Fellatio for Cheney from the Politico

picture-80.thumbnail.pngI guess it’s no surprise that Dick Cheney chose Pool Boy and his two sidekicks, John Harris and Mike Allen, for his first propaganda piece after stepping down as Vice President. And it was a good choice for Cheney, as they apparently assiduously avoided any of the questions that Cheney ought to be asked.

For example, when Cheney asserted,

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Real journalists might have asked, "then why the fuck didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan rather than turning our attention to a war of choice in Iraq?"

Similarly, when Cheney said,

*The potential consequences of $1 trillion in deficit stimulus spending: “It’s huge, obviously – potentially huge. You worry about what ultimately happens to inflation. You worry about what’s going to happen to the ability of the government to borrow money. … I’m nervous.”

Real journalists might have asked why Cheney showed no concern when he was racking up $1 trillion (and counting) of deficit spending for the aforementioned war of choice in Iraq. For that matter, real journalists might even have asked what happened to Cheney’s claim that "Reagan proved deficits don’t matter," now that he’s out of office.

But I suppose it would take more than a real journalist–it would take a DFH blogger, most likely–to point out that, in fact, many people did foresee the colossal fuck-up the Bush Administration was making of the economy.

*Whether the Bush administration should have done more about the economy: "We did worry about it, to some extent. … I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part."  

The article ends by quoting Liz Cheney teasing her dad that he doesn’t need a press aide–he can do it on his own. And I guess, given that he did such a good job of arranging a fluffer designed to attack Obama some more for reversing Dick’s failed policies–Liz Cheney has it about right. 

56 replies
  1. plunger says:

    For the obvious answer to the question:

    “then why the fuck didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan rather than turning our attention to a war of choice in Iraq?”

    One need look no further than the rate of opium production after the Taliban were paid off to “let it happen.” Prior to our invasion, the Taliban had set a world record for reducing poppy (Bush’s) production, the reversal of which quickly led to world record crops and the continuation of the CIA’s drug trade to finance their globalist agenda under the direction of GHW “Poppy” Bush via his fleet of Gulfstreams – that you paid for with your taxes.

    No more coincidence theories.

    • emptywheel says:

      Know what plunger? Your monomania for 9/11 conspiracy theories is getting to the point again where it’s interrupting actual conversation here. You have other places you can spout that stuff. Please stop doing it here.


      • plunger says:

        Uh, will do, though the prior comment was not about 9/11 at all, and I have plenty of actual evidence to support what I wrote, including direct conversations with people who know the truth, and use of my own eyes to see these jets flying along the coast of Florida so close to the wave tops they could take out a sail boat mast. It’s not about “theory.” One of the key reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan was the Taliban’s restriction on opium production and another was the oil pipeline. These are just facts.

        As for Cheney, Big Dan has plenty of links today about KBR’s misdeeds in Iraq if you’re interested:


  2. Peterr says:

    From Politico:

    Not content to wait for a historical verdict, Cheney said he is set to plunge into his own memoirs, feeling liberated to describe behind-the-scenes roles over several decades in government now that the “statute of limitations has expired” on many of the most sensitive episodes.

    Two thoughts:
    (1) If Bev can get Cheney to do a Book Salon Chat, I think you should host it, Marcy.
    (2) In this particular case, I don’t think Cheney’s use of the phrase “statute of limitations has expired” is a simple figure of speech.

    • emptywheel says:

      You don’t think? And remarkably, it’s only his time at Halliburton (well, and the propaganda factory to get us into Iraq and outing Valerie Plame) the SOLs for which have recently expired.

      He’s still got a few weeks for some of the more interesting SOLs.

    • JimWhite says:

      Uhm, yeah, I agree that it’s really creepy for Cheney to be talking about the statute of limitations. But then, for me, it’s creepy for Cheney to say anything…

    • phred says:

      I think the SoL comment is intentional. For the past couple of months he’s been bursting at the seams to brag about all that he has accomplished in proving Nixon’s adage “if the President (or Vice-President) does it, it’s not illegal”. It reminds me of the scene in A Few Good Men, when Cruise goads Nicholson into admitting his crime. If only we could get Iglesias and Cheney facing each other in a court room ; )

      I think Dicky boy is getting cocky though. Sure the SoLs have expired for various misdeeds, but last I checked there is no SoL for war crimes.

    • bobschacht says:

      I’ve heard that there’s no SoL on murder.
      Torture, approved by Cheney, has resulted in death on numerous occasions.
      BushCo has literally been getting away with murder.

      Does he have some vulnerability in this regard?

