.

    by rjo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:52:59 AM PDT

    •  While there is strategic wisdom to your comments

       ... America needs rule of law, decency in government, and swift action on criminality more.  I think the NeoCon threat is much greater than the Republican threat.  The Republicans will fall apart on their own.  The NeoCon's are so rich, and have planned this so long, and have gotten away with so much (including co-opting and ruining the Repub. party), that they are public enemy #1.  Every effort should be concentrated on killing this true enemy as quickly as possible, using all open avenues of attack.

      If you ruin the Republicans, the NeoCon money will find its expression somewhere else.  If you ruin the NeoCon machine, the Republican party will founder.

      by Yellow Canary on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:22:46 AM PDT

      •  I agree.

        There are circumstances that may keep us from what consider an ideal outcome, but Job 1 is getting this disaster of an administration OUT.  I wouldn't vote for him but I'd 1000 times over prefer a John McCain running things than Cheney-bush.  I'd 1000 times rather have Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 in charge.

        by beemerr90s on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:46:33 AM PDT

        •  At least they once had consciences

          All of those Repubs you mention were corrupt, but at least they had some tenuous memory of a time when they had a conscience, Bush II is utterly without conscience, and he lies non-stop.  

          His latest drivel was truly Orwellian:

          "Everything we do follows the law (as interpreted by my pet torture boy Gonzalez) and we do not use torture".

          That's right Bushie-boy, you just call "pain equivalent to major organ failure" NOT TORTURE (from the Bybee torture brief).  So you just twist the words to mean whatever you want them to:  "War is Peace"   "Torture is like a fraternity prank"

          Well why don't we send Libby and Cheney to Gitmo?

          by MD patriot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:09:28 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, short of impeachment for the two,

      I hope Cheney becomes their nominee. This is the traditional VP career path. He's gotta be the most pathetic heir apparent we could possibly hope for. If this is what rjo means, I agree. I think they know that they're in for some sort of bloodbath over the heir apparent de novo role. They see it coming and many of them would probably be happy to avoid it.

      This is why, if there is impeachment, far better Bush goes first, not Cheney.

      by kazoo of the north on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:22:51 AM PDT

      •  Cheney

        I believe this IS, and has been, the Cheney presidency all along.  He couldn't get elected himself, nor would his health allow him to be a front runner.  He disdains the press and the public anyway.  At the moment though he can't resign, because Bush by himself--especially without Rove--is like a book jacket without a book.  Bush has never had an agenda of his own, nor would he know how to implement it if he did.  What the hell is Cheney doing at "undisclosed locations" all the time anyway?  VP used to be a job where you tried to get on TV at any state funeral or press junket you could find.  Cheney just wants to be left alone to make money for himself and his cronies.

        It's funny to me how much people touted Gore as being the most involved VP ever.  No one has ever said that about Cheney, yet time after time, disaster after disaster (9/11 and auth to shoot down planes), scandal after scandal (Plamegate, Halliburton no-bid contracts), policy after policy (torture, Iraq (not afghanistan) war), white house evacuation after white house evacuation ("Bush wasn't there, but Cheney was evacuated to a safe location"), it has been Cheney in the driver's seat while Bush is out chopping wood, riding bikes, choking on pretzels, falling off Segways, and reading children's books.

        I would shout that the emperor has no clothes, but it would simply be drowned in the din of spin. The man is asking congress to continue to allow torture, so I don't think he's worried about perception.  In some sick way he probably wants people to give him credit for running the country.  ("You can't handle the truth!  You're goddamn right I did!")

        This would all end when and if Bush started believing he's in charge (or should be) and fires Cheney.  But he's just too scared and powerless to do it.  It would be like standing up to an abusive father after 50 years.

        by Hardrookwar on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:19:58 AM PDT

        •  Bush can't fire Cheney

          Cheney is an elected official; Bush can't any more fire him than he can fire Harry Reid.

          Bush can, however, take all of Cheney's power away, other than those powers mentioned in the Constitution: preside over the Senate and break ties; sit around and wait for the president to die.
          

          by Joe Buck on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

    •  It makes me wonder............

      If this was not the plan all along. Cheney to resign for whatever reason, most likely health, just in time for Bush to appoint his choice of V.P. to carry out the evil agenda. This stinks, Bush will get the credit for cleaning up his house, and the new V.P. will be portrayed by the MSM as the second coming. I smell a rat, and am beginning to think we are totally fucked. I am quickly losing hope.

      by Vera Lofaro on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:34:04 AM PDT

      •  While conspiracy theories are all-too plausible

        with these guys, I think that in general we have our hands full just trying to work with their own stated means, ends and values (their own subjective orientation)rather than giving them too much credit by imputing such complex motivations.

        by Grok Your World on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:50:32 AM PDT

        •  I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory

          just a theory on the NeoCons' dubious political strategy. It may or may not be true that they've planned for Cheney's departure, but it's not at all outlandish or unprecedented or "conspiratorial" to consider.

          by leftilicious on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:24:00 AM PDT

        •  I wasn't thinking conspiracy

          I thought, since Cheney isn't going to run for Pres., his approval rateings have been in the basement for years,this was the plan all along. I don't know what it is but somehow, they try to spin everything to benifit Bush, what better spin to put on Cheney's departure than what the Bush apoligists are saying all over the media, he needs to "clean house". The thought makes me sick, Bush was every much involved in the lies that lead up to the war, and for him to get off scott free, makes me crazy.

          by Vera Lofaro on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:41:53 AM PDT

      •  Jeb, Jeb, Jeb...

        The "smart" son is due for his turn, and whom else can George trust to keep past Presidential records sealed?

        Plus that gives 4-8 years for Neil's reputation to be rehabilitated for his turn.

        And then how many more years before the twin's get old enough? Well Jeb's drug addicted daughter has several more years to go straight to follow George's path to the white house.

        It's all an evil plot, bwa-ha-ha-hah!!

        by Big Time Patriot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:28:41 AM PDT

        •  the twins are old enough right now, baby!

          by 2nd balcony on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:52:09 AM PDT

      •  The VP nominee

        (whoever it is) if Cheney goes MUST be approved by the Senate, and, not sure on this, the Hse of Reps also.  
        Dems don't really have the votes to stop anyone Bush anoints becoming VP, but Dems could sure raise the howls from hell, and slow confirmation to a crawl.

        by libbys mom on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:26:46 PM PDT

    •  Yes and No!!!

