The Dick Cheney Countdown

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Anyway, getting back to my original point.

Duke Cunningham owned up to his many indiscretions.
Bill Clinton owned up to his misleading the American public.

The point is that personal accountability is not unheard of in politics, nor is the executive branch heeding the power of the legislative branch.

True, but only rarely do they actually recieve punishment for their indescretions or sometimes illegal acts. Occasionally one will resign even before presure to do so is overwhelming.

Sure, you could say that being publicly pilloried is enough punishment and that once that happens, they are effectively ruined. History, though, tells us that isn't always true. Exhibit A is Richard ("They won't have me to kick around") Nixon. Newt Gingrich, whose scandals were not limited to sexual indescretions, looks to be trying very hard to be exhibit B.

Still, it is something of a rarity to even have a politician say, "I screwed up," rather than the more Bushian, "mistakes were made." That such a novelty still does occur is, in itself, enough for me to have hope in our system.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Still, it is something of a rarity to even have a politician say, "I screwed up," rather than the more Bushian, "mistakes were made." That such a novelty still does occur is, in itself, enough for me to have hope in our system.

We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".

Welcome to the age of, "You go to war with the army you have," and "If you leave food in your room, you'll get rats," and "Heck of a job, Brownie."

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".

I don't know if that is true, and it may be even less true than it was in the days of Truman. Sure, he said "The buck stops here," but so has Bush. Truman actually had some scandals too, though in those simpler times, a suitable bribe was a hard-to-get deep freezer.

Today, though, you do see people who own up to their mistakes. Presidential candidate John Edwards has said that he made a bad mistake in voting for sending troops to Iraq. Politically driven? No doubt, but still unusual enough. At least he didn't call it a "youthful indescretion" like Henry Hyde did when he described an affair he had at age 41.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I don't know if that is true, and it may be even less true than it was in the days of Truman. Sure, he said "The buck stops here," but so has Bush. Truman actually had some scandals too, though in those simpler times, a suitable bribe was a hard-to-get deep freezer.

Well, I will plead ignorance due to only reading about that period and not living through it. And not even close to exhaustive reading, at that.

[fishbob]

Quote:

Halliburton Moving C.E.O. From Houston to Dubai

The Dubai announcement, which Halliburton made at a regional energy conference in Bahrain, comes at a time when the company is being investigated by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of improper dealings in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. Halliburton has also agreed to pay billions of dollars in settlements in asbestos litigation.

News Flash

So, what kind of extradition agreement do we have with Dubai?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, I will plead ignorance due to only reading about that period and not living through it. And not even close to exhaustive reading, at that.

I didn't either, I just have the stories my mother told me, and of course, Google.

But I think it's fair to say that that US politicians (probably all politicians) have always been prone to a level of honesty and accountability less than that of the average citizen. Even so, the level of honesty is certainly not equal in all politicians.

I'm not even positive that honesty is the only issue when it comes to judging politicians. An effective weasel (assuming he is effective for the things you consider to be right) may be more desirable as a representative than an ineffective boy scout.

[davefoc]

This is an article about the diminishing authority of Cheney.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...597226,00.html

From the article:

Quote:

But the personal setbacks have merely been the counterpoint to the larger policy reversals Cheney has suffered in internal debates in the past year. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is executing an unmistakable course correction in U.S. foreign policy, quietly stepping away from the strident and unilateral positions of the neoconservatives and cutting deals with — or opening lines to — the remaining members of the axis of evil. Backed by a strong new team of career diplomats, Rice prevailed on Iraq to invite Iran to a regional conference on security and then swiftly agreed to attend, unwinding Washington's vow just a few weeks ago that it would have no direct contact with Tehran until it stopped enriching uranium.

Besides the course reversal with Iran, the US made a major course reversal with regards to North Korea and basically accepted the deal that Bushco had rejected at the beginning of their administration that Clinton had worked out.

And a little more from the article on Cheney's declining power in the domestic policy area:

Quote:

While Rice rewires foreign policy, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten is showing signs that he can match Cheney on domestic matters. The Bush Administration has said it will retreat on the issue of domestic surveillance and abide by laws regulating wiretaps passed years ago by Congress. And the Democrats in Congress are finding Administration officials far more forthcoming with facts and figures about the conduct of the war in Iraq, in part because the White House knows that the next step — subpoenas — won't help their dwindling poll ratings. "There has been an ebb and flow," said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, "and the President has come to realize that the broader assertions of executive power had to be tempered."

But the reversals of the Cheney influence in the administration could be seen as something that might drive him to stay. Is he going to accept the changes in Bushco or will he stay to fight for what he sees as his legacy?

[davefoc]

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/static/62.html

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Is he going to accept the changes in Bushco or will he stay to fight for what he sees as his legacy?

I find it difficult to believe that history will see the events of the Bush administration as Chaney's legacy. In fact, Chaney has worked so much in the background, it would not surprise me if 50 years from now most historians gloss over Chaney and just attribute the events of the Bush administration solely to Bush.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I find it difficult to believe that history will see the events of the Bush administration as Chaney's legacy. In fact, Chaney has worked so much in the background, it would not surprise me if 50 years from now most historians gloss over Chaney and just attribute the events of the Bush administration solely to Bush.