      Bob in HI

      • BoxTurtle says:

        In a word, No. Murder requires intent to kill, and the intent was to question. Manslaughter would fit, BUT you have to run it all the way back to Cheney from the person who actually killed.

        Then you have to beat down the opinion from Gonzo & Co that the techniques were legal. Assuming Cheney is not long dead of natural causes before this step is complete, you must then beat down the executive immunity.

        And once you get his butt in court, his defense will be “I was protecting the country and these are brown foreign moslem radicals anyway” to likely a Virginia jury.

        Boxturtle (Where would YOU bet?)

  3. behindthefall says:

    Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said.

    And he wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s what he lives for. (See: 75 pheasants dead in a single day, for starters.)

  4. sojourner says:

    If I am not mistaken, there used to be an unwritten rule when administrations changed that the outgoing president and vice-president would slink off into the world and allow the incoming people to get their act together. Cheney has an obvious case of diarrhea of the mouth — and when someone talks so much to defend what they have done, it is usually a sign that they are worried about something.

    His statements cater to his idiot constituency — but I suspect that that constituency is rapidly dwindling as the wrongs that he and Bush committed are coming to light (although WE have known about them all along…) Trying to justify his actions by saying it is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business” is more about his own personality.

    We have had enough of you and your kind, DICK!

    • BillE says:

      I hope you are right. Most people that I know agree with that. It’s just the Rethug media is going full bore to reduce BO’s approval ratings. The are doing the damage via a thousand cuts. How many democrats and specifically smart supports have you seen on the big media? Barney Frank is a smart guy, but they are using his sexual orientation to belittle his opinions ( not directly but clearly is happening ).

      Cheney spouts gloom and doom and the usual suspects just swoon all over him. Disgusting.

      Do you think Cheney still has access to the storage part of the TIA program? Like it was given to private contractors which he might have a controlling interest in? I am a broken record when it comes to the likely hood of blackmail being used but also stuff like Daschels tax records and whatever else was given to Woodward.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Do you think Cheney still has access to the storage part of the TIA program? Like it was given to private contractors which he might have a controlling interest in? I am a broken record when it comes to the likely hood of blackmail being used but also stuff like Daschels tax records and whatever else was given to Woodward.

        No doubt in my mind. And add in the complicit parts of the media, as jdmckay does, and you have trouble.

        However, I assume that BO expected trouble.

        What really, really struck me about this ‘interview/fellatio’ were:

        1. Cheney is batshit crazy. He shows zero sophistication, nor interest, in Afghanis, their history, yadda, yadda. Ditto any other part of the world. The man is chillingly clueless. And that really hit me as I listened to clips on Shuster’s segment about Cheney as he was guesting for KO today on Countdown: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..#29022453. I finally, finally had an epiphany, which is:

        2. The narcissism of Richard Bruce Cheney. Maybe because I’m a bit thick in the head, or else because I’ve heard so few interviews of the guy, but the way that he just sits back and drops what he evidently believes are his ‘pearls’ before the ’swine’ of the Politico (and the rest of us) is eye-opening. It doesn’t cross his mind that he isn’t the Center of the Universe, nor that he could get it wrong. He’s so caught up in his own rightness (a trait that no doubt attracted him to Addington in the same way that a double-star revolves around associated gravitational forces), that he sits and pontificates oblivious of things unrelated to HIS views, HIS actions, HIS decisions, HIS ideas.

        3. Who but an incredible narcissist would even give such an interview at a time like this — a mere 2 weeks into the BO/Biden term, as sojourner points out. How could anyone be this damn stupid? Well, a narcissist could. And would.

        4. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if in CheneyWorld, he’s still calling the shots, and BO and Biden and Clinton are simply ‘obstacles’ to his plans. He thinks that he still runs the show, and with enough dug-in auks, he well could. It’s his tone and manner that mask his narcissism; it’s much easier to spot in Bush. It’s harder to spot in Cheney, IMHO. But narcissism is associated with violent criminals, and they tend to act out whenever they think that anyone has challenged them.

        5. I actually think the fact that Cheney is speaking up, just after BO has altered his torture policies, has put a stunning array of players into motion on the diplomatic front — magnitudes beyond what Cheney ever probably envisioned, has to have him pissed off and smoldering. Because everything that BO does, and every bit of good press and photos of BO signing documents, going to the Hill, have to just be grating on Cheney. Remember that the last time Cheney went to the Hill, the GOP is said to have shouted at him. So to watch a Dem Pres go up to the hill and have civil exchanges must be really, really ungluing Cheney because it all reveals what an absolute fuckup he, and Bush, were.