      Somewhat I can agree with you that the longer the asshole stays in office the worse it will get for the Necon's in the public's mind and nothing could make me happier. The flip side is that he doesn't really seem to care what the American public thinks anyway. I fear that allowing him to continue with a position of influence in the government will cause far more damage to this country, witness his latest personal effort in lobbying his cronies in congress for the CIA exemption on torture.

      The bottom line to me is that the longer he stays in office the greater the chance that the Neocon agenda espoused in the PNAC manifesto, that he co-authored, will be advanced even if public opinion is against it. We already have troops on the ground in the Middle East so expanding the conflict to include Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc certainly isn't something that is out of the realm of possibility for these war criminals.

      Unfortunately, if things do get really bad for him personally he knows that he can resign and move back to Jackson Hole with billions in war profits. And as long as he does this before 2008 he most certainly can expect a presidential pardon for any criminal act or acts that he may be indicted for.

      By the way, on another topic. Does Jackson Hole Wyoming ring a bell with anyone? It should, that is where Judith Miller testified that she last met Libby. Judy said that she was there for a Rodeo after attending a conference in Aspen and they "just" ran into each other. Now I ask you, what is a New York girl doing visiting a Rodeo in Wyoming? Seemed a little weird to me until I realized that the Vice President of the United States was in residence that day just a few miles away. Anybody else think that there might be a connection?

      by Dave n Indy on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:59:10 AM PDT

    •  I agree with much of what you say

      At the same time, I think it's also entirely plausible that having Cheney resign to be replaced by some heir to the throne for 2008 can just as easily backfire in terms of public opinion.

      The resignation of a president or veep is a historically rare event.  I suspect that such a resignation might well create in the public mind a burnished image that the administration was/is rotten to the core.  In other words, any veep chosen as a replacement may well be looked on as part of some coverup, etc.

      Additionally, how many 2008 republican presidential wannabes will stand idly by and watch Bush annoint someone?

      by blue earth on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

      •  Re: "...burnished image"

        Interesting use, of the word, but it works (IMHO). Rather like commenting of someone: "He's enhanced his reputation for committing foul deeds", or something to that effect. Cool.  : )

        by pedantmann on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:40:30 AM PDT

    •  Not really

      The more they come apart, the more it shows 'weakness'.  That is one thing they don't like to show to their base.  But their about face on admitting mistakes won't work at this late date.  It won't be to correct for bad policy to start governing in a smarter fashion, it will be to save face and to keep on with the train of destruction.  Showing weakness and this point for them will just continue to make them weak.  

      by aitoaster on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

    •  Cheney needs to give back his lotto

      winnings, before he retires!

      by mattes on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:56:05 AM PDT

  •  Well, who's going to fire him?

    Bush?  Nonsense.  Since when was the employee able to fire the boss?

    by fishhead on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:56:35 AM PDT

    •  Bush

      Finally rubbing the sleep out of his eyes is waking up to a reality based nightmare.  His laziness comes home to roost.

      by mojavefog on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:22:07 AM PDT

•  but he sounds like James Earl Jones!

  "If you only knew the power of the dark side!"

  by smartinez on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:45:58 AM PDT

  •  Dum dum dum

    dum daaaa daaa
    dum da da,

    Dum dum dum da da da
    da da da,

    Dum dum de da da da
    de dum dum dum..

    by Bulldawg on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:39:42 AM PDT

•  Wow!

  That editorial is just a breathtaking indictment of Dick Cheney.  Thanks for linking.
  
  

  by cat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:51:10 AM PDT

  •  Carroll was one of the

    most vehement writers arguing that this was not a "just war" before it started and since.

    More about him:
    

    James Carroll was born in Chicago in 1943 and raised in Washington, D.C., where his father was an Air Force general and the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was educated at Washington's Priory School and at an American high school in Wiesbaden, Germany. He attended Georgetown University before entering St. Paul's College, the Paulist Fathers' seminary, where he received his B.A. and M.A. degrees. Carroll has been a civil rights worker, an antiwar activist, and a community organizer in Washington and New York. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1969. Carroll served as Catholic chaplain at Boston University from 1969 to 1974. . .  Carroll left the priesthood to become a writer, and in 1974 was a playwright-in-residence at the Berkshire Theater Festival. .

    Also see this from TomDispatch

    Tomgram: James Carroll on Bush's war

    To my mind, Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, along with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, has consistently been the strongest voice in the op-ed page media mainstream of our country. In his first post-9/11 column, aptly titled "Law not War," Carroll promptly asked whether "the launching of war [is] really the only way to demonstrate our love for America?" In his column last March on the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, he wrote, "Whatever happens from this week forward in Iraq, the main outcome of the war, for the United States, is clear. We have defeated ourselves." These two columns are the bookends of his remarkable, just published record of Bush's war -- Crusade, Chronicles of an Unjust War (Metropolitan Books, 2004). In that very first essay, written on September 15, 2001, he concluded: "How we respond to this catastrophe will define our patriotism, shape the century, and memorialize our beloved dead." How painfully prophetic that sentence has proved. . .

       

    Carroll's voice has been a strong one firmly based in the language of real morality, not the winger bedroom version of what they obsess about as being immoral.

    by RevDeb on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:37:28 AM PDT

    •  An American Requiem: God, My Father, and the War

      Them. Carrol's book is a magnificent read.  It is mostly autobiographical about the damage levelled on a family by Carrol's father whose rise through the ranks to become first, an Air Force general, and then director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1969, its founding director.  It's an idictment of the conservative elements of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the diocese of New York City.  He is a regular participant in on-going Jewish-Christian-Muslim encounters at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.  Carrol is one of the most valuable writers we have for the voice of interreligious relations
      

      by tikkun on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:23:15 AM PDT

    •  let's not forget Robert Scheer

      and Frank Rich

      they've both been great for MSM commentators

      by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:39:00 PM PDT

•  Tom Gilroy had a great piece on HuffPo

  on Friday:

  But `On the Brink of Collapse?' `A Crack in the Empire?' Running Scared?' `Drowning in an Ethical Quagmire?' `Crisis of Leadership?' `Humbled by the Damage to Their Legacy'?

