Maybe Dick Cheney will publish another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and blame this on Bill Clinton too.
The dollar took another fall on currency markets Thursday, reaching one-to-one parity against the Canadian dollar for the first time in 30 years and plumbing a new low against the 13-nation European currency.
The dramatic half-point cut in U.S. interest rates announced this week, while aimed at shoring up U.S. credit markets, also had the effect of further weakening the dollar versus other currencies by reducing the cash yield on dollars. A lower dollar can make travel more costly for U.S. residents and can also pose the risk of making imported goods more expensive over time.
If you’ll remember, a few days ago I wrote about how the Bush–Cheney administration blamed the Clinton administration for anything remotely negative (e.g. recession in 2001), well Dick Cheney is doing it again. Darth Vader has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal challenging the scathing comments Alan Greenspan made about Bush and Cheney in his new book. Read the article (pdf).
When it comes to the Bush-Cheney administration, you never know what to believe, but one thing always remains constant - they can never be trusted. Unfortunately, they’re like children. When they say they’ve brushed their teeth, you have to check their toothbrush. A wet toothbrush doesn’t prove they did, but a dry one is proof they did not.
In that same vein, the administration’s escalating rhetoric of war with Iran is like a wet toothbrush. Pretty stupid analogy I know, but look what we have to work with. And, in some cases the media is the same. FOX News Noise comes to mind rather quickly for some reason.
Earlier, I posted the Telegraph’s blockbuster piece about the Bush-Cheney plans to attack Iran as has about everybody, however Josh Marshall says tread lightly.
The problem of course is that — how delicately to say this — the British press isn’t that reliable. Yes, yes, yea, yea, I know I’ll catch hell for saying that. And I’m an avid reader of British papers. But as I learned while doing full-time reporting on intelligence and national security topics the British press — even, perhaps especially prestige outlets like the Telegraph, the Times, and the FT — turn out to be far more porous than the American papers to agitprop of this kind, sundry false-flag bamboozlement and even cases where particular reporters (if not the papers themselves) were not above planting false stories at the behest of various European intelligence agencies.
It’s a guessing game; therefore, we can only watch the War Mongers carefully and hope they in fact have more intelligence than what has been presented publicly for six and one-half years.
If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.
To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.
I mentioned last week that Tony Snow, in his last press briefing, put a new twist on the Bush-Cheney Iraq strategy, which sounded ominous at the time. Snow said, the strategy had “developmental components including: (1) provincial reconstruction teams; (2) seeks greater cooperation and interaction with regional powers and regional allies; and, (3) is a strategy that has expectations in terms of what the neighbors ought to do including Iran and Syria.”
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”.
He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.”
(click image to enlarge)
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: “When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
“Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with.”
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the “open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war”.
Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.”
You decide.
Late Update: The Telegraph’s piece has been propagated everywhere today, however some say exercise more caution with this piece than the norm. See this post for an update.
Excerpts from a speech Dick Cheney gave Friday. He’s still drinking from the same kool-aid.
As the prime target of the terrorists, America has also enforced a doctrine that is essential to our own safety, and to eventual victory in this struggle. It is simple to state and understood by all: Governments that support or harbor terrorists are complicit in the murder of the innocent, and they must be held to account. That’s a significant commitment to make. Some may question whether we mean it — but the doubters do not include the members of the Taliban.
Those of us in positions of responsibility cannot and will not ignore the plain and foreseeable effects of abandoning our mission. America has accepted a duty that is hard, and honorable, and worth completing. General Petraeus and his troops, all of you here at CENTCOM, are doing the right thing, in the right way, and at the right time. Your success will make our nation more secure. Let us make certain that we all stand behind them in victory.
We have shown a watching world that we are a good and just nation: secure in our ideals, fearless in their defense, and willing to sacrifice greatly for the cause of long-term peace. We will press on in our mission, and turn events toward victory.
As noted here at TPC last night, General David Petraeus reported he wants to defer any decisions on major troop withdrawals for six months; may begin a limited withdrawal of 4,000 troops in mid-December; and, might have troop levels in Iraq down to 15 brigades by mid-July.
