On Meet The Press today, John Brennan (Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism) said the following when asked about Cheney’s comments:

“I’m very disappointed in the vice president’s comments,” Mr. Brennan said, describing himself as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. “Either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president’s position both in terms of the language he uses and the actions he’s taken, or he’s ignorant of the facts.

“And in either case it doesn’t speak well of what the vice president is doing. The clear evidence is that this president has been very, very strong. In his inaugural address he said we’re at war with this international network of terrorists. We continue to say that we’re at war with al Qaeda.”

Mr. Brennan added that “partisan politics should be put aside when something as important to national security as the threat of terrorism . . . continues to haunt us. And we have to make sure that we stay focused on al Qaeda. And so that’s what I’m going to do in this job. I don’t care what Republicans or Democrats say out there. We need to continue to prosecute this war because al Qaeda the organization needs to be destroyed.”

Cheney doesn’t care what the facts are, he doesn’t care about the consequences of his words…he simply wants to harm Obama (and Dems) in the eyes of all conservatives and possibly even right leaning independent hawks. It’s shameful stuff, but there it is nonetheless.

My question: what will make Cheney stop?

If you didn’t believe me before about Guantanamo and why it was a remarkably dumb idea, will you believe these guys?

From Politico:

“It’s up to all of us to say these arguments advanced by Cheney and his acolytes are nonsense and that really what they’re doing is undermining our national security by delaying the date at which Guantanamo is closed,” retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a former chief judge of the Army’s Court of Criminal Appeals, told POLITICO Tuesday.

“Some of the fear issues that are being raised in this are really unfortunate. It gets people excited about things they shouldn’t be excited about and impedes doing what is critical to this country. Get that damn symbol off the table,” said retired Gen. David Maddox [pictured above], a former Army commander-in-chief for Europe. “We take a setback every time somebody, whether it’s the vice president or his daughter comes out and says the things that they say….We have to get out there again and just keep pounding.”

Also, the following quote in particular is gratifying to hear, especially when people act as if terrorists are somehow the most dangerous criminals in the history of the world and their presence in a community would somehow make it ridiculously unsafe…

“Can you imagine getting a terrorist from Guantanamo convicted and put in a federal penitentiary in your town?” Maddox asked. “Have you ever checked who the hell’s in there already? Have any of them gotten out? The person who we’re putting in is probably a heck of lot less dangerous than most of them who are already in there.”

Agreed. Now it’s time to convince the rest of the US.

Let’s get started…

Not that it’s a surprise, but are we at the point now where we start talking seriously about prosecutions? Because it’s apparent that Cheney directed the C.I.A. to break the law by concealing information and if the guy can get away with anything as long as it was done for national security reasons, well, what kind of precedent does that set?

And I do believe this is different than warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, etc. Because while many people were uncomfortable with those programs, at least our elected officials knew about them.

In any event, here’s the story from NY Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

And here’s the kicker…apparently the program wasn’t that important…

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

“Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” one intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.”

Why did Cheney want to keep it so hush hush? Maybe to simply see if he could? A test case to see if the C.I.A. would keep its mouth shut?

Hopefully we’ll find out soon enough.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish.”
- Dick Cheney on the hottest topic of the day

Now, he did go on to say that this should be decided at the state level and that’s how it has always been decided, which is nonsense if you know the legal history of marriage restriction, in particular Loving v. Virginia.

However, it is interesting to note that on this issue, one of the leading conservative voices is seemingly more progressive than the most liberal President since FDR.

Here’s more of what he said…

The question now…when will Obama come around?

It was must see TV yesterday, but I’m just getting around to it now. Ultimately, I think this did little to change any minds, but it did position Obama more firmly in the center of this issue and made Cheney seem further off to the right since he offered nothing new except justifications. Because he kept talking about how Bush’s policies prevented bigger attacks, and we’ve never seen anything to back that up.

Also, maybe it’s just me, but I think Cheney should have realized that his audience was broader than the American Enterprise Institute. Because his joke at the beginning about Obama’s speech earlier in the day being too long set the wrong tone, especially since his speech went fairly long too.

But hey, watch them for yourself and tell me what you think.

First Obama’s…

Then Cheney’s…

Discuss.

We all knew this had to happen sooner or later, and it looks like the White House wants to put this issue to bed once and for all.

From Wash Post:

Government officials familiar with the CIA’s early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the “top secret” May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents.

The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month’s release of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos…

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,” according to the Justice Department’s declassified summary of it.

And let’s note the date when this was finished: May 7, 2004.

That means that Bush and company had a report in their hands that was THE most extensive look at their torture program and they completely ignored it.

Why?

Because admitting it at that time would have meant certain defeat for Bush in the 2004 election. And admitting it after the election would have completely discredited the administration.

