Cheney really is in control.

Good to see you again Princess. It's all starting to come into focus.

Dubya-Cheney ties
frayed by scandal

BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF


Vice President Cheney may be losing influence over President Bush as controversies surrounding the Iraq war strain their relationship.

WASHINGTON - The CIA leak scandal has peeled back the veil on the most closely held White House secret of all: the subtle but unmistakable erosion in the bond between President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Multiple sources close to Bush told the Daily News that while the vice president remains his boss' valued political partner and counselor, his clout has lessened - primarily as a result of issues arising from the Iraq war.

"The relationship is not what it was," a presidential counselor said. "There has been some distance for some time."

A senior administration official termed any such suggestion "categorically false."

Several sources said the distance is certain to accelerate with the Oct. 28 indictment of Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff and geopolitical soul mate.

"Cheney is wounded by this," a longtime Bush associate said.

Outwardly, there is little to suggest anything is amiss. Cheney, wife Lynne and their two daughters were guests, for example, at last week's A-list Bush dinner for the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall.

Earlier this year, Bush praised Cheney at a GOP campaign dinner as a "steady adviser, the solid rock - and what a decent man he is. I'm proud to be serving with him for four more years."

"The public side of the relationship hasn't changed," a close presidential loyalist said. "The private side of the relationship is not to the degree it used to be. Cheney has been his gray-haired senior adviser. That's the void that needs to be filled."

Other sources familiar with Bush's thinking say Cheney's zealous advocacy for what has become a troubled Iraq policy has taken a toll - especially since Cheney's predictions about how Iraq would play out have proven optimistic.

These sources also said Libby's indictment was a wakeup call for White House aides who have long believed the Cheney national security operation has enjoyed too much of a free hand in administration policymaking.

"The vice president's office will never be quite as independent from the White House as it has been," said a key Bush associate. "That will end.

"Cheney never operated without a degree of [presidential] license, but there are people around who cannot believe some of the advice [Bush] has been given."

The source declined to offer any specifics, citing the extraordinary sensitivity surrounding the Bush-Cheney relationship.

The News reported on Oct. 24 that Bush has told associates Cheney was overly immersed in intelligence issues in the runup to the 2003 Iraq war.

A highly placed source said the President believes Cheney "got too deeply concerned with being portrayed as the source of the Wilson trip."

"It's not clear if Cheney was trying to protect Bush or trying to protect Cheney," the source added.

After Cheney expressed interest in reports Saddam Hussein tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Africa, the CIA sent ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to check out the claims. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was later exposed as a CIA operative after Wilson criticized the Bush administration's rationale for going to war with Iraq.

Blueflalme, who "said" all this? Who can take such an article seriously when not one quote is attributed to anybody except:

Muliple sources said
Sr. administrater said
a presidential counselor said
Sr. administration official said
long time Bush associate said
close presidential loyalist said
other sources said
these sources said..
key Bush associate said
A highly placed source said..

What is coming into focus. Anyhow, the last paragraph is confusing. Wilson outed his own wife.

So you are saying that we should never believe anything reported and attributed to unnamed sources?

Then I guess we can't believe this either:



If it were not for anonymous sources speaking off the record, the people would know virtually nothing about what is going on in Washington.

All of this "blah-blah" is being done mainly to convince the American voter to choose Democratic candidates in November 2006.

Articles like the above can be classified as "highly political".

Those who wish to find out just how much good such mud-slinging would do are invited to visit the web site for Fair Vote which points out that, in the next election( Nov. 2006) because of the frantic gerrymandering done by both political parties after the 2000 census to help their colleagues keep their seats, less than 30 seats will be at all competitive.

This election will take place in A YEAR. That is a lifetime in political terms.

Left wing articles are boring and predictable. The only information worth while will be the results after the election next November.

Can any of these threads begin with the considered opinion of a poster, rather than the cut and paste of someone paid to belch forth his or her opinion?

Allow these essays to inform and instruct your posting, but. please let us hear from you. Provide us with links to commentary which resonates, but don't over stuff the turkey ---so to speak.

Please, please, please, but I fully expect A2Kers to ignore my entreaty.

I welcome pontification on these pages, but too often I find myself confronted with a cut and paste from someone else who has taken the time to consider the issues, but who has been presented by a null brain.

Finn- You won't hear from most because they are incapable of defending the illogical. The Democrats have NO agenda but negativism. It is most difficult to make a positive argument for that kind of presentation.


The Democrats find themselves in the curious position of hoping that the Coalition in Iraq runs into more trouble each day. Some of them on the fringe actually appear to be hoping that the casualty rates of the US soldiers increase so that the American Public will call for withdrawal.

The Democrats, to judge from their published articles, are fervently praying for DeLay, Rove and Libby to be convicted so that the Republicans can be portrayed as lacking any kind of integrity.

They will find, as recent reports show, that the Libby case is becoming so complex that no jury will convict beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Grand Jury has not been reconvened and every day that passes means it will be more unlikely that Rove will be indicted, and, finally, DeLay's lawyers will show that the trumped up case against the erstwhile House Majority Leader will disintegrate much as the fake case brought against Senator Hutchinson did.

You won't get a great deal of thought except negativism from the left wing, Finn. don't wast your breath.

This all rather comical since the usual tactics used are to say that nobody is in control anywhere in the Republican party and now we are being told it is Cheney who rules the nation...soon we will be told how Condoleeza Rice massages his toes while Donald plays the guitar and sings folk songs and Tom Ridge is actually a male stripper.

Uh...pardon? Could you find even a single instance of this claim? Anywhere but in your sentence, I mean.

You are in Canada, please remember that. Just as I do not interfere or make comments about the political structure of your nation, it would be good for you to the same for me and my country. As to my comments within my earlier post, you know that I am right.

Well, I'm not in Canada and I've never heard the claim that nobody is in control in the Republican party. I think the complaint is quite the opposite.

Read around Freeduck...check through the threads of this forum in particular and you will see the claims again and again that nobody is in charge in Washington.

I haven't seen that, nor have I seen anyone say that no-one is in control in the Republican party (your earlier assertion). I read around quite a bit in this forum, so you'll have to provide a link because if it's out there, I've obviously missed it. It's more likely that we are saying that the ones who are in control are incompetent, not that they are not in control.

Sturgis- You are correct that the negativistic Democrats who offer nothing but complaints without suggested viable solutions have pointed out the lack of control of the Republicans

Indeed the Democratic Senatorial Committee

said:

www.dscc.org/news/multimedia/20050705_out/

quote

"Senate Republicans are out of control. If you are sick and tired of out of control Republicans abusing their power to change the rules every time they dont get their way..."

smellycat doesn't read any better over here than across the road

And just what is that under your avatar's arm, ElBeth? deodorant in a futile attempt to mask your stink?

Actually, I'm not in Canada. I'm now living the good life on the upper east side of Manhattan. A pretty American lady fell in love with me when she read somewhere that I had peed on the Alamo.

Please feel free to comment at any time on the history, mythologies, political machinations, snowfall statistics, societal trends etc of Canada.