        6. The obliviousness of the financial comments is either designed to obfuscate, or act as if he had nothing to do with it. So the logical next question is: did he recommend Chris Cox at SEC? Because look what came out just today — criminal, Russian Mafia links to Madoff. And the SEC did nothing?! C’mon. That’s just bullshit.
        Cheney is trying to act as if he didn’t know a thing — the same guy who spied on everyone?
        I think it’s total bullshit, and a ploy on Cheney’s part to disassociate himself from Madoff and the money meltdown.

        7. What else has happened? Holder was confirmed. So now, the rules for going after Cheney might alter. So what does this narcissist do? Let Politico… um… (see EW’s title).

  5. wavpeac says:

    When I look at Cheney/bush all I see are two really sick men, and a nation that has been taken hostage.

  6. ApacheTrout says:

    Cheney continues the Bush Administration theme of having no ability to anticipate future events.

    “I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part.”

    Despite significant evidence to the contrary (i.e. the economic work done by Calculated Risk, Rubini, and others; the New Orleans inundation models, any number of Americans (see Juan Cole) who warned against going to Iraq), journalists continue to refuse to confront Cheney, Condi Rice, or any other member of the Bush Administration. Why is that? What can we do to change this? I suspect we’ll never see anyone of importance interviewed by someone like Rachel Maddow, Amy Goodman, or Bill Moyers, but there certainly must exist other journalists who know to prepare for an interview and ask simple follow up questions. Katie Couric, of all people, showed how easy it was to do ask good questions when she interviewed Sarah Palin. If she can do it, certainly others can.

  7. drational says:

    If Cheney’s language was dramatic, the setting for the comments was almost bizarrely pedestrian. His office is in a non-descript suburban office building in McLean, in a suite that could just as easily house a dental clinic. The office is across the hall from a quick-copy store. The door is marked by nothing except a paper sign, held up by tape, saying the unit is occupied by the General Services Administration.

    Not pretty, trying to maintain relevance when you share walls with a Comic Book shop and a Subway. At least the nasty old fuck might be able to knock a few points off his cholesterol.

  8. BoxTurtle says:

    You would think that now that BushCo is out of the Whitehouse, the news media would realize they no longer need to stroke ‘em to retain access.

    Boxturtle (There are now more lapdogs then reporters in the MSM. Sad.)

  9. bell says:

    “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” was cheney referring to the obama admin? it seems like it given that he wants to direct things even when he is out of office… then again, maybe he was referring to all the journalists who would have asked him pointed questions if he had the guts to go before any of them… cheney is pathetic… how he could appeal to any person, other then his friends in the oil/military industry is beyond me…

  10. Jkat says:

    well i’m not surprised they sucked him off .. i’m just surprised they were so public about it .. good thing this wasn’t for teevee ..

  11. dipper says:

    Cheney/Rush et al would like nothing better than another big terrorist attack in the US. It would make them look so wise and Obama so careless.

    • Dismayed says:

      That’s the problem, I’m convinces Dick was complicent in the first one, if by no actual participation, certainly by enablement through directing attention away from known (probably specifically known) threats or plans.

      There is no limit to what the man will do to achieve his adgenda. Dangerous. Very dangerous.

  12. 4jkb4ia says:

    (The Hebrew characters did not show up) (The word is “heydad”, or “cheer”)

    In any event, re a few threads ago Marc Lynch writes on the provincial elections, Anbar, and election fraud accusations by the tribal parties affiliated with Anbar Awakening

  13. tanbark says:

    Too good! They’re sucking up to Cheyney as if he were some kind of wizard of an innocent bystander…a Nobel winner in International Relations…

    “Honest to God, guys! These here several hundred thousand dead bodies? And that $700 billion pissed down the Mesopotamian urinal? And counting? They just crawled into my hand from under the podium.”

    Joan Rivers’ finger-down-throat-gag-gesture, right here.

  14. Dismayed says:

    The thing about Cheney is that he’s just plain dangerous.

    He has a real power network of players deeply entrenced in covert ops of all sorts. Long long tenacles on that old squid.

    The main difference between just a few weeks ago and now, is that when all else failed he could walk into the oval office and tell the puppet what comes next.

    However, his ability to manipulate data and keep a finger on what’s going on is not likely impacted that much by a change in adminstration.

    The guy just plain scares me, and I think the new administration needs to keep a very careful eye on him as they get a handle on the reins of power.

    There’s quite honestly no telling what kind of capability Dick still maintains, and my best guess is that it is vast, and global still yet. OBL has nothing on this guy, birds of a feather those two.

  15. tanbark says:

    Also, it occurs to me that knowing which questions not to ask must be on the final to graduate, for every School of Jounalism in the country.