With respect to congressional hearings today, Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s testimony will likely be more significant than Petraeus’s highly anticipated report. Crocker will be weighing in on most of the political issues, which, in essence, are the keys to the kingdom.
Senior Iraqi officials released statements yesterday that seem oddly coincidental. “Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers…that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country,” the Washington Post reports. “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough.”
Additionally, according to the Post, “Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari…called on Iraq’s neighbors to stop interfering in Iraqi affairs and warned that ongoing violence threatens to spread across the region.”
“What will happen in Iraq will decide the future of this region, therefore everybody has a genuine interest in cooperating with the Iraqi government at this stage,” Zebari said. “The failure of Iraq is the failure of the region.”
And if you weren’t quite sure of the Bush administration’s intentions, this little nugget might help. The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports “the Pentagon is preparing to build its first base for U.S. forces near the Iraqi-Iranian border, in a major new effort to curb the flow of advanced Iranian weaponry to Shiite militants across Iraq.”
The White House appears to be focusing on former Solicitor General Ted Olson as the next attorney general, Senate Democrats are expected to delay President Bush’s nominee in the hopes of forcing the administration to produce thousands of pages of documents on a variety of issues, including the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. (Emphasis added.)
Sources in both parties said that even if Bush nominates an otherwise noncontroversial attorney general, they don’t expect a speedy confirmation. While Alberto Gonzales may no longer serve as the No. 1 target for Justice Department failures, the agency’s problems remain.
The Democrats may want to thoroughly check Olsen’s prior work. My recollection is that Olson wrote an opinion creating the Unitary Executive theory while serving as head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration. Vice President Dick Cheney based his recent claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch on Olson’s opinion. Just remember, that’s my recollection and I may have my facts mixed up, but if I am correct, that is a significant issue the Senate will need to address.
OSAMA BIN LADEN
This is a bit surprising considering the source. Frances Townsend, the White House’s chief homeland security adviser, said Osama bin Laden “is a ‘man on the run’ who has demonstrated in his latest videotape release that he is ‘virtually impotent’ and capable of nothing more than threats,” FOX News reports.
This morning MSNBC via the AP is reporting a “new Osama tape will present ‘Last Testament’ of 9/11 hijacker.” (no link available at this time)
Late Update: MSNBC is reporting the tape will be released in the next 24 to 72 hours.
SCANDALS
“Sen. Larry Craig will file court documents Monday asking to withdraw his guilty plea in a sex sting that seems likely to end his career, his attorney said,” the AP reports. However, according to “Attorney William Martin…such requests are rarely granted.”
In my last post, I discussed the relevance of General David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress tomorrow with respect to the military strategy in Iraq (viz. surge) and the inability to determine, absent substantial doubt, what the Bush-Cheney administration’s real objectives are. While no surprises are expected, it would be hard to overstate the significance of Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow; in spite of the fact the White House never intended his “report” to be a major milestone as the Washington Post revealed today. It would also be hard to overstate the necessity to try and discern what role and in what act General Petraeus’ pivotal testimony is in the Bush-Cheney three-act play. We don’t know what Bush and Cheney’s intentions are, but given their past performances, we can try to mitigate being duped again.
As I said in my prior post, there is an unprecedented level of secrecy in the Bush-Cheney administration and no one can credibly deny the fact that Dick Cheney is the driving force of the Bush presidency – not George Bush. In fact, today’s WaPo article about the internal disagreements in the Bush-Cheney administration further substantiate the claim.
Meanwhile, the Maliki government pressed the Americans to sit down with Iranian officials in hopes of stopping Tehran from funding and arming Shiite militias. Bush had rejected proposals by the Iraq Study Group and others to talk with Iran, but Rice decided it was time.
When Rice told Crocker to get ready for talks with Iran, he asked her the “blindingly obvious” question of whether Vice President Cheney would allow it, a U.S. official said. Rice, according to the official, told Crocker that it “wasn’t your lane,” adding, “I’ll work it back here. That’s not your problem.” (Emphasis added.)
