Reply
Mon 1 May, 2006 08:36 am
Vice Squad
By Robert DreyfussRobert, Prospect senior correspondent.
Issue Date: 05.04.06
They terrorize other government officials, and they're so secretive that their names aren't even revealed to a harmless federal employee directory. And they've helped ruin the country. Meet Dick Cheney's staff.
Bad heart, errant shotgun, and Halliburton stock options in tow, Dick Cheney has ruled the White House roost for the past five years, amassing enough power to give rise to the joke that George W. Bush is "a heartbeat away from the presidency."
Yet, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of words have been written on Cheney's role in the Bush administration, most of what's been written fails to explain how the vice president wields his extraordinary authority. Notoriously opaque, the Office of the Vice President (OVP) is very difficult for journalists to penetrate. But a Prospect investigation shows that the key to Cheney's influence lies with the corps of hard-line acolytes he assembled in 2001. They serve not only as his eyes and ears, monitoring a federal bureaucracy that resists many of Cheney's pet initiatives, but sometimes serve as his fists, too, when the man from Wyoming feels that the passive-aggressive bureaucrats need bullying. Like disciplined Bolsheviks slicing through a fractious opposition, Cheney's team operates with a single-minded, ideological focus on the exercise of American military power, a belief in the untrammeled power of the presidency, and a fierce penchant for secrecy.
Since 2001, reporters and columnists have tended to refer to Cheney's office obliquely, if at all. Rather than explicitly discuss the neoconservative cabal that has assumed control of important parts of U.S. policy since September 11, they couple references to "the civilians at the Pentagon" with "officials in the vice president's office" when referring to administration hard-liners. But rarely do the mainstream media provide much detail to explain who those people are, what they've done, and how they operate.
At the high-water mark of neoconservative power, when coalition forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, the vice president's office was the command center for a web of like-minded officials in the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and other agencies, often described by former officials as "Dick Cheney's spies." Now, thanks to a misguided war and a bungled occupation, along with a string of foreign-policy failures that have alienated U.S. allies and triggered a wave of anti-American feeling around the globe, the numbers and influence of those Cheneyites outside the office have receded. No longer quite so commanding, the office seems more like a bunker for neoconservatives and their fellow travelers in the administration. Yet if only because of Dick Cheney's Rasputin-like hold over the president, his office remains a formidable power indeed.
As always, after going through one of your long endless tomes (well, more precisely the copying out for all of us the tome of someone else) I need to ask what your take is on the matter. Give me a brief summary of what you think of the article in your own words and I will respond to that. There is little to no use in me responding to the words of Robert Dreyfuss, since he is most likely not going to show up here to defend his stance.
(and for the record BBB; when you go to The American Prospect website for the online edition they state the release date of the item for the May issue as follows 'Web Exclusive 4.17.06' so it's been public info for a while now.)
There is a lot of information that is public but that don't mean a lot of people actually read it unless it is circulated in various places such as this site and others.
I admit that this particular article is long and would take some time to read but the upshot of it is that Cheney is/has always been in control of the administration and despite his extremely low approval ratings the chances of his getting the boot is about as low as his approval ratings. (my view about his getting the boot) In amongst the long article is all kinds of information on how Cheney abuses his power as VP while the public basically sleeps uncaring. The more I read about him, the more I think he is insane.
Revel
Revel, I agree with you, which is why I posted the entire long article. It is the most revealing that I've read about Cheney.
Chilling, isn't it?
BBB
Yes it is chilling. I know you get a lot of comments about posting long articles, but personally, I have learned quite a bit from the things you bring to this site.
Speaking of short attention spans and the weird kind of pride a lot of us Americans take in appearing like uneducated buffoons, here is a (unrelated to this thread) little poll I ran across on yahoo a while ago.
Poll Shows Many Can't Find La. on Map
And then we wonder how it was that Cheney and company was able to talk this country into supporting a war with a nation which wasn't a threat to us.
Revel
Revel, I'm glad someone does.
BBB
BBB and Revel...
Less at issue with me is the matter of the posting of the article even with its length. My request, as has been the case in the past when BBB or any other person makes a posting of an article, was for BBB to make an initial response to the article. I wanted to know what BBB actually thought...agree with it or disagree with it. But hey, you two get back to your little back slapping love fest. Why bother saying what you really feel when you post an article. I could post an article in this manner, then wait for responses and then join the conversation; however, it would be much more productive, decent and helpful to make an opening statement.
Sturgis
Sturgis wrote:BBB and Revel...
Less at issue with me is the matter of the posting of the article even with its length. My request, as has been the case in the past when BBB or any other person makes a posting of an article, was for BBB to make an initial response to the article. I wanted to know what BBB actually thought...agree with it or disagree with it. But hey, you two get back to your little back slapping love fest. Why bother saying what you really feel when you post an article. I could post an article in this manner, then wait for responses and then join the conversation; however, it would be much more productive, decent and helpful to make an opening statement.
OK, here's my opening statement: The following article is written by an expert on the subject, who knows a lot more about it than I do. I'm not in love with the sound of my own voice to the extent that I need to clutter up the thread with my opinions. I have nothing important to add to the chatter as it is a factual piece about Cheney's activities. I'd rather let the author's article say it all. I may post a response to the posts of other's if prompted by what they have to say.
BBB
Sturgis' objection is silly. I have frequently began a thread with a lengthy proposition, or a reference to a published article, and then solicited other people's thoughts on the subject. I know what i think, i want to learn what others think. I may or may not later comment on them. This is tempest in a teapot material, and Sturgis' pout is childish.
Setanta
Setanta wrote:Sturgis' objection is silly. I have frequently began a thread with a lengthy proposition, or a reference to a published article, and then solicited other people's thoughts on the subject. I know what i think, i want to learn what others think. I may or may not later comment on them. This is tempest in a teapot material, and Sturgis' pout is childish.
Set, you are so smart.
And now back to Cheney's domination of the government after addressing Sturgis' attempted diversion.
BBB
Setanta wrote:Sturgis' objection is silly. I have frequently began a thread with a lengthy proposition, or a reference to a published article, and then solicited other people's thoughts on the subject. I know what i think, i want to learn what others think. I may or may not later comment on them. This is tempest in a teapot material, and Sturgis' pout is childish.
Pull my finger...go on, I dare ya.
Sturgis
Sturgis wrote:Setanta wrote:Sturgis' objection is silly. I have frequently began a thread with a lengthy proposition, or a reference to a published article, and then solicited other people's thoughts on the subject. I know what i think, i want to learn what others think. I may or may not later comment on them. This is tempest in a teapot material, and Sturgis' pout is childish.
Pull my finger...go on, I dare ya.
Sturgis, it would be lovely if you could stay on the thread's topic instead of you.
BBB
Whatever works for you eh? In other words agree with anything and everything you say, never question you and then I'll be one of your playmates. I think I'll pass on that sacrifice of my being, in favor of maintaining who I am.
Sturgis wrote:Whatever works for you eh?
Precisely.
You prefer one way of presenting something for comment. Other members of the site have other preference
s.
Tomato/tomahto.
[bad English as a third language moment there : edit]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace