2
   

Cheney really is in control.

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 11:16 am
http://www.slate.com/id/2129686/
Quote:
President Cheney
His office really does run national security.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Monday, Nov. 7, 2005, at 5:06 PM ET

It has become a cliché to say that Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in American history. Nonetheless, here is a prediction: When the historians really get digging into the paper entrails of the Bush administration?-or possibly when Scooter Libby goes on trial?-those who have intoned that phrase will still be astonished at the extent to which the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney was the center of power inside the White House?-and at the grip it had on foreign and defense policy.

With a national security staff that numbered 14 last year (Al Gore usually had four or five), Cheney's office has a finger in every pie. Several of the State Department's top diplomats, including Eric Edelman, now undersecretary of defense for policy, and Victoria Nuland, now ambassador to NATO, are alums of Cheney's office. According to David L. Phillips' Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco, the dominant figure in some of the key interagency deliberations on postwar Iraq was not the State Department official who chaired them but Samantha Ravich, a Cheney aide who left the government and has since returned to OVP*. In addition, Cheney has remarkable influence over his onetime boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Writing in Slate, Tim Naftali was surprised by the news in the New York Times that Cheney's office was calling the tune on how the United States treats terrorist detainees. At least as interesting was the mention in the same story that the Office of the Vice President (or OVP) had hammered out the compromise in last year's intelligence reform bill that "made clear that the new national intelligence director could not interfere in the military chain of command." Eighty percent of the nation's intelligence budget is spent within the Pentagon. So, that compromise leaves a large question mark over whether John Negroponte or his successors will have anything like the power the 9/11 commission had anticipated when it proposed sweeping intelligence reform.

Cheney's connection with intelligence and, particularly, Pentagon intelligence is not exactly new. The transmission lines for many of the bogus claims in 2002 and 2003 about the purported ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida ran from the civilian Office of the Secretary of Defense through Cheney's office. Although the Libby indictment might lead some to believe that OVP was running an apolitical enforcement operation, it was doing much more than that. Cheney's team was producing the basic justification for going to war.

News accounts have placed the origin of much of the bad intelligence in the Office of Special Plans, which was run by Abram Shulsky, a graduate-school pal of former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In fact, the bad intel came largely out of something called the Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, which reported to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. This group consisted of just two people: Michael Maloof, a controversial former aide to Richard Perle whose security clearances were eventually suspended, and David Wurmser, a longtime neoconservative advocate of toppling Saddam Hussein. (Since late 2003, Wurmser has worked in OVP.)

The information CTEG put together was treated differently than other intelligence. Unlike other reports, CTEG's conclusions about Iraq's training of jihadists in the use of explosives and weapons of mass destruction were never distributed to the many different agencies in the intelligence community. Although CTEG analysts met once with Director George Tenet and other CIA officials, they changed no minds at the agency on the issue of Saddam and al-Qaida, and their work was never "coordinated" or cleared by the various agencies that weigh in on intelligence publications. Top officers in military intelligence who saw the report refused to concur with it.

Nonetheless, CTEG's findings were the basis for briefings in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Some of CTEG's material was leaked to the Weekly Standard, where it was published. In that form, the Feith "annex" achieved some renown as a classic in the genre of cherry-picked intelligence.

Dick Cheney was CTEG's patron. He had the group present its material at OVP and the National Security Council. He made frequent public remarks, drawing on CTEG conclusions, alleging an al-Qaida/Saddam connection. (Even after the 9/11 commission delivered its verdict that there was no collaborative relationship between the two sides, Cheney announced that the evidence of the Bin Laden-Baghdad ties was "overwhelming.") John Hannah, a Cheney aide who became the vice president's national security adviser after Libby's resignation, recycled some of the material into a draft of the speech Secretary of State Colin Powell was to give at the United Nations in February 2003?-a draft that Powell threw out, calling it "bullshit."

The wide airing of CTEG material clearly irked George Tenet, who declared at one point when pressed by congressmen in 2003 that he would "talk to" Cheney about some of the claims he was making. Whatever passed between them, Cheney was not deterred. In January 2004, he told a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News that the Standard article was the "best source of information" on Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. In June 2004, Cheney was still claiming that 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta met an Iraqi agent in Prague.

Much is still to be learned about how intelligence was used and abused in CTEG and OVP. But one story gives a hint of what the historians may find: When I interviewed him several months ago, Powell's former chief of staff Larry Wilkerson recounted the story of a meeting in the White House situation room during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq when policymakers met with top intelligence officials from a number of agencies. After the intelligence officials made their presentations, Douglas Feith "leapt to his feet, pointed to a certain National Intelligence Officer and declared 'You people don't know what you're talking about.' "

Feith had worked for Cheney?-together with Scooter Libby?-when he was secretary of defense in the administration of George H.W. Bush and, according to former administration sources, was even closer to Rumsfeld than Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was. After that outburst, Feith held up a piece of paper and read aloud an account of al-Qaida's ties with Iraq in the early 1990s. Then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, a man well-known and well-liked in Washington for his gentlemanly manners, looked on, aghast at the scene. Wilkerson told me that after the end of the meeting, he got a copy of the paper and determined it was a newspaper clipping that had been retyped in the vice president's office to be presented as "intelligence."

Browbeating intelligence officials, disregard for the National Security Council's traditional leadership of the interagency process?-this kind of behavior, plenty of Bush administration officials privately attest, was typical as the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis that took the country to war. "Who knows," Larry Wilkerson wondered to me, "how many other people they intimidated."

Correction, Nov. 8, 2005: The original version of this article failed to mention that Samantha Ravich had returned to work in OVP. Return to the corrected sentence.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,809 • Replies: 47
No top replies

 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 11:19 am
Good to see you again Princess. It's all starting to come into focus.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 12:18 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
sunlover
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 02:13 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2005 09:07 am
So you are saying that we should never believe anything reported and attributed to unnamed sources?
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2005 10:49 am
FreeDuck wrote:
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:

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


If it were not for anonymous sources speaking off the record, the people would know virtually nothing about what is going on in Washington.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2005 03:38 pm
sunlover wrote:
Wilson outed his own wife.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2005 01:28 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 01:51 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:03 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:13 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:48 pm
Quote:
since the usual tactics used are to say that nobody is in control anywhere in the Republican party


Uh...pardon? Could you find even a single instance of this claim? Anywhere but in your sentence, I mean.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:54 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 01:55 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 02:01 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 02:05 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 09:32 pm
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..."
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 09:33 pm
smellycat doesn't read any better over here than across the road
Confused
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 11:30 pm
And just what is that under your avatar's arm, ElBeth? deodorant in a futile attempt to mask your stink?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Nov, 2005 04:42 am
Sturgis wrote:
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cheney really is in control.
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/28/2026 at 07:40:23