Cheney’s control of the power levers, Draconian secrecy policies and related agenda make it abundantly clear nothing can be accepted at face value. George Bush did not bring the profound requirement for secrecy to the White House. Dick Cheney did. Cheney began his political career as an aide to Donald Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration, which crumbled under Nixon’s imperialistic rule and Watergate. In summary, Cheney, like Nixon, viewed the congressional investigations as an unconstitutional assault on the Executive Branch, which molded Cheney’s perspective on secrecy that deepened as Cheney’s political career progressed.
More often than I prefer, I find myself forgetting sordid details of the past, which can and does have a direct influence on my perspective at times. To help put things in perspective, I want to highlight some of the Bush-Cheney administration’s policies. I admit, it’s instructive and some will be quick debate to the merits of the administration’s secrecy policies. I can present the facts, but you’ll have to decide.
Given the magnitude of the Iraq War deceptions and the recent occurrence of the Justice Department scandals, I don’t think it is necessary to reiterate those indiscretions. The majority of the items noted comes directly from Charlie Savage’s book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of Democracy, and are more his words than mine — some direct quotes and some of my summarizations.
The Cheney Energy Task Force
The Bush administration’s first major secret endeavor was Dick Cheney’s energy policy task force.
For more than three months, Cheney’s energy task force met secretly with large numbers of oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and electric company lobbyists including the late Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron. On April 19, 2001, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (D-MI) demanded the task force’s records based on the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, an open-government law. The law says that when non-government officials help craft public policy, the government must pick a balanced representation of viewpoints and have open meetings so that interested members of the public and press can attend. Cheney simply ignored Waxman’s and Dingell’s request.
Vice President Cheney’s current chief of staff and then aide, David Addington later acknowledged meeting with “many individuals who are not federal employees to gather information relevant to the group’s work.” But these meetings with industry officials did not count, according to Addington, because the energy lobbyists weren’t official members of the task force. Furthermore, Addington initiated the first constitutional showdown between the White House and Congress by invoking “due regard for the constitutional separation of powers.”
On February 22, 2002 David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, (head of GAO) filed the lawsuit, Walker v. Cheney seeking to force Cheney to disclose the identities of the energy task force participants. After many six years and many lawsuits won and lost on both sides, Cheney has yet to reveal anything about the task force.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI began arresting hundreds of Arab and Muslim men around the country. “None of the more than twelve hundred cab drivers, students, restaurant workers, and shop clerks who were detained had any connection to the attacks…Many of those arrested were in the country on immigration visas whose time limits had expired….As the government began holding deportation hearings to expel the detainees from the country,” Michael Creppy in the Justice Department “issued a blanket directive closing all deportation hearings to the public, press, and family members.” Furthermore, Creppy “prohibited immigration court administrators from listing the detainees names or cases on public dockets….The Bush-Cheney administration did not argue that there was reason to believe that any particular detainee was a terrorist. Instead, it said national security demanded blanket secrecy because terrorist cells, reading about the deportation proceedings in the media, might piece together bits of pieces of information, harmless by themselves, that could provide useful insights into the government’s investigations.” The administration’s position was trust me, “the public had no right to know anything, no matter how innocuous, because any tidbit of trivial information could potentially be stitched together with other minor bits of information to conceivably provide some useful insight for terrorists.”
During the Clinton administration, with respect to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Attorney General Janet Reno had ordered FOIA officers operate “with a presumption of disclosure” unless it was “reasonably foreseeable that the disclosure would be harmful.” In the first term of the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft turned Reno’s order and the intent of the FOIA on its head. On October 12, 2001, Ashcroft instructed government agencies “to reject FOIA requests if it was at all possible to do so, under any legal reason for withholding documents – even if the information sought was harmless.”
In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act, which in summary, declared White House files to be public property and requiring the government to make most files including “confidential communications…between the president and his advisers,” available to the public twelve years after any administration leaves office. On November 12, 2001 George Bush issued an executive order declaring that all records would remain sealed if either the current president or the past president (or his relatives) wanted them withheld from the public as “privileged.” Furthermore, instead of giving past presidents a one-time opportunity to go back and withhold select documents, the order declared that all requests for documents would have to be routinely screened as they came in, which would allow any requests to be delayed indefinitely. President Bush declared his, President Clinton’s, and President George H. W. Bush’s records privileged.