  16. JohnLopresti says:

    I think there are multiple threads in the remarks from Cheney in that cite. Some of it is the bathos of the prior relationship with the media. A review of the list of subpoena duces tecum media emails Addington was requested to produce in his grand jury hearing in the Februay 2 2004 document from the DC court testifies to as much, that page requests correspondence from 26 journalists.

    I see a way to separate the issues from the governance record, however; and, therein discern some level of belief several of the current speakers demonstrate with respect to their own fragmented theories to justify their decisions past. Sans real link, which I leave to the visitor, Wall St. Journal January 29 published a Yoo plea for continued torture. These discrete a posteriori arguments, after the fact, from Cheney and Yoo, are blind efforts at promulgating their contradictory policies and certainly represent efforts at continued shielding of their then-president. Further, I think we are likely to hear more of the jingoist thinktank aphorisms in the wake of the past presidency.

    At that personal level, these folks actually believe that what they did under color of Patriot, or during the days when neither congress nor OLC would authorize it, in the name of the executive’s responsibility to act first, then ask for congress’ advice and consent, was grand. But there was worry on Bush’s face as he left, for weeks plainly visible, as if his first task in retirement would be seeking to resolve the consternation that acting on the advice of the stovepiped intell communities of interest had earned him mostly blame overseas and accusations nearly ubiquitously.

    Then there is the political side, the quantum leap from losing elections to restoration of some measure of competitiveness for the trusty adherents who followed the VP to the end of his 4th branch. Somebody thought the limb began to bend and creak.

    The return of due process is preprogrammed to last five, more than four, years. So the hope is Palin completes training and becomes another puppet of the planners of Republican leadership by minority. Fanning caste war is going to be one of the key elements of their strategy for viability, facing discredit for numerous bungled initiatives, currently key among which is a global recession. I wonder how much sleepy fox Chris Cox believes some of the utterances from Cheney and Yoo about now. The news is saying Cox is facing some questions about how Madoff had adapted to that eggcoop and the sopor of its guardians at SEC, something about unobserved $15. trillion in insurance debt trading.

  17. 4jkb4ia says:

    “The US doesn’t need to be loved as much as it needs to be respected”. To shoot fish in a barrel, he has left an admin which accomplished neither goal. Cheney is smart enough to know that Barack Obama represents the ideal America to millions of foreigners. If he betrays that, the US will be neither loved nor respected. Alas the issue of FISA may not have penetrated to these millions of foreigners.

  18. Neil says:

    Welcome to Pottersville. Meet Ole Mr. Potter and his man-sized safe.

    We should blame Obama for the next terrorist attack as we should blame Bush/Cheney for 9/11. I’ll bet you Obama won’t shush them away when they deliver a PDB that says “OBL determined to strike in the US.”

    And how does Mr Potter explain that leaving Iraq invites a domestic terrorist attack?

    I love this one on the credit market and banking solvency and equity market collapse:

    Whether the Bush administration should have done more about the economy: “We did worry about it, to some extent. … I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part.

    Right, another “who could have imagine?” We are fucked. You were driving.

  19. Mary says:

    These are evil people.

    Yes they are – just like people who would beat a cab driver until his legs are pulverized and then leave him to have to stand on the pulverized legs or slowly asphyxiate. Or people who would disappear children.

    So by implication, Cheney’s saying that Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, the Green River Killer, etc are what? Nice fellas?

  20. jdmckay says:

    I’m watching BO’s execution of whatever he’s doing and media surrounding all that quite closely. This Politico article is more or less in vein of most of what I see.

    In our paper-of-record (cough), in just last 5 days, we’ve had:

    – Victor David Hansen on main OpED: It Isn’t easy being a Saint.

    – Allen M. Parkman, professor emeritus at our own UNM ANDERSON-SCHOOL-OF-MANAGEMENT: Washington Is Rushing To Stimulate Waste (It’s a ridiculously skewed pro-market piece entirely ignoring current state of US Treasury, & how we got here)

    – Editor’s OpEd today (not yet online): White House Ethics Off… Piece lists all the folks w/tax problems, Richardson (our gov) etc. concluding new admin off to a shaky start. (I’d point out these guys supported Bush through everything, never once criticized his econ policy, went after Soros multiple times, chastized our AG David Iglesias @ beginning of Fed Attorney purge, etc etc.)

    – Printed weekly Robert J. Samuelson articles deriding bailout (not just this one, but in theory), writing all kinds of trickle down theories but rarely macro data through last 6 months detailing the anatomy of our econ woes. Among other things, he’s said “Presidents dont cause econ woes” and summarized our current mess thusly: US spent too much and China saved too much.