  Yeah ,sure.

  They're so humbled they just last week passed landmark changes gutting Florida's Medicaid and Medicare programs, to be used as a model for other red states so their Republican governors can appear fiscally responsible. So you crippled grandmother better not exceed her spending cap next year, or she's shit out of luck; her dog food rations will have to go up to 3 meals a week just to pay for her meds. Boy, thank God the GOP's been humbled by the ethical quagmire.

  They're so humiliated by their treasonous lies and media intimidation in the lead-up to the illegal war, they just nominated a raving puritan lunatic to the Supreme Court, a brown-shirted lemming so in thrall of corporate power and totalitarian government control he makes Maggie Thatcher look like a feminazi. Running scared!

  Dick Cheney's act of contrition for the public discovering he'd sacrifice a CIA agent`s head on a silver platter so an illegal war could funnel money to Halliburton was to replace his indicted chief of staff with David Addington, a stealth gorgon who's hatred of democracy reaches back to Iran/contra and co-authoring Gonzales's Torture Memo.

  Dick's so horribly ashamed he's even bucking the entire Congress to force a torture loophole into a bill that would otherwise compel America to abide by The Geneva Conventions. You remember The Geneva Conventions, those rules of ethics drafted by all of humanity in response to the Nazis gassing 6 million Jews? Clearly, our VP is so demoralized he must be triple popping Prozac just face his morning coffee.

  W is so decimated by the embarrassment of his (and his mother's) classism, racism and venal cronyism in the wake of Katrina, he could barely muster the courage to eliminate minimum wages and environmental protections in the great domestic funneling of cash to Halliburton , otherwise known as the rebuilding of New Orleans. Just look at the chickenshit run! We got `im now!

  Talk about cowering at the feet of liberals. That's why they're offering up the olive branch of the Guest Worker Program, that nice euphemism for a lot of poor people without constitutional rights, occupational protections, health insurance, the ability to establish or practice their culture, send their kids to school, or have a permanent home--all for below poverty wages. Which is of course another way of saying slavery. Boy, they're in the final throes!

  And the face man for torture and CIA-trained death squads from Honduras to Nicaragua, John Negroponte, is still running Iraq, probably using an Ottoman vase as a chamber pot while tallying up our weekly Geneva Convention violations on a centuries-old Koran with a Sharpie.

  Boy, are they reeling in humiliation. I'm surprised they can muster the dignity to get out of bed in the morning, they `re so debilitated and demoralized.

  Here's a little secret; they never reel because they are never demoralized. They don't measure success and failure they way you and I do, by analyzing public benefit or desire, or even legality, or ethics. They measure success by how much more money they feast on from the public trough. And by that measure, they hogs are literally drowning in shit.

  So while you fold your arms in the triumphant reassurance that Scooter's indictment and the GOP's plummeting ratings reveal the world to be what you've always had faith it was, think again. The pendulum you always talk about is not swinging back. The Truth has not come out. What has happened is what you've known all along has merely been reiterated. There is no new information, and so there will be no new consequences. And while you smirk and feel validated they'll go right along gobbling up more and more, laughing at you between belches.

  Because they don't care about your moral indignation, your ethical judgment, or what the public thinks. They don't care what's popular, legal, or good for the country. They want your money.

  Link.
  

  Drink shade grown coffee!

  by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:06:05 AM PDT

  •  Gilroy's piece is, imo, worth

    a diary of its own.

    Reality-based and sobering.

    by starkravinglunaticradical on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:40:53 AM PDT

    •  Someone else already did it

      and did it badly. But I don't want DHinMI the diary police to write me a ticket.

      Drink shade grown coffee!

      by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:55:00 AM PDT

      •  I say goferit, just posted

        a comment to that other diary. WIll remain polite over there, but frankly that diary is bullshit-starting with mis-spelling the author's name, then posting the full text without even citing it as such.

        And there's no excuse for it--Gilroy's been up there since yesterday morning at the latest--not like it's "breaking news" that needs to be posted "in a huff" so to speak.

        The piece deserves better.  

        by starkravinglunaticradical on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:07:51 AM PDT

    •  Agree 100%.

      Newish to dKos, don't know the customs on diaries.

      by Yellow Canary on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:12:32 AM PDT

      •  Let me count the ways

        ...to say thanks for a great diary: 1. Rate up first author's comment on their diary to 4 ("Tips please" or "Tip jar" are asking for just that.) 2. Hit the Recommend button in the right hand column. 3. Comment. 4. Mention the diary in Related or Open Thread discussions. 5. Link to it from your own outside blog, if you have one. FYI: Be aware that your username is displayed for all to see next to your ratings and recommendations.

        ...to keep tabs on authors you like: 1. Hit the plus next to a diary to save that in your hotlist. 2. Hit subscribe next to the author's username to add him to your diary watchlist. Find "Your HotList" and "Diary Watchlist" in the Tools section of the right menu. Under those are any replies to your previous comments.

        From one newbie to another!

        by TimeTogether on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:42:35 AM PDT

        •  Thanks! It's getting less vaporous. (nt)

          by Yellow Canary on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:51:35 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        You should realize that this "diary" violates the "no one-line diaries" rule. If you want to draw attention to a link, but have no commentary to add, just post the link in an Open Thread, or in an existing relevant thread. Putting out a tip jar for posting nothing more than a link to a commonly read site is a bit much.

        by pigpaste on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:32:14 AM PDT

        •  Thanks, links are not diaries

          I propose a 'kos culture' thread now and then? Monday night? For socializing us wayward web creatures. Critique from that perspective. Tip jar had me perplexed untl someone else asked about it for me.

          by TimeTogether on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:13:43 AM PDT

          •  Check out the FAQ link

            in the right-hand column on the front page. Lots of useful info there.

            by pigpaste on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

    •  Very much so

      And it highlights the MO on the right.  We know that the more they are berated and held up for ridicule and censure, the more convinced they seem to become that their way is the only way.  But why?

      I think this dates back to a mindset from last century, when those who supported conservative causes were encouraged to have an almost messianic view of their purpose and their message.  They created an aura of uniqueness about their ideas, their work and their efforts, starting from the premise that the masses would never understand them.  And because of that, they have no reason to, nor any responsibility for, explaining or justifying their ideas and their policies to a wide and mainstream audience.  