Broadening the Bush administrations secrecy policy, and specifically to protect documents related to Cheney’s Energy Task Force, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card instructed government agencies to be watchful about records containing any “information that could be misused to harm the security of our Nation and the safety of our people,” intentionally not defining the terms and therefore to interpret them broadly. The administration intended to remove public access from information that was not sensitive enough to national security to be classified under existing rules and guidelines as “Confidential,” “Secret,” or “Top Secret.” The net result was a proliferation of documents being stamped “For Official Use Only,” “Sensitive but Unclassified,” “Not for Public Dissemination,” or one of approximately sixty other designations that keep unclassified documents from the public.
My recollection from testimony in Scooter Libby’s trial is Dick Cheney stamps everything that comes in his office, even something as innocuous as a birthday card.
Removal of Dangerous Chemical Plant Information
After a chemical plant in India had a catastrophic explosion in 1984, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, giving Americans the right to know if they lived downwind from dangerous chemicals. Having this information, the public could pressure chemical companies to maintain safe conditions or pursue other remedies. Invoking 9/11, the Bush administration removed this information from the EPA’s Web site resulting in substantially decreasing the public’s ability to challenge the chemical industry.
In July 2004, Forbes magazine discovered that old press releases, specifically created for public dissemination, had been declared secret. The Justice Department cited “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” in rejecting an FOIA request for press releases previously issued about terrorism-related indictments.
Nuclear Plant Safety Ratings
On August 4, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it would no longer let the public know whether nuclear plants had passed or failed security tests. The intent, according to the NRC, was to keep the information from terrorists; however, many argued the decision kept the public from pressuring energy companies for safer regulations. It gets worse. Early in 2005, the NRC established new rules that removed previously public, unclassified nuclear information so that only officials employed in the nuclear industry could discuss regulatory changes with the government. Even neoconservative Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), a Bush yes-man, opposed the increasing secrecy of the Bush administration. Cornyn introduced legislation to strengthen the FOIA, but it fell on deaf ears in the Republican-controlled Congress.
Alter and Censure Scientific Information and Discussion
Philip Cooney, a young political appointee, served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality in 2002 – 2003. Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist with no scientific or environmental background, had scientists from the EPA route draft reports to his office before they were released. Cooney literally altered the scientific findings to lessen their evidence linking fossil fuels to global warming.
In January 2006, Dr. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading climate scientist, revealed the Bush-Cheney administration ordered the agency’s public affairs staff review his papers, lectures, interview requests, and website postings after Hansen gave a lecture on the necessity to reduce greenhouse emissions because of the effect on global warming. An agency spokesperson denied any retribution against Hansen, instead the spokesperson said they muzzled all their scientists, declaring it was inappropriate for NASA’s scientists to make “policy statements.”
In March 2007, scientists from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service were scheduled to attend an international meeting on the Arctic, but their lips were sealed before attending the meeting. The Bush-Cheney administration said the scientists were not allowed to talk about climate change, polar bears and sea ice – even if asked. The administration’s policy was to have one person in the delegation, a political appointee, to speak officially for the administration simply out of diplomatic protocol.
Eliminated Layoff Statistic Reports
In December 2002, the administration announced the Bureau of Labor Statistics would no longer publish the monthly Mass Layoff Report, which detailed plant closings around the country. Why? The administration claimed it cost too much to produce the report.
Eliminated State Federal Aid Report
Governors can’t complain about other states receiving preferential federal funding if they don’t know about it, right? In March 2003, the administration eliminated the annual report detailing how much each state received from each federal program.
Muzzled Walter Reed Patients
After Dana Priest of the Washington Post exposed the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center earlier this year, the Pentagon ordered all patients not to speak with reporters.
The Surgeon Political General
On July 10, 2007, former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel that the Bush-Cheney administration “repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.” Carmona was not allowed to “speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.” The administration “delayed for years and tried to ‘water down’ a landmark report on secondhand smoke” that concluded “even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm” Moreover, Dr. Carmona was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.