I am not so sure about that. First, is the influence of PNAC on this administration and Cheney seems to have been the point man for that. Was there anything prior to this administration that suggested the nature of the foreign policy that Bush would implement? For at least the first four years of this administration, Cheney seems to have been behind every decision. The little mini-government that he set up will, I suspect, be the subject of historical review for generations to come.

Secondly is the nature of Bush himself. When Cheney talks it is clear that he is a man that is thinking about ideas. You many not agree with his view, but be that as it may it is obvious that he has evaluated evidence to formulate an opinion. I don't think this is at all obvious when Bush speaks. I am left with the impression that Bush is driven by a shallow ego and a weak command of the underlying issues. Bush impresses me as exactly the kind of personality that can be manipulated by others to promote their strategies.

And at its simplest level that is exactly the nature of the Bush presidency. Cheney has dominated on foreign policy and internal security issues. Rove has dominated on domestic policy. Bush seems never to have understood that the motivation of both men may have clouded their judgments to the point that good governance was not possible if their influence was too great.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I am not so sure about that. First, is the influence of PNAC on this administration and Cheney seems to have been the point man for that. Was there anything prior to this administration that suggested the nature of the foreign policy that Bush would implement? For at least the first four years of this administration, Cheney seems to have been behind every decision. The little mini-government that he set up will, I suspect, be the subject of historical review for generations to come.

...

I agree with you. I think that history will not only put a greater emphasis on Cheney's role as Regent than is given over in the contemporary media, but I think that history will examine very intently the question as to why the contemporary media chose to ignore this particular aspect of reality.

For instance, in 50 years, will historians be asking why Tim Russert is able to admit publicly that he defaults to off-the-record, rather than on-the-record, when in conversation with government officials -- standard journalistic practice stood on its head -- and still retain his credibility? You bet. They'll also want to know how the "unnamed source," once the tool to give voice to whistleblowers, is now used by those in power to get out a controlled message without attaching a name of someone to be held accountable.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fishbob

News Flash

So, what kind of extradition agreement do we have with Dubai?

Its seems like a good business decision to move your headquarters to where your customers are.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by hgc

For instance, in 50 years, will historians be asking why Tim Russert is able to admit publicly that he defaults to off-the-record, rather than on-the-record, when in conversation with government officials -- standard journalistic practice stood on its head -- and still retain his credibility? You bet. They'll also want to know how the "unnamed source," once the tool to give voice to whistleblowers, is now used by those in power to get out a controlled message without attaching a name of someone to be held accountable.

It seems like you have touched on a tangential issue here. Obviously, Bushco, used leaks as a means of developing a media narrative to influence public opinion.

The question to me, is to what degree were Bushco's activities along these lines are unique to Bushco. I believe that all administrations in my life have used leaks to float trial balloons. But have other administrations used leaks as a method of rewarding compliant journalists? That seems likely but I just don't know whether Bushco has used this strategy more than prior administrations. And to tie this back into Cheney, was Cheney responsible for instituting this strategy or was it just a general consensus strategy that grew out of the overall Bush administration?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Tricky

...Today, though, you do see people who own up to their mistakes. Presidential candidate John Edwards has said that he made a bad mistake in voting for sending troops to Iraq. Politically driven? No doubt, but still unusual enough. At least he didn't call it a "youthful indescretion" like Henry Hyde did when he described an affair he had at age 41.

To be fair, Mr. Hyde was 128 years old at the time.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by davefoc

It seems like you have touched on a tangential issue here. Obviously, Bushco, used leaks as a means of developing a media narrative to influence public opinion.

The question to me, is to what degree were Bushco's activities along these lines are unique to Bushco. I believe that all administrations in my life have used leaks to float trial balloons. But have other administrations used leaks as a method of rewarding compliant journalists? That seems likely but I just don't know whether Bushco has used this strategy more than prior administrations. And to tie this back into Cheney, was Cheney responsible for instituting this strategy or was it just a general consensus strategy that grew out of the overall Bush administration?

Yes, I do digress somewhat, but only because I think this is a crucial element of what's happening here. The role of the Russert and the gang stands to be examined here closely, as they very much abetted these goings-on. I'm not so quick to play the equivalency game, but then it shouldn't matter. The national media quote unnamed sources from within this administration on a daily basis, and on really important issues. This tool should never be used when disseminating views and information that the administration wants to disseminate. Unless someone is telling tales out of school, there is no legitimate use of the unnamed source. On the plane returning from his recent travels, VP Cheney talked to reporters only on background. I would bet that's nearly unprecedented for a sitting VP.

Why does Russert and his gang go along? Because they value access more than reportage. Because GE hands him a really fat paycheck, and he knows how to keep it coming. Because he has social relationships with his subjects, which clouds his judgement. The result is that this government goes unchecked by the media.