      In those days, to become a member of the conservative movement took a certain amount of sacrifice (you had little chance of success in the public square) and required developing an extremely thick skin.  And as the conservative message appeared to gain traction and power over during the 70's, 80's and 90's, those successes lent credence to their top-down, elitist modus operandi.  And, in their minds, they have no reason to change it.  

      So, no matter how loud or urgent is the chorus of opposition, they will continue to believe that what they are doing is ultimately for the good of all, and us poor sods who breathe the less rarified air of on-the-ground reality merely lack the foresight and intellectual depth to see it.  And if the masses revolt and reject their ideas outright, it's not the ideas that are wrong, it's the masses.  Cheney and co. will simply shrug their heads and mourn the stupidity of the majority who could never grasp the brilliance of their ideas, and the magnificence of their plan.  

      Or, as Paul Krugman put it:  And they all lived happily ever after. . .
      

      by writeout on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:17:42 AM PDT

      •  I guess two concepts come to

        mind, concepts which, as I have argued elsewhere, are synonymous:

        Manifest Destiny
        Lebensraumpolitik

        by starkravinglunaticradical on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:01:05 AM PDT

      •  St. Helena

        I also loved the Tom Gilroy rant except for the very end - Cheney is not primarily motivated by greed.  It's abundantly clear that in Dick Cheney's view, not all "men" are created equal, that money follows talent, and it does so naturally.  Of course Dick deserves money.  Cheney has a truly monsterous sense of self-regard and entitlement, but it is the narcissistic sense of self which is what is really important to him.  Ridicule won't work, because as writeout so perceptively noted, he's sure of his perfect infaliability.  

        The true punishment for Cheney is to make him completely powerless.  A stroke might work, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  Instead, I wish it were possible to put Cheney in a small jail cell on a south Atlantic island, like St. Helena, and for him to spend the remainder of his days in total, absolute obscurity. No name, no fame, no recognition, no books, no connections, no power over anything.  His personality is that of a large, pallid, nocturnal Napoleon, and he deserves the same end.

        by ivorybill on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:07:18 AM PDT

      •  Some reading if you're interested:

        Fascism today

        and

        The Paranoid Style in American Politics

        by Yellow Canary on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:13:13 PM PDT

  •  Wrong--money is not the issue.

    He's right though that these people do not measure success as normal humans do--by looking for improvements.

    These people are into power--control over other humans--and power is measured by how much discomfort, distress and disillusionment they can generate.  Money is actually a poor measure of these characteristics.  However, depriving others of money has been proven to generate what they are looking for.

    Of course, all the measures they employ have to stop short of actually killing more than a small percentage of the population because dead people can't be controlled.  Obviously, the official policy on torture of foreign captives is entirely consistent with this requirement.

    Keep 'em alive so they can continue to be abused.

    by hannah on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:42:53 AM PDT

  •  Spot On

    The only thing I would add is that a demonstration of their ongoing activities is that the table is being set, as we speak, for regime change in Syria. I don't see any backing down.

    by NLinStPaul on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:15:45 AM PDT

    •  Invading Syria is a bad idea...

      but to be honest, a little regime change might be a good thing in Syria, as long as it is the Syrians who are doing it.  We too easily assume that the enemy (Asad) of my enemy (Bush) is my friend, but the clique that has run Syria for the last 30 or 40 years are not nice folks.  

      by ivorybill on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:14:26 AM PDT

  •  They are predators

    The first thing they did was separate the young, the old and the sick from the rest of the herd.  Pretty soon, they are going to run out of easy kills.  
    

    by goldberry on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:05:05 AM PDT

  •  Aint that the truth

    Who are we kidding - we have a long way to go and by the time these criminals are finished, average americans will be left buck naked wearing a barrel and suspenders for clothes and then, and only then, will they figure out that they have been had.

    by AnneElizabeth on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:05:48 AM PDT

    •  A barrel?

      Have you priced barrels recently?

      Maybe Rubbermaid will introduce a new plastic trash can (made in China of course) with an easily removable bottom and suspender attachment points. They could toss in a couple lengths of polypropylene rope to get people started, they can then later accessorize their barrels with fancier suspenders.

      by the time these criminals are finished, average americans will be left buck naked wearing a barrel and suspenders for clothes

      by fly on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:45:49 AM PDT

  •  They want your money

    that is exactly it.  

    The disaster that is the public career of Richard Cheney= the success that is the private money-grabbing raping of a nation by Richard Cheney.

    That's it, in a nutshell.

    by concernedamerican on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:08:49 AM PDT

  •  What do you call it

    Because they don't care about your moral indignation, your ethical judgment, or what the public thinks. They don't care what's popular, legal, or good for the country. They want your money.

    when you project your feelings onto things or animals that don't have the capacity...oh, yeah- Anthropomorphism
    To believe that these people think and act as you would is a dangerous mistake. To men such as these,their goals are the shiny precious that motivates them beyond any mundane considerations or feelings for their fellow men.

    by keefer55 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:15:16 AM PDT

  •  the Geneva Conventions

    actually came about from wars in the late 1800s, not after the Nazi regime.  They were already in place and signed, except by the Soviets, which is why so many of the Red Army's POWs died without proper protection.  Just pointing out a technicality and debunking a shrill rant with historical fact.

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:20:01 AM PDT

  •  Weel, that was an uplifting piece.

    I think I'll go hang myself now.

    by DisNoir36 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:20:42 AM PDT

•  Bigger bastard than I thought

  and my opinion of Darth Chaney has never been positive.  A true Machiavellian shit head.

  by groggy on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:17:07 AM PDT

•  glad to see someone else posting fr Globe

  since I had alrady used by daily diary by the time I read this piece.   Recommended

  by teacherken on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:27:11 AM PDT

•  Good 4 Oil, but bad for US companies

  From the Asia Times: "Bush may be an oil president, but he's not a Disney or KFC president."

  ...Maybe President George W Bush and Cheney aren't very good capitalists at all.
  

  Bush's history as a failed businessman is well known. Cheney, portrayed by conservatives as a brilliant ex-chief executive officer and by progressives as a Halliburton shill, also has a suspect past. While he certainly increased Halliburton's profile in four-and-a-half years as its chief, his foremost accomplishment was the US$7.7 billion acquisition in 1998 of Dresser Industries, a rival that turned out to be plagued with staggering asbestos-related liabilities.

