POLITICS - Spin-Mister, Latest Cheney Interview

"Brooks and Marcus on Prospects for Obama's Jobs Plan, Solyndra Saga" PBS Newshour Transcript 9/16/2011

Excerpt on Cheney interview

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Now, let's -- responding -- we were watching Vice President Cheney.

And, Ruth, we had to restrain you...

RUTH MARCUS, Washington Post columnist: You did...

JEFFREY BROWN: ... at certain moments.

RUTH MARCUS: ... have to restrain me.

I wasn't sure that I was going to have anything new to say about Vice President Cheney, because I have seen him interviewed before. But I have to say he had my blood boiling in the discussion about deficits, because let's get serious.

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney came into office, they inherited a surplus. The reason that we are facing deficits now and deficits and we have piled on so much debt in the future is in significant part because of the tax cuts that they instituted and refused to find a way to pay for.

He talks about entitlement problems, because of the largest increase in entitlements guarantees, the prescription drug plan, which they instituted and refused to pay for, and because of the wars. So, don't -- I'm sorry. Don't blame President Obama for all of it.

JEFFREY BROWN: David. OK. David.

RUTH MARCUS: And your turn, David.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times columnist: I agree about the Bush-Obama tax cut, which the president -- the current president has fully endorsed, the prescription drug plan...

(LAUGHTER)

RUTH MARCUS: Not fully endorsed, not fully endorsed.

DAVID BROOKS: ... which Obama has fully endorsed.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: I think they are all consistent.

One thing I would like to say about Cheney, he got a lot of heat for something he mentioned, and it ties back to something that was earlier in the program, and that was Syria. He describes in the book, apparently, a meeting...

RUTH MARCUS: He's changing the subject.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, I see.

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with Ruth on everything she said.

RUTH MARCUS: All right. I will be quiet now.

DAVID BROOKS: So, on Syria, they had a meeting in the White House, "Should we bomb the Syrian nuclear reactor?" several years ago. And one person said yes. And that was Dick Cheney. Everyone else said no.

But he was actually right about that. If the Israelis had not taken out that reactor, imagine where we would be today, where we heard in the news summary about thousands of people being killed by the Assad regime. What if they had nukes right now? This would be a very scary world.

And so I'm not a big Cheney fan. I was more on the Rice side of things, but I think he was right about that one.

JEFFREY BROWN: We heard Judy at the end ask him about the Romney comment. That makes me wonder, what is Dick Cheney's position in the party today and in American politics?

DAVID BROOKS: You know, it's funny. I would say that, in general, the Bush/Cheney regime has a very small position in the party. They are not well-thought-of. That may come back in a few years. They don't want anybody outside the party disrespecting to Bush and Cheney, but the Bush/Cheney years within the party right now are not seen as successful years, in part because of what Ruth mentioned, in part because of the spending and the deficits.

RUTH MARCUS: And you have to wonder, if Dick Cheney had taken the opportunity to throw his arms around Mitt Romney and endorse him, whether that would have made Mitt Romney happy. It certainly wouldn't help him in a general election, which is clearly what he is looking at.

Ah, yes, the G.W. Bush era spin-mister and "we didn't screw up" dribble. Also, "buy my book" salesman and conservative love-child.

As to civil liberties, the problem is We-the-People cannot know because what is exactly done is secret (behind closed doors). Essentially we have to trust "them" and that is the core problem. My view is, I do not trust the NSA as far as I can throw an elephant.

IRAQ - What Iraq Was, History From the Inside

I have previously posted some articles by Layla Anwar from her An Arab Woman Blues blog.

I wanted to give my readers an inside view (aka non-American) of what is happening in Iraq for balance.

She has two posts that I suggest you read:

Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction. Part I

Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction. Part II

They are long, but worth the read if you are interested in VIEWS OUTSIDE Bush World, GOP Conservatism, and Cheney War Mongering.

POLITICS - The Bush Police State

"GOP faces 'wipeout' because of Bush" Opinion, Colfax Country Media

Is a police state near? Old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq war, had strong words.

Roberts believes ..... that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the war on terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party.

"Something's in the works. "The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... You have to count on the fact that if al-Qaida's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."

Executive orders needed to create a police state are already in place. By simply declaring an emergency, Bush can take over both Congress and the Judiciary (May 9, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 and National Security Presidential Directive 51).

He killed the Bill of Rights with a law that can seize an American citizen without charge and hold people indefinitely (Oct. 17, 2006, Military Commissions Act). He has proven that torture and extraordinary renditions are now standard practices.

Too many Americans think their danger is terrorists. But terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. Our own government, in the name of fighting terrorism is doing that.

Also former Reagan associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein and Pat Buchanan are warning of the danger.

Bold emphasis, mine

Hyperbole? Sky-is-falling? Maybe, but all Americans should keep a close eye on just what our federal government is doing, especially this Bush Administration. If we don't, we could wakeup someday soon to banging at our door, to be dragged to concentration camps. History does oft repeat.