So then, to all of you who continue to think that the Bush continued to sanction the torture techniques because it made this country safer, please, wake up already.

“I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source of information.”
- Hillary Clinton on Dick Cheney

Washington Post has more on the “Return of Hillary Clinton“

It wasn’t the most stirring defense, but a defense it was, and it served as a reminder of Clinton’s relatively low-profile in the first months of her tenure. To an extent, that makes sense; it’s not the job of any Cabinet secretary to overshadow her boss, Obama has generally preferred to make major public announcements himself, and the White House is surely relieved that the Obama vs. Clinton storyline has been largely dormant since the Inauguration.

But Clinton is a bona fide celebrity, the only one in the administration — apologies to Hilda Solis and Shaun Donovan — other than Obama. So when the president needs a surrogate to step up and help deliver his message, and rebut the criticism of a major figure like Cheney, Clinton is the obvious choice.

Frankly, I’m not exactly sure why Cheney keeps going off on Obama. Some have speculated that he thinks Cheney is worried about prosecution, but I honestly don’t think that’s it. Obama isn’t going to risk a show trial. It just won’t happen.

No, I just think Cheney misses the limelight and wants to protect his legacy. And so his logorrhea.

Question: Is Dick Cheney the Republican’s Jimmy Carter?

Discuss.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry…

“The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.” -former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with Politico.

Right Dick — and we’ve got a ton of respect right now, don’t we. You are the go-to-guy for actions that generate controversy, no?

I can’t tell you how much I’m glad that guy is not even close to running the Big Show anymore.

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

Not that he really cares, but nonetheless…

From NY Times:

Americans’ historically negative assessment of the administration is not limited to the president. Vice President Dick Cheney’s favorability rating in the new poll is 13 percent, the lowest of his time in office.

So will he stay off the national stage?

Maybe…

In an interview following the swearing-in of the Senate’s latest member, Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Cheney told The Hill that he has mixed feelings about leaving government service again.

“I’ve enjoyed it. It’s been a great career, and I’ve been very fortunate to be able to serve,” Cheney said. “And I will miss it. On the other hand, I’ve got some things that I look forward to in private life … You know this is the fourth time I’ve transitioned from government to the private sector.”

Please Dick…stay away. Even Republicans don’t like you. Just go on a permanent fishing trip and leave us alone. 8 years is enough.

“The original intelligence was wrong, no question about it. But there were parts of it that were right. It wasn’t 100 percent wrong. It was correct in saying he had the technology. It was correct in saying he still had the people who knew how to build weapons of mass destruction. I think it was also correct in the assessment that once sanctions came off, he would go back to doing what he had been doing before.”
- Dick Cheney on Face The Nation today.

So let’s just get this clear once and for all…

By Cheney’s standard, the US could invade every single one of our enemies because they “know” how to build weapons of mass destruction and they “could” build them if given enough time. And that’s just crazy.

The refreshing part in all of this? Cheney actually admitted that the “original” intelligence was wrong. You know, the stuff that he and his neo-cons cherry picked and presented as the very best, top shelf info?

Goodbye Dick.

“One of the mythologies is that it was the vice president that somehow was pulling the strings on foreign policy in the first term and made it very ideologically driven and that somehow in the second term, the vice president’s influence is in decline and, therefore, somehow the real Bush has come forward, and we have a more pragmatic foreign policy. That’s just hooey — it’s just hooey.”
- National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley in the Washington Post

Basically, Bush owns all the decisions.

Done and done.

Politico.com reports that Joe Biden plans to “limit the role of vice president” to what it supposedly was before the Bush-Cheney White House:

Dialing back his predecessor’s expansive view of the office, Vice President-elect Joe Biden plans on “restoring the Office of the Vice President to its historical role” as adviser to the president and tie-breaker in the Senate, an aide to Biden said Saturday.

What may be worse, the Democratic Senate Majority is going to shut the incoming veep out of its caucus:

The declaration results from an attention-getting article coming from the Las Vegas Sun, which is reporting Sunday in a story by Washington Bureau reporter Lisa Mascaro that the new Congress “will reassert its constitutional independence from the White House by barring the vice president from joining in internal Senate deliberations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with the Sun.”

And Reid was pretty emphatic about it:

The paper says that when Reid was asked whether Biden will be alowed to attend Senate Democratic caucus meetings, Reid said: “Absolutely not.”

Getting back to that silk purse:

Elizabeth Alexander, spokesperson for the vice president-elect, e-mailed in response: “Vice President-elect Biden had no intention of continuing the practice started by Vice President Cheney of regularly attending internal legislative branch meetings — he firmly believes in restoring the Office of the Vice President to its historical role. He and Senator Reid see eye to eye on this.”