These are just a few items, but should help jog your memory on how this administration operates, and why it is necessary to consider what the dynamics surrounding Petraeus’s testimony might be.
Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress are wringing their hands over what should be done in Iraq. The American people are equally, if not more anxious and concerned. On an average, only 23% of the people believe the country is headed in the right direction and the overwhelming factor contributing to the dissatisfaction is directly related to the war in Iraq. Moreover, even though we already know basically what General David Petraeus will tell Congress tomorrow, there is a sense of anxiety and “demand” centered on his pending testimony. So much emphasis has been placed on the Commander’s testimony it seems to have changed the overall focus to a limited, tactical, binary view and that should not be the case. Petraeus testimony tomorrow is ominously the same as Colin Powell’s pivotal speech at the U.N. just before the war.
Now, consider George Bush and Dick Cheney for a moment. They are the exceptions to the hand wringing. There is no ambiguity on their part, except what they intentionally make ambiguous. Moreover, their message and actions exhibit the precise, and all too successful, strategy they have used for more than six years in everything they do. It’s a Karl Rove derived strategy. Remain focused. Repeat the same message. Do not waiver. And what is the most troublesome of all – declare what they say and their “facts” as the only acceptable reality. Dismiss everything as lies, incredulous, and partisan.
We already know what the situation is in Iraq. The reports from the GAO and the independent commission provide the data that’s needed. Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow is just an exercise to meet Congressional requirements and unfortunately will be of little real value. If Petraeus wants to keep his job, he basically has no other choice but to present a position that is highly representative of the Bush-Cheney strategy. There will be a few nuggets in Petraeus’s testimony that may deviate from the White House norm, but the Bush-Cheney agenda will be the prevailing, thesis, albeit somewhat veiled. And that is indeed what should be most disconcerting. What levers and switches are Bush and Cheney really pulling behind that curtain?
It is too easy and naive to simply declare Bush wants to stay the course and leave it with that. Indeed he does, but what do we not know and what is his and Cheney’s real end game? It is not hard to argue that Petraeus not submitting a written report, supposedly, to anybody is extremely significant. To not generate a report on an issue as grave as Iraq defies logic to the point of being negligent, but if there are specific reasons for not generating a report, the dynamics are different. First, and foremost, Congress cannot subpoena what does not exist. Second, Bush and Cheney cannot be contradicted at a future date by Petraeus releasing a report that shows he did not agree with them. Moreover, Petraeus cannot tell or lead Congress to believe he did not produce a report, if he in fact did, and then produce it later for other compelling reasons. If the situation were today as presented several days ago — Petraeus submitting a report to Bush and then prohibiting him from giving it to Congress — it is really moot for several reasons, except for the potential of the report being revealed at a later date.
Isn’t it just a little too coincidental after Paul Bremer produced his letter about releasing the Iraq Army that we’re suddenly told Petraeus did not provide a report? Furthermore, consider the similarities between the White House refusing to allow Rove and Miers to even talk to a select group of Senators and Representatives if a transcript would be taken. It’s blatantly obvious why there will be no paper trail.
There is no doubt we should be focused on Iraq, but is that the problem or is it a subset of something bigger? The Bush-Cheney administration has an unprecedented level of secrecy and deception. From the first day Bush entered the White House, the administration began an all out war to give the President unlimited power and cloak everything possible in secrecy. We have absolutely no idea what their end game really is.
Charlie Savage provides an excellent account of the Imperial Bush Presidency in his book Takeover. I cannot overemphasize how well Savage illustrates that Dick Cheney is the driving force of the Bush presidency — not George Bush. Now, consider this passage from Savage’s book in conjunction with Petraeus not providing a written report to anybody.
Any investigator seeking to uncover what Cheney was up to would find few writings by the vice president. Four years into the Bush-Cheney presidency, Cheney would remark that because of Watergate, he refused to keep a diary or engage in correspondence, and barely wrote anything down — he didn’t even use email.
If Petraeus was told not to provide Bush-Cheney a written report and destroy anything he might have written, Petraeus would have no choice but to follow orders.