The true and most prominent threat to our American Democracy has always been close to home, internal.

UPDATE

"Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11" by Jason Leopold, TruthOut

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

Bold emphasis, mine

POLITICS - Boy! These People Put Tricky-Dicky to Shame

"A New Cheney-Gonzales Mystery" by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek Periscope

A new battle has erupted over Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to submit to an executive order requiring a government review of his handling of classified documents. But the dispute could also raise questions for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. For the past four years, Cheney's office has failed to comply with an executive order requiring all federal offices—including those in the White House—to annually report to the National Archives on how they safeguard classified documents. Cheney's hard-line chief of staff, David Addington, has made the novel argument that the veep doesn't have to comply on the ground that, because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate, his office is not really part of the executive branch.

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

Waxman told NEWSWEEK he now plans to investigate the handling of the issue by Justice as well as Cheney's refusal to comply with the executive order, which he called part of a "pattern" of stonewalling by the veep. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said, "We're confident we are conducting the office properly under the law." She also pointed to comments by White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, who said that Bush, not the National Archives, was the "sole enforcer" of the executive order relating to classified information.

Yap, another issue to add to our "straight-forward, I'm not a crook" Bush Administration.

POLITICS - Bush, et al, on a Loser

"Attacking Democrats Over Iraq: Bush and Cheney's Surefire Plan for Political Defeat" by A. Alexander, Progressive Daily Beacon

Well, here we go again! George W. Bush and his history of hiding in the National Guard in order to avoid the draft and Dick Cheney along with his five Vietnam draft deferments, are lecturing Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats on the finer points of true patriotism. What's more, the two Executive Branch Bozos who lied the nation into the Iraq War and then spent four years figuring out how to lose it in the most stunning form of defeat possible, have taken to blaming the same Senator Reid and Democratic Party for losing the war. Isn't this all a bit like Republican Senator Trent Lott and Don Imus lecturing Martin Luther King JR about how best to end racism?

There was probably a time such talk would have enraged and cowed Democrats, but not in today's reality. Makes one wonder what political moron -- Karl Rove -- dreamed up this completely foolish and dangerous attempt at winning a few political points? A recent poll revealed that ever since Mister Bush hopped on his Democratic war-funding bill veto express, his approval rating on Iraq has fallen and the Democrats' numbers went up. Prior to George W. Bush's Karl Rove-inspired "showdown" with the Democrats, 54 percent supported the Democrats' Iraq position. After a couple weeks of Rose Garden and other impromptu press conferences that were designed to pummel the Democrats' stance on Iraq, 58 percent of the American people supported the Democratic position on the war and even more people opposed Bush's. That's a four point increase for the Democrats.

A smart person might think about changing tactics...and then there is George W. Bush. This strategy of attacking Democrats over the Iraq War is a surefire political failure and just like his disastrous Iraq policy, Mister Bush isn't going to let failure get in the way of staying a losing course. By Jiminy, he is on a loser here folks, and he means to see it through to complete political disaster!

....and this is for starters.

Then again, a "complete political disaster" for the GOP may be what we need come 2008. A Bush Insurance Policy for the Democratic Party.

POLITICS - The Blind Leading the Blind

"Pentagon: No Saddam-Al Qaeda Link" WCBSTV

(CBS) WASHINGTON Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with Al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of Al Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq, contending that the terrorist group was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda. Others in Al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Yup. A blind VP leading the blind GOP.

The Bush Administration is correct no matter what anyone else says, especially the American people.

POLITICS - WAIT A COTTON PICKING MINUTE !!

A local view:

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:57:50 -0800, in "sdnet.politics" Brian David Smith, San Diego, California, wrote:

Cheney lied on CNN

Yesterday, in an interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Dick Cheney said, "After 9/11, we learned that we have a vested interest in what happens on the ground in the Middle East." Cheney said to remember what happened in Afghanistan. Cheney said, "The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supporting the effort against the Soviets. The Mujahedeen prevailed. Everybody walked away. And, in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created a safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And, out of that, out of Afghanistan, because we walked away and ignored it, we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa, and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack, and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East."

Cheney's key phase is, "After 9/11, we learned that we have a vested interest in what happens on the ground in the Middle East." Specifically Cheney is saying the U.S. has reason to monitor the Middle East and circumvent terrorists from developing safe havens, i.e. training and deployment camps.

Fair enough! That seems rational. Why give terrorists a foothold to establish themselves? Why take the chance?

Here is the problem. On January 17 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have requested an increase in U.S. force levels to handle an expected upsurge in Taliban violence. Essentially, an estimated 15,000 Taliban fighters are preparing for battle. The Taliban is going to use guerrilla-like techniques that they adopted last year.

WAIT A COTTON PICKING MINUTE !!

After 9-eleven, didn't the U.S. go into Afghanistan and clean out the Taliban? YES!

Didn't the U.S. stand up Hamid Karzai as the head of the transitional government of Afghanistan? YES!