  In the wake of Cheney's reign, multiple Halliburton divisions sought bankruptcy protection and the company's stock price plunged. Rolling Stone magazine reported in August 2004, "Even with the bounce Halliburton stock has received from the war, an investor who put $100,000 into the company just before Cheney became vice president would have less than $60,000 today."

  Many analysts hold the vice president accountable for the downturn, arguing that Dresser's asbestos problems, which cost Halliburton billions, were predictable. Less harsh critics nonetheless question his success as a business leader. For instance, Jason E Putman, an energy analyst at Victory Capital Management, argues that, as Halliburton chief, "Overall, Cheney did maybe at best an average job." Newsweek's Wall Street editor, Allan Sloan, is less complimentary, suggesting Cheney was a "CEO who messed up big-time"....

  
  

  Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

  by bronte17 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:29:35 AM PDT

  •  you haven't heard?

    It's Clinton's fault.

    Bar none, my favorite Rethug talking point - if the economy is bad, then it's due to the guy in office 10 years prior.

    Of course, when you point out that makes Ford responsible for the economy in the Carter years, well, they get a little agitated.

    by draftchrisheinz on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:34:31 AM PDT

  •  Cheney's best work

    Actually, I think that Cheney did his best work for Halliburton before he was named CEO.  As Sec of Defense he was in charge of the DOD when it was privatizing any number of functions, previously handled by memebers of the military (ie food preparation).  The idea here was that private companies could do the job more cheaply, efficiently, etc.  Funny how the company that we're now told "is really the only company capable of handling this sort of work" is the company that Big Time went to work for.  

    I've never seen anything that clearly lays out what tasks were turned over to civilian contrators and who got the bids.  What we know of Halliburton/KBR as a contractor is an uninterrupted history of fraud, corruption and out right theft.    

    by Hotspur18 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:26:28 AM PDT

    •  This is precisely the case

      Cheney's greatest achievement for Haliburton was to make the Department of Defense utterly dependent upon them.

      We literally cannot go to war without the KBR division of Haliburton.

      by soonergrunt on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:31:57 AM PDT

  •  Trial Lawyers

    Doesn't this point kind of explain why this admin is so against trial lawyers? At least it serves to enlighten us why they have the perpetual bee-in-their-bonnet when it comes to discussing corporate liability and their desire to "protect" corps against litigation.

    --

    by Hauer Santos on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:33:51 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this

    I just finished watching the fantastic film "The Corporation" and I'm reading Naomi Klein's "No Logo"; both spend a lot of time discussing the new-found belief in "branding" in the business world.

    This piece confirms  what I've been thinking:
    The whole Bush/Cheney regime will be seen as a disaster by the US business community at large when it wakes us and realizes that they have done incalculable damage to the following brands:

    USA
    Republican Party
    Patriotism
    Family Values
    US military
    Conservativism

    Even hard-core Republican loyalists seem to be waking up to the fact that these "brands", which they've spent so much time building up, are being destroyed by Bush/Cheney.

    Stopping this regime thus becomes a classic case of "saving capitalism from itself."
    

    by Fatherflot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:51:01 AM PDT

•  Hey Mr. Cheney: GO FUCK YOURSELF

  by bostonjay on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:30:23 AM PDT

•  50 Most Loathsome List

  The 2004 List of the 50 Most Loathsome summed up Big Time this way:

  "So loathsome his own party is frightened of him. Manages to deliver stunning lies with an air of sneering authority. Shamelessly employs scare tactics in order to strip the federal government of any resemblance to the one described in the constitution. So visibly evil that all of the documented evidence against him is superfluous. The kind of guy who starts talking cannibalism the minute he steps on the lifeboat.

  It always makes me laugh.
  

  by Hotspur18 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:35:27 AM PDT

  •  ...Or Cry....

    Fantastic quote.

    I like the closing of John Nichols' book, Dick: The Man Who is President.

            So let it be recorded here that, in the first years of the twenty-first century, at a time when American faith in itself had been shaken, the White House became a place of dark and dangerous intrigues. The Oval Office was occupied by a weak and disengaged President in name only. But the authority of the presidency, up to and including the power to plan and wage war, was gripped by unrelentingly ambitious but tragically ill-prepared man named Richard Bruce Cheney.
            Dick. The man who is president.

    --

    by Hauer Santos on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:44:36 AM PDT

  •  the link

    50 most loathsome list

    by keefer55 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:42:41 AM PDT

    •  46. Colin Quinn

      That's a pretty fun list.   I'm not sure if I would agree with the ordering of the criminals near the top.  

      However, I have a quibble with the statement that Colin Quinn is the "Least funny SNL alum since Joe Piscopo (at least Tim Meadows can speak English)."

      I thought the least funny SNL alum was Dennis Miller.

      by deadinthewater on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:28:12 PM PDT

•  o/t what the hell

  Someone should do an analysis of this Globe piece, which rocks if you read it carefully. I did, and lost it somefuckinghow, and now must leave.

  by melvin on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:38:04 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the link

    Great article. I'm gonna buy the author's new book which is mentioned in the closing credit.

    by RickWn on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:13:49 AM PDT

•  Mad Woman: Three Words.

  2006 Congressional Elections.  They still have to win an election.

  by Bubby on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:43:21 AM PDT

•  From the same column by Carroll

  The 9/11 Commission found that, from the White House situation room, Cheney warned the president that a "specific threat" had targeted Air Force One, prompting Bush to spend the day hiding in the bunker at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska. There was no specific threat. In Bush's absence, Cheney, implying an authorizing telephone call from the president, took command of the nation's response to the crisis. There was no authorizing telephone call. The 9/11 Commission declined to make an issue of Cheney's usurpation of powers, but the record shows it.

  I hand't known that.  Scary.  Infuriating.

  I know what I want for Fitzmas next year.

  by by foot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:44:59 AM PDT

  •  I can't state what I'd like to happen to Cheney

    because of the scrutiny it might draw. However, maybe my thoughts are easily implied.

    Cheney is a true piece of work. The biggest piece of shit of this administration, if not in all government. Even Delay can't hold a candle, because that moron is simply greedy. Cheney is a fucking abomination: greedy, vengeful, a coward, sneaky, lying, fat and a douchebag. How can his daughter love the bastard... or maybe she doesn't.