I think it is extremely important that Congress and the American people take a close look at General Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow and discern what it is and what it is not. And that cannot be done properly without considering the Bush-Cheney administration’s cloak of secrecy in everything it has done and the consequences thereof. Dick Cheney is an absolute mastermind at deception and manipulation. What he and Bush present on any given day can never be taken as a steadfast indicator of reality or remotely close to full disclosure.
Forgetting things that happened in the past is something we all do, and when we do, we can easily lose perspective. In that vein, I want to revisit Bush and Cheney’s past — take another look at the extent of the administration’s zeal for secrecy and the underlying objectives, but I will do so in a separate post because it can’t be done in just a few words. That notwithstanding, we still know how things stand in Iraq with the reports we already have; Petraeus’s testimony tomorrow should not viewed in a single dimension; and, Congress can move forward to the extent necessary, but somehow must dig deeper into what levers Bush and Cheney are pulling with Petraeus serving as their curtain.
Andy Card, former chief-of-staff to President Bush, once said, you don’t roll out new products in August. That has indeed been a hallmark of the administration; George Bush’s trip to Iraq yesterday is only a recent minor example. Countless others and I have said numerous times the Bush administration’s anti-Iran rhetoric is ominous at best and highly indicative of a prelude to war. And it goes without saying that Dick Cheney is the principle instigator of waging war against Iran.
August is behind us and apparently Dick Cheney has seriously escalated his drumbeat to attack Iran according to Spencer Ackerman at TPM.
Barnett Rubin is the last person to set off wild speculation about war with Iran: the longtime Afghanistan expert is wonky, moderate and thoroughly analytical. But that’s exactly what happened on Wednesday, when Rubin blogged that an anonymous, plugged-in friend told him that Dick Cheney’s office had issued “instructions” to conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute to start a drumbeat for attacking Iran. (Emphasis added.)
A military cargo plane carrying three senators and a House member was forced to take evasive maneuvers and dispatch flares to avoid ground fire after taking off from Baghdad on Thursday night.
The lawmakers said their plane, a C-130, was under fire from three rocket-propelled grenades over the course of several minutes as they left for Jordan.
“I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”
– Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC News “Meet the Press”, March 16, 2003.
The members of Congress on the plane were: Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Rep. Robert Cramer (D-AL).
Na, na, na, na, na, na…I’ve got something you want, but I’m not going to give it to you.
Yes indeed. History has been made. Vice President Dick Cheney actually admitted something — he has “dozens of documents related to the administration’s warrantless surveillance program,” but intends to “resist efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain them.”
So, Fred Fielding, White House Counsel, tells Congress it is the White House’s goal to avoid a conflict with Congress, but Darth Vader tells Congress to shove it. Hmm…I wonder who’s telling the truth?
Dick Cheney, whose only Constitutional role is to preside over the Senate and check daily to see if the president is still alive, has vital documents pertaining to the national security of the country and deems Congress is not entitled to them.
San Francisco radio talk show host Melanie Morgan joined CQ's Craig Crawford and Naomi Wolf of American Freedom Campaign on Hardball Friday to discuss the video of Dick Cheney from 1994 contradicting himself on whether the U.S. should invade Iraq or not. True to form, the Queen of Vitriol demonstrated she has no self-respect, scruples or sense of decorum and will say anything to defend the Bush administration. Her display was a perfect example of the current right-wing ideology and debate that is a serious detriment to our national discourse.
To put it mildly, Morgan came unglued at the onset; lashing out at Chris Matthews telling him he had a gleam in his eye and only sought to attack Dick Cheney. Not satisfied with eviscerating Matthews she turned to Naomi Wolf and told her how good she was going to look wearing a burka.
When Matthews asked her to explain why Cheney could be so prescient in 1994 and so wrong in 2002, Morgan invoked the administration's 9/11 talking point as if she was reading it from the Book of Common Prayer. In fact, she raised holy hell positing that the issue should not even be discussed.
The Queen of Vitriol's imbecilic rhetoric exemplifies the right-wing/Rush Limbaugh/Fox News/you're a terrorist approach that is poisoning our national discussion — whatever is left of it.