Further, didn't Hamid Karzai become the first democratically elected head of state in Afghanistan in late 2004? YES!

So why is the Taliban back with 15,000 troops requiring the U.S. to amp up troop strength in Afghanistan?

Apparently, according to Dick Cheney's position, the U.S. must have stopped supervising Afghanistan in the last couple of years because the Taliban is back with 15,000 troops scaring the hell out of the American commander in Afghanistan.

What this truly says is the U.S. must keep constant, ongoing surveillance over the Middle East to prevent terrorists from coming back. Whether it is this year, next year, ten years from now or even further down the line, the U.S. must continually police the Middle East. Otherwise what Cheney claims happened in Afghanistan will reoccur. That is, terror groups will continue to re-establish safe havens and launch attacks.

As such, Cheney is saying the U.S. must continue to fight in the Middle East forever and forever. It is never going to end. The Iraq war will never end because there is a chance the terrorists will be back. The fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan will never end. On and on and on.

Bush and Cheney claim their new "surge" plan in Iraq will leave U.S. troops behind in Baghdad to prevent the terrorist from sneaking back in. Well, for how long? Bush and Cheney established the Hamid Karzai government in Afghanistan and apparently, the Taliban is back. So who is to say the Maliki government in Iraq will do any better?

It is all hogwash on the part of Bush and Cheney! Just standing up governments in the Middle East is not enough. Otherwise, the Taliban wouldn't be back in Afghanistan. Furthermore, neither would warring elements continually repopulate the Anbar province, Fallujah and Baghdad as they have repeatedly over the last four years.

Essentially, "getting the job done" in the Middle East will require American occupation forever and ever because the terrorists will be back. When Cheney says, "But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done," Cheney is disingenuous.

There is no getting the job done!

It will be a continuing occupation!

Did the American public sign on to sacrifice their sons and daughters in an ongoing occupation of the Middle East? NO!

Did Americans sign on to fund a continued war-level American presence in the Middle East? NO!

Essentially, Cheney, and therefore Bush, have lied once again. They do not intend to end U.S. aggression in the Middle East. It will be ongoing and will eventually include Iran and Syria.

So, when Cheney says, "The fact is, we can complete the task in Iraq. We're going to do it. We have General Petraeus taking over. It is a good strategy.It will work. But we have to have the stomach to finish the task," that is not Cheney's intention at all. He lies.

I totally agree with the red paragraphs above. No truer words have been spoken.

POLITICS - A Look Back - The Cook in the Whitehouse

"The Psychology Behind the Worst Possible President" by Jane Smiley, Huffington Post

The article ends with.....

The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven't dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance. The elder Bush(es), Scrowcroft, Baker, and their friends, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gerson, and the neocons have made the monster and in the process endangered the country, the Constitution, and the world, not to mention the sanity of wretches like Jose Padilla (for an analysis of the real reason Gitmo continues to exist, see Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, here.

Read more at link.

POLITICS - The One Percent Doctrine

The following is from a book "The One Percent Doctrine," by Ron Suskind, that was just published and is the subject of "Who's Counting: Cheney's One Percent Doctrine" by John Allen Paulos, ABC News

Suskind describes the Cheney doctrine as follows: "Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It's not about 'our analysis,' as Cheney said. It's about 'our response.' … Justified or not, fact-based or not, 'our response' is what matters. As to 'evidence,' the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn't apply."

The article states some of the reasoning behind the doctrine. Also, on a PBS Newshour interview, Suskind stated some of the reasoning but also stated the dangers of such a doctrine.

Although the arguments for the doctrine are sound, in my opinion, there are real dangers that Americans need to consider. Essentially the doctrine requires us to trust the government not to abuse the powers such a doctrine imply. This doctrine, according to Suskind, is the real reason why the war in Iraq was started in the first place. If there was even a hint (1%) that Saddam had WMD we act, hence the war.

The problem for Americans is to remember Vietnam, Nixon, and even the atomic bomb tests of the 50's, as just some examples. The American people were mislead in each of these examples. In effect, lied to by the government at the time. In the case of the atomic bomb tests, it was not our ignorance of the effects on people (American troops and others in the test area), it was the hiding of the danger after we knew. It was decades before those exposed at home were officially made aware of what they were exposed to.

Sadly, we should have learned not to wholly trust our government (local, state, federal). We need to monitor just what they are doing to ensure our human and Constitutional freedoms are protected.

Example:

• Under this 1% doctrine, if there is 1% chance that an ordinary American citizen could be an Acadia supporter, the government should spy on him/her without a warrant (which has happened in another context and been exposed lately).
• Really?
• Would you support such actions?
• Is just 1% chance worth giving up your Constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure?

Living in a democracy, with the freedoms we now have, is inherently dangerous. It is the price we should be willing to pay for our freedoms. Absolute protection is a illusion, a lie, and is the reasoning used by totalitarian governments worldwide (see North Kora).