    Cheney: didn't join the military because he had more impotant things to do. Like what? Make a deal with the devil?

    by wardeo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:22:18 AM PDT

    •  Cheney avoided the draft by:

      1. He got his wife pregnant as soon as he was eligible for the draft, John Nichols writes: "precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service eliminated special protections for childless married men, Cheney was no longer childless."

      2. Getting into a doctoral program at University of Wisconsin where he did everything but finish his dissertation to avoid going to war.

      --

      by Hauer Santos on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:54:16 AM PDT

      •  5 deferments from the draft

        5 deferments between 63 and 66

        He quit grad school, allegedly, because he was no longer eligible for the draft.

        "In January 1967, when he was enrolled at the University of Wisconsin, Cheney passed his twenty-sixth birthday, making him safe from the draft -- and making it safe for him to abandon work on a doctoral degree."

        From the Rolling Stone article on him.

        by astraea on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:49:50 AM PDT

•  Lacking one element

  Great editorial, however it failed to administer the coup de grace which would have been: In the one opportunity that the vile bastard had to physically go to war, he chose to "refrain".

  by greeseyparrot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:59:20 AM PDT

•  Cheny

  Candidate Bush allowed R. Cheney to highjack the process of selecting a running mate.  He chose himself and is now the viceroy president.  Using power he could never have achieved on his own.  Secretive, hidden, mocking our democracy and even the President.  Knowing that history will mark him as the "real" power.  Enough of R. Cheney!

  by jerry3241 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:14:52 AM PDT

•  "Last link in the chain"?

  I think the author means "most recent". Ol' Dick can still screw us, and indeed, is doing so as you read this.

  by Jeff Boatright on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:23:02 AM PDT

•  Just asking but...

  has anyone ever looked into the Dickster's childhood?

  Did he have a twisted uncle or babysitter?

  Did he burn insects with a magnifying glass?

  Throw kittens into the river?

  And how the fuck did we elect this guy vice president?----twice!!!!!

  New on EWM: "Operation Choke the Chicken"

  DHS won't be caught with its pants down by Avian Flu

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:25:56 AM PDT

  •  Cheney is amoral not immoral.

    He does not have an iota of guilt or a feeling of insecurity or self-doubt.  And Lynn, his wife of many years, is his equal.  They are dangerous and evil because they do not have an internal moral compass.  They are guided only by greed and a need to increase personal power and money.  I have heard snippets of Lynn's novel read on the radio and it appears that she is the yin to Dick's yang of evil intent and action.

    by macmcd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:58:59 AM PDT

    •  what you are saying, in effect...

      ...is that he is a sociopath. Hard to argue with that. I think a lot of politicians are, especially in the current Republican hierarchy (lots of Dems this would apply to as well, however). Certainly the persecution complexes and senses of entitlement fit with the profile.

      by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:42:51 PM PDT

  •  Same reaction about his childhood, except ...

    that he was not elected twice! ;)

    by Grok Your World on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

•  Indictment Of Cheney Is Indictment of Press

  We shouldn't for a moment forget that all this and more was known about Cheney before the 2000 election--up to the response to 9/11. Also, that this went as far as labelling Nelson Mandella a "terrorist" and regarding the ANC as a Communist front/terrorist organization (there was no difference between the two according to the brand of conservatism Cheney subscribed to in the 1980s).  Add to that his self-selection as VP--in violation of the Constitutional prohibition of the President and VP coming from the same state--and you have a pattern of behavior that was clearly far outside the mainstream, to the point of utter contempt for the Constitution itself.

  But the press just treated him like a generic conservative, with a few occaisonal references to his extrteme votes and views that never became the subjects of ongoing stories.

  After all, he was just the vice presidential candidate.  And Gore lied about inventing the internet.
  

  by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:32:49 AM PDT

  •  You've got the constitutional issue wrong ...

    It is not that they can't come from the same state. Under the 12th amendment, “[n]o Elector may cast votes for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who both inhabit the same state as the Elector. It is, however, possible for an Elector to cast his votes for candidates from the same state, if the candidates' states are different from the Elector's.”

    by Grok Your World on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:34:59 AM PDT

    •  Per the 12th amendment

      Lets give the year 2000 Texas electoral count to Al Gore, since the Texan electors can't vote for both Cheney and Bush.    All the remaining states can still cast their votes the way they did way back when.    We can repeat this for 2004.

      by deadinthewater on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:14:53 PM PDT

•  Cheney is the most reprehensible politician

  of modern time - post JFK.  He is a total disgrace to US history.

  by Irons33 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:03 AM PDT

•  Persistent poxes like Cheney --

  -- need to be drummed out of office, but DRUMMED OUT OF POWER too. Some of these clowns have been around since the disgraced Nixon admin.

  They just weather the latest POS scandal they had their fingers in by slinking away, then refuel and come back, not even wearing a new hat, but the old at a slightly different angle so that the media don't, you know, recognize and point that out.
  .
  Sadly, the media don't.
  .

  by Peanut on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:53:31 AM PDT

•  Remember: most Americans do not know

  all of this - they don't know how evil he is, although with a 19% approval rating, they probably are getting the idea even if they don't know these specifics.

  I refuse to give up hope.  With more and more Americans speaking up and speaking out, writing to the newspapers, calling talk shows, with our leaders growing a spine and calling the repubs on their BS, the message is sinking in: Not only is this administration and the Republican party completely incompetent, but they are corrupt and not to be trusted.  They do NOT have the best interests of most Americans in mind.

  It is up to us - we, the informed, and our leaders in the Senate and the House.  We cannot get weary, we cannot let up.  We must continue to fight the propaganda.  Can't wait until the new and improved Bush unveiled at the State of the Union!

  by adigal on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:55:55 AM PDT

  •  Your comment about the 19% approval

    for Cheney triggered a thought.  

    I have wondered what is going on with the 35-40% of the people who still approve Bush.  I think they must be blaming Cheney because Cheney's approval percentage is below the rock-bottom level of the nutty right-wing which I had suspected was 26-28%.  I am now wondering if is possible that many of those who continue to think (imagine/hope) Bush is doing a decent job in spite of the evidence of what a disaster everything he touches is, are blaming Cheney.  They can see/smell/feel the evil whenever Cheney is out of his cave so they blame him and refuse to look at the lies and deception that Bush spews whenever he is visible.

    by macmcd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:13:43 AM PDT

    •  It is possible

      Some conservatives I talk to say things like, "Bush is Everyman." They are really invested in him, they identify with him because he has failed before and then "made good."  We've all made mistakes, they say.