Is our country so weak and are we so simple-minded to remotely entertain the notion that radical Muslims are going to takeover the country and mandate that women must don burkas?
Indeed, Morgan has every right to express her opinions in the manner she sees fit, but it's downright disgraceful that her public following is sufficient enough to merit a national microphone.
How will Darth Vader Cheney explain this prize video catch from Grand Theft Country?
In a 1994 interview with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), after the first Gulf war, Desert Storm, Cheney said invading Iraq would have led to a quagmire and killing Saddam Hussein was not worth killing more than the 146 soldiers that died in Desert Storm.
I’m sure the unitary executive had nothing to do with this blatant attempt to implement damage control. As of this post, the video has been viewed 266,185 times since it was posted on August 10. According to Grand Theft Country, ”As of 6:17 EDT on Sunday, Aug 12th, YouTube removed this video from the Today lists [ie. most viewed, most discussed, top rated, top favorites].”
CNN reported this evening they contacted Darth Vader’s office about the video but received no comment. Imagine that.
Transcript:
AEI: Do you think the U.S. or U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad?
CHENEY: No.
AEI: Why not?
CHENEY: Because if we would have gone into Baghdad, we would’ve been all alone, there would not have been anybody else with us, there would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq, none of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place?
That’s a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it, the Syrians would like to have the west. Part of eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim - fought ‘em for over eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey then you’ve threatened the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire. If you go that far [cross talk].
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many and I think we got it right.
Last night on CNN, Vice President Dick Cheney said he supported Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman’s response to Hillary Clinton’s May request for more information on Iraq war contingency planning. Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, blasted Cheney for his comments and escalated the issue to President Bush.
In his letter to Senator Clinton, Edelman strongly suggested Clinton was aiding the reinforcement of “enemy propaganda.” Last night, Dick Cheney accused her of “demanding the plans for withdrawal from Iraq.” (See video below.) Cheney’s remarks, which have only helped Clinton, pushed Clinton to escalate the issue to President Bush, asking him to “set the record straight about the Administration’s position regarding the role of Congress in oversight of the war.”
The text of Senator Clinton’s letter follows the video.
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
Vice President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Vice President:
There are few matters I take more seriously as a Senator and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee than the safety and security of our troops. After four years of mismanagement and mistakes by the Bush Administration in Iraq, I believe it is not only important, but imperative that Congress actively oversee the administration’s Iraq policy. That is why I feel it is necessary to respond to several comments and inaccuracies you put forward in your most recent interview with CNN.
In May, I sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates making a simple, serious request: provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress, including the Senate Armed Services Committee, with briefings on current contingency plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq – or explain why no such planning is taking place.
I received a response from Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman, who avoided my question. Instead, his letter impugned my patriotism and suggested that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies.
I then reiterated my request to Secretary Gates in a second letter, urging him to reject this kind of political attack and to answer my initial request regarding planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In a conciliatory response, Secretary Gates expressed regret that “this important discussion went astray†and reaffirmed his commitment to Congress’s constitutional oversight role.
In my initial request, I noted my concern that various members of the administration had stated that contingency planning was not taking place and I requested a briefing on the matter. Your contention that I asked to reveal operational plans is a misrepresentation. In fact, as a result of my inquiry, the Pentagon will be briefing the Senate Armed Services Committee tomorrow on this topic, without fear that operational security will be imperiled. I have never requested operational plans. My request – which has been honored – is to be briefed on redeployment planning to protect the safety of our troops in what will be a dangerous and complicated series of events.
Your comments, agreeing with Under Secretary Edelman, not Secretary Gates, have left me wondering about the true position of the Administration. Therefore, I am writing to President Bush asking that he set the record straight about the Administration’s position regarding the role of Congress in oversight of the war.
Larry King asked Vice President Dick Cheney if he sent Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card on the late night dash to John Ashcroft’s hospital room. Surprise! He doesn’t recall.
Na, na, na, na, na, na…I’ve got something you want, but I’m not going to give it to you.