Yeah, I’m sure Joe is thrilled with that. What with Obama not giving him any specific portfolio (as Al Gore had with President Clinton) and Reid keeping him from poking his nose into the Senate, Joe will revel in the “historical role” of Vice President as “counselor” and occasional tie-breaker — the role John Nance Garner described as not “worth a warm bucket of spit.”

I’m starting to feel sorry for Joe.

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

As with many of the Obama ads this election cycle, the effectiveness of this lies in its simplicity.

Cheney = Bush = McCain.

I honestly don’t know what Dick Cheney was thinking by endorsing this late in the game. It’s almost as if he wanted to kick McCain in the gut, because he had to know this wouldn’t help him.

Could this be Bush’s final “F**k you!” to McCain?

Did I miss something, or did Cheney just now endorse McCain?



An excerpt…

John is a man who understands the danger facing America. He’s a man who has looked into the face of evil and not flinched. He’s a man who’s comfortable with responsibility and has been since he joined the armed forces at the age of 17. He’s earned our support and confidence, and the time is now to make him commander-in-chief.

I’m delighted to support John McCain and I’m pleased that he’s chosen a running mate with executive talent, toughness and common sense, our next vice president in Sarah Palin.

Also, maybe it’s just me, but if there’s any political endorsement that’s worse than Bush’s this year, it would have to be Cheney’s.

Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate raises some of the same interesting questions that George W. Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney did back in 2000.

Here me out.

If Obama/Biden wins, Joe Biden will be 66 years old when he takes office as Vice-President.

If they are re-elected in 2012, he’ll be 70 years old when the second Obama/Biden Administration starts unless, for some reason, he’s replaced on the ticket. While that’s possible, it hasn’t happened in American politics since FDR replaced John Nance Garner with Henry Wallace in 1940, and replaced Henry Wallace with Harry S. Truman in 1944. Since then, there have been calls for various President’s to dump their Vice-President when the run for re-election — Eisenhower in 1956, Bush I in 1992, Bush II, 2004 — but they’ve never pulled the trigger.

It’s unlikey that Obama would either.

Finally, Biden will be 73 years old on Election Day 2016, and by then will have been in politics for 46 years.

Does anyone seriously think that, at this point, he’d be a candidate for President to succeed Barack Obama ?

That’s about as unlikely as it was that Dick Cheney would ever run to succeed George W. Bush.

So, like Cheney, Biden will in some sense be an unfettered Vice-President who won’t have to worry about whether his actions would have any real impact on his political future.

And, like the Republicans in 2008, the Democrats in 2016 would enter the election cycle without a Vice-President serving as the clear successor to an outgoing President. By then, Hillary Clinton would be 69 years old and, quite arguably, beyond what ever is left of her prime. So, the Democrats would have a wide-open field yet again.

More than one political pundit criticized Bush’s choice of Cheney, and his decision to keep Cheney on the ticket in 2004, because it left the Republican Party without a clear successor; something which arguably resulted in the nomination of John McCain, a candidate whose history of bucking GOP trends, and annoying various parts of the base in the process, is well-known.

Arguably, Obama is setting his party up for the same problem in eight years by choosing a running mate who in all likelihood is not going to run to suceed him.

Thoughts ?

Updating a story from earlier this week, Republicans now confirm that Vice President Dick Cheney will attend the Republican Convention and will speak.

Previously, reports indicated Cheney might skip the convention because his presence could prove a distraction. I guess Republicans decided there was no way to hide the fact that John McCain is and the unpopular vice president are members of the same party.

Still, don’t expect Cheney to have the best of speaking slots.

Some politicians are unpopular. Some are toxic. Vice President Dick Cheney is apparently the latter. Looks like the most powerful (and most unpopular) veep in recent history will be sitting out the Republican Convention. Seems John McCain’s people would rather not have viewers at home reminded that, you know, McCain is in the same party as Cheney.

With the McCain campaign already considering timing the announcement of the VP choice to minimize coverage of President Bush during the convention, you have to wonder what else McCain might do to distance himself from the current administration. Look for his acceptance speech to be chock-full of criticisms of the White House and promises for change.

He went before Congress today and told us a lot of what we already know. But, again, it looks like this was definitely one of those cases where people wanted to wish that nothing happened instead of accepting the reality that Libby (and Rove and Cheney) were intimately involved with this leaking.

Excerpted liberally from the AP:

Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesman from 2003-2006, said he had reservations about publicly clearing the name of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff at the time. Later, Libby was convicted of obstructing the FBI investigation of the leak. [...]

He said former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Libby was not involved in the leak.

“I was reluctant to do it,” McClellan told the Democratic-led panel. “I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?’ And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”

What will come of this? Ultimately, not much. Because I can’t imagine anybody else getting indicted as a result of this testimony. Libby was the fall guy, he was convicted and that’s that.

Still, this is the story that just won’t go away, and it’ll continue to hurt Bush (and Rove and Cheney) for years to come.