      I don't like to see Cheney as THE  evil dude here.  I think it's too easy to put all responsibility onto him.  The Commander-in-Chief is where the buck stops.  Period.  It's his mess, his responsibility, his crimes, his problems. And he should pay for them.  If Cheney is the de facto president, then Bush is a failed president, and deserves to be impeached. If he isn't he still deserves to be impeached, because he is incompetent.  

      by Margot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:15:22 AM PDT

      •  Failed and 'made good'?

        In what way has he made good?

        He has failed as president. He CONTINUES to be a failure in this job.

        Blinders will not change the facts. History will bear this out: this is the most corrupt administration in US history and Bush is the least qualified president ever to have served.

        by WCoastDH on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

        •  They see him that way

          They see him, and continue to see him, as having a few failed business ventures and a drinking problem when he was "young."  Then, he shaped up, became a governor and a president!  Whoo. Hoo.
          I see him as the worst of the worst presidents we have ever had, leading us into much danger and possibly irrepairable damage....
          And still people cheer him.  
          He has gotten by this far, I think, because somehow, a lot of Republicans identify with him as "one of us."  And now, that image is slowly shifting.  He's NOT one of us, he's the same old corrupt "one of them" only worse.  

          by Margot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:41:15 AM PDT

      •  I agree with you absolutely. I was not saying

        that I see Cheney as the only evil.  In fact, I see Bush as a sociopathic puppet who is willing to do anything that is ego syntonic.  My thesis is that those who still think Bush is doing a good job in spite of the evidence are shifting the evidence of the failure to Cheney as they perceive him to be the evil force causing the likable Bush to do bad things.

        by macmcd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

        •  I agree, I'm sorry

          I get it now, totally.  
          I hear a lot on news shows how Bush can "repair his image" by cleaning house, putting in a new crew.  
          Not going to work.  He's still there stinking up the place, being the failed presidential pretender, not leading, not appointing competent people, etc.
          It would be like spackling make-up on a corpse.  Fools from afar, but not for long.

          by Margot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:47:47 AM PDT

          •  But Bush cannot repair his image!

            I never thought about it before but the reason that Bush cannot repair his image is because "image" is all anybody ever had of Bush.  Since he has no substance there is nothing beneath the image and now the image is gone and there is nothing there to repair.

            All he ever was was an empty suit and now the suit is in shreds.  Hmmmm.....  For some reason this gives me comfort.  I think I have been worried that he could somehow win the wingnuts back and regain their support but, since he never stood for anything, he has no way to win anyone over.  I guess just the corporate CEOs and super wealthy are the only ones that he has not let down.  Of course the super wealthy with "vision" see through him since they know that no matter how much money they have, without an ecologically sustainable and sustained world, the money doesn't do any good.  Without a viable society with all levels participating, money cannot provide the good life.

            by macmcd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:08:55 PM PDT

            •  In further conversations

              With conservatives, I've found that now they're happy he's "pushing back" against all the recent criticism (today is nov.15).  It's like he's a football player who's finally able to move the ball and they're cheering.  It's so odd, so clueless.  He is the President, for heaven's sake.  He is supposed to be the leader of the United States. Our country is at stake here, not a damn game.
              Makes me ashamed for them.  

              by Margot on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:53:22 AM PDT

  •  Your comment about the 19% approval

    for Cheney triggered a thought.  

    I have wondered what is going on with the 35-40% of the people who still approve Bush.  I think they must be blaming Cheney because Cheney's approval percentage is below the rock-bottom level of the nutty right-wing which I had suspected was 26-28%.  I am now wondering if is possible that many of those who continue to think (imagine/hope) Bush is doing a decent job in spite of the evidence of what a disaster everything he touches is, are blaming Cheney.  They can see/smell/feel the evil whenever Cheney is out of his cave so they blame him and refuse to look at the lies and deception that Bush spews whenever he is visible.

    by macmcd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:21:01 AM PDT

  •  all of this?

    They know almost NONE of it. Again, if the Democrats need a slogan it should be:

    "It's the media, stupid."

    Without the media, Bush would be at 19% and Cheney would be at whatever fraction of 1% the number of psychopaths in any society constitute. And they would understand that Bush is just Cheney's sock puppet.

    by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:48:44 AM PDT

•  It is difficult to determine

  if Cheney is truly a sociopath or simply a primate driven by a defective instinctive mechanism which causes him to fight, no matter what stimuli he is presented with.

  by AndyT on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:06:54 AM PDT

  •  with the notable exception

    of vietnam.

    by bluestatesam on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:23:49 AM PDT

•  Beg to differ on war to get Saddam out of Kuwait

  I wonder how Carroll would back up his assertion that it was an unjustified and unnecessary war. Also, it is a huge stretch to essentially call the Gulf War a causal factor in the rise of Sunni political Islam.

  by Grok Your World on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:25:20 AM PDT

  •  I too am ambivalent about the need

    But Bush Sr. definitely sent mixed signals to Saddam, and it was none other than Joe Wilson who had to clean up the mess that April Gillespie made on behalf of Bush Sr. ("We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait...James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."). Some see a conspiracy in this; others, mere incompetence.

    However, Saddam was certainly dangerously ambitious in the eyes of the world's oilmen, and oil unfortunately will drive this economy until other nations create markets for alternative fuels, because the U.S. is never going to create that market and without a market U.S. entrepreneurs (always the saviors of our economy, just as the dinosaur established corporations are usually the biggest beneficiaries) will get nowhere.

    by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:45:32 AM PDT

  •  Diplomacy

    Edward Heath, the former prime minister of UK, made a compelling case for using diplomacy rather than war to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Heath argued that the Arabs know very well how to negotiate and honor agreements.  He gave many examples to the Senate committee where he was testifying (on C-Span), but the committee was unimpressed.

    by ybruti on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:14:31 AM PDT

    •  To quote Carroll:

      The unsentimental Cheney, eschewing human rights rhetoric, was explicit in defining America's Gulf War interest as all about oil....Cheney's initiatives, more than any other's, defined the insult to the Arab world that spawned Al Qaeda.

      by ybruti on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for pointing this out but ...