    – Page 4 of main section today: FOR MANY, VOW OF ‘CHANGE’ NOR RINGS HOLLOW (no link yet) by Steven Thomma/McClatchy. Article reads about what title suggests, says further:

    “I don’t know how you get paid $2m by a lobbying firm and not call yourself a lobbyist”, says Jonh Ensign (Sen/Nevada).

    At the same time, the man who wanted to lead the way to a new, less partisan politics finds himself caught in a partisan donnybrook between congressional Democrats and Republicans over a landmark proposal to stimulate the economy. The partisan fight is feeding dissent over the proposal and eroding public support.

    (…) A new Gallup poll on Tuesday found that just 30% of those polled want the proposal passed as written, while 38% of those polled want the proposal passed as written, 37% want “major changes and another 17% want it defeated.

    – yesterday (not yet on line, and from memory as I already threw out paper) was Editor’s OpED chastizing his Iraq plans similarly to what you cite from Politico.

    BO’s getting savaged here. I’m for him, I like him and all that.

    But frankly, although IMO repubs are doing it for posturing only, the critics of bailout bill I have a hard time disagreeing w/’cause it does look to me like a scattershot, onfocused and ultimately hi-cost/low effectiveness plan. It’s hugely disappointing, I’m majorly let down by the workproduct that I assume went into it, and I’m unimpressed by BO’s sales job on the thing which, AFAIC, highlights or focuses public attention on little: the “create jobs” rhetoric falls way, way short.

    I agree w/article above on “Change”… again, very disappointed.

    This admin getting off to amazingly dull thud, stuck in the mud beginning and no signs AFAIC of “hope” which Obama inspired and suggested but never explicitly layed out.

    I can’t see myself spending another 8 yrs documenting atrocities… I’m not sure I care really at this point. If after all the support dems have gotten, and recognition of massive problems we have… all they can do is huddle like hamsters and crank out the same o’le same o’le, fine. Ok.

    I gave it my best, accept US in decline, and navigate my own way and let all the politicos do what they do.

    • Stephen says:

      Events are truly disheartening. Have you read Chris Hedges’ article:” It’s Not Going to Be Ok ” at Truthdig?

  21. JTMinIA says:

    Forgive, in advance, the conspiracy theory, but what do you think of the following?

    Cheney is trying to rehabilitate BushCo by making public noises about a predicted terrorist attack. The idea is that, assuming almost anything occurs, he can not only say this compares poorly with the last six or so years, but he can also say “you clearly can’t blame us [BushCo] for 9/11 because Clinton and Gore didn’t warn us anywhere near as well as I tried to warn Obama.” In other words, by being much more obnoxious after leaving office than either Clinton or Gore, he is actually trying to make Clinton and Gore look bad for not warning BushCo better about 9/11.

  22. Jerryinexile says:

    When was the last time that anyone can remember a statement coming from Cheney that contained one iota of substance? Other than his fear mongering rants, and his sabre rattling threats, can anyone recall him stating reliable facts or showing heartfelt concern for the American people? These conservatives date from the McCarthy era, and their sole purpose in life is to expose the existential threat to the United States by the Boogeyman of the Day. Back in the 1950’s it was the Communists. That seems to have died with the demise of the USSR and the success of Communist China and Vietnam. Now, take your pick. From outside you can choose to fear destruction from the Islamo Fascist. And from within from the neoliberal right wing radicals. The message from these neocons is never based on fact, but rather supposition. And Cheney is no exeption. He is rather a textbook example of a Neocon Chickenhawk. All bluster and no balls. I’d pay for the bricks and mortar, and build the wall, to stand him in front of. This man will probably never see the Hague, but I’ll offer to pay his first class airfare to get there.

  23. Stephen says:

    We would be fools to not keep a vigilant eye on this human monster through all forms of surveillance. Consider this man a enemy of the state, the American People, our recently elected President, the Constitution, and any foreign country and their people. This man should be followed, all his communications should be tapped even his garbage should be reviewed. He should be treated like any would be terrorist at large. He, after making profound statements such as recently declaring we will be attacked soon, should be interrogated as to what he knows and to who in the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ and any other government agency or department including foreign countries and their agencies especially Israel, he is in contact with and why. It is time to play hardball with this conspiring vermin. I don’t believe we cannot get this venomous prick in front of a congressional investigation in regards to his conduct on the build up to the invasion in Iraq. If he will not answer questions jail him and start to subpoena all relevant witnesses to the debauchery this man has caused. If we do not do it now we will regret it forever. Neocons are our enemy.

Comments are closed.