      I am not sure that Heath's argument stands up. I was unaware of not only Heath's involvement but also his existence! But if Heath was correct that the Arabs have a capacity for mediating internal disputes, then why were the Saudis (who had as big an interest in getting Hussein out of Kuwait as anyone) unsuccessful in just this kind of negotiation?

      by Grok Your World on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:47:00 AM PDT

      •  The US fabricated bogus satelite photos

        and intel that "showed" that Saddam was about to roll into Saudi Arabia, and scared the living shit out of the royals. This is how we got them to let us put troops on the ground and being building the Prince Sultan Air Base. This of course is one of the numerous causa belli of bin Ladin in response to this "affront".

        In short, we lied our asses off on what Saddam was capable of and threatingin to do, to get the Saudi's to let us put a long-term ground and air presence into Saudi Arabia.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:41:35 PM PDT

        •  Ugh..

          begin building

          not

          being building

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:42:27 PM PDT

•  Society Did It

  Cheney may have been the particular actor, but he and a thousand people like him could have been somehow removed from the picture and all these major trends would have been largely the same, and we'd be essentially where we are today, in any case.

  He was playing with the biggest interests in human history, and there's no way that the mere absence of Dick Cheney would have made the military complex look around after the breakup of the USSR and say "let's all go home boys."

  During Cheney's career, technology gave the economy the promise of ridding itself of dependence on the people, and that process is not going to stop. First mega-sizing, then outsourcing, and on to automation, always more efficient, leaking less and less wealth and opportunity out of the escalating flow to the top. It's about confiscation of all the important assets and opportunity, and freeing the economy from all obligations whether legal, social or political.

  This is the way our society works, and that's why people as profoundly stupid as so many Republican figures can be this consistently successful. All they're really doing is getting behind a falling meteor. Long term, we need a system of government designed for this world. Short term, we at least need to recognize what all is against us and fight it instead of the fantasy few stupid Republicans we've been tilting at.

  by Gooserock on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:30:47 AM PDT

•  Chavez was wrong.

  He called bush a piece of human waste. Maybe he didn't know enough about Cheney. Or maybe there's a stronger term to apply to Cheney.

  by fly on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:37:10 AM PDT

  •  it wasn't Chavez who said that

    it was the soccer idol, Diego Maradona

    by starkravinglunaticradical on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

•  What's great about this article

  Is that it reminds everyone not only that Cheney has been a strangelovian crackpot all along (so much for gravitas) but that far from wanting to end the Cold War, Reagan/Bush wanted to perpetuate it. If not for Nancy Reagan, who wanted a better legacy for her husband than Iran-Contra, and Margaret Thatcher, who sized up Gorabchev and concluded he was for real, it's very possible we would have responded to perestroika so negatively as to force Gorbachev into maintaining the Cold War.

  It wasn't that the Soviet Union was on its last legs or anything. Their economy grew - slowly - during the 80s, and in the decades before it grew at a rate the equal of any Western nation. They just went through so many leaders in so short a time that Gorbachev was able to slip into power. And given his faith in the Soviet system he saw no reason why it couldn't withstand liberalization.

  But the challenge to the US was what to do with our military spending, which at 45% of world expenditures is more than the next 10 nations combined. We have yet to find a satisfactory answer, IMO. All that supply wants to create demand. Which is Cheney's role.

  I don't think it's a coincidence that oil and the military seem so linked. (I don't think it's a conspiracy, either - just an evolved codependency.) The US could have gone down any number of alternate fuel routes in the past. Brazil went to ethanol in 1978. Brazil. 1978. We can create microprocessors 6 atoms wide. I think we could create fuel out of our huge corn surplus or other bio sources, or even synthetic fuels, with a fraction of what we spend on any number of pointless wars.

  by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:38:54 AM PDT

  •  Great comment! n/t

    by RickWn on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:33:39 AM PDT

    •  thanks!

      by brainiacamor on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:44:59 PM PDT

  •  US automobile industry, too

    Bigger, heavier vehicles, sold to American men as indicators not only of their prosperity but of their very Americaness: independence; rugged individualism.

    Is it an accident that the most sought after vehicle on American roads (Hummer) is also a military vehicle?

    by WCoastDH on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:53:59 AM PDT

•  Hallelujah!

  A journalist willing to state the truth, even if it accurately portrays Cheney as the corrupt, self-serving, arrogant, mean-spirited devil-spawn that he is.

  Where are the rest of them? Oh, I know, Haliburton's success is money in their pockets.

  by thingamabob on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:51:22 AM PDT

•  As a Congressman Cheney believed that

  Saddam Hussein was our friend and Nelson Mandella was a terrorist. That tells you everything you need to know about the man right there.

  by HootieMcBoob on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:53:09 AM PDT

•  Cheney the most corrupt political figure

  ...in US history. That should be the new meme.

  I still like "Cheney is the new Saddam", but perhaps it's too poetic for some.

  by thingamabob on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:55:59 AM PDT

  •  Dunno about that...

    Boss Tweed and some of the corrupt good-ole-boys down south were pound for pound far worse. But they were not in the national leadership.

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:43:49 PM PDT

    •  Modern US history? n/t

      by thingamabob on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:28:43 PM PDT

      •  Point taken

        Though you neglected the qualifier "modern" U.S. history before.

        ;-)

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:54:14 PM PDT

•  Sounds like the curtain coming down

  And those ain't applause, either.

  The other Cheney story today seems to capture the gist that Cheney is taking the fall for the Administration in order to try to keep Bush afloat.

  by november3rd on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:58:31 AM PDT

•  asdf

  Just before the election last year, Rolling Stone posted an article on Dick Cheney, basically making the case that he's been a walking disaster his entire career.  Read it here:

  http://www.rollingstone.com/...

  by cls180 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:32:18 AM PDT

  •  I'd never seen that article ... WOW!

    That is one helluva hatchet job (and I mean that in the best possible way).  This should be required reading for Cheyneyphobes.

    Belated attaboys for Rolling Stone!

    When President George H.W. Bush named [Cheney] to head the Defense Department, the Senate unanimousl