June 24, 2007 8:00
The Washington Post's Cheney Series
The Washington Post today begins a four-part series on the extraordinary and unprecedented role that Dick Cheney has played as Vice President. There is plenty of new information in the first installment by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker. One big revelation is the way in which Cheney engineered the presidential order that denied terrorism suspects access to courts, and then made sure that it was not subjected to review by anyone else:
Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions.""What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.
A second piece of new information is that the now-famous memo declaring the Geneva Conventions "quaint," ostensibly authored by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, was in fact written by Cheney's lawyer, David Addington:
Powell asked for a meeting with Bush. The same day, Jan. 25, 2002, Cheney's office struck a preemptive blow. It appeared to come from Gonzales, a longtime Bush confidant whom the president nicknamed "Fredo." Hours after Powell made his request, Gonzales signed his name to a memo that anticipated and undermined the State Department's talking points. The true author has long been a subject of speculation, for reasons including its unorthodox format and a subtly mocking tone that is not a Gonzales hallmark.A White House lawyer with direct knowledge said Cheney's lawyer, Addington, wrote the memo. Flanigan passed it to Gonzales, and Gonzales sent it as "my judgment" to Bush [Read the memo]. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself.
The story also contains accounts of enormous behind-the-scenes battles in the White House, including an episode in which then-Attorney General John Ashcroft is enraged to discover that his own subordinate, John Yoo, is working with Cheney to prevent the Justice Department and the courts from having any say in the tribunal process.
But it is also striking to see how the post-9/11 Cheney mode of operation contradicts what the pre-9/11 Cheney had advocated:
When James A. Baker III was tapped to be White House chief of staff in 1980, he interviewed most of his living predecessors. Advice from Cheney filled four pages of a yellow legal pad. Only once, to signify Cheney's greatest emphasis, did Baker write in all capital letters:BE AN HONEST BROKER
DON'T USE THE PROCESS TO IMPOSE YOUR POLICY VIEWS ON PRES.
Cheney told Baker, according to the notes, that an "orderly paper flow is way you protect the Pres.," ensuring that any proposal has been tested against other views. Cheney added:
"It's not in anyone's interest to get an 'oh by the way decision' -- & all have to understand that. Can hurt the Pres. Bring it up at a Cab. mtg. Make sure everyone understands this."
As the Post demonstrates, Cheney himself would turn out to be the ultimate practitioner of "oh, by the way" decision-making.
Reader Comments
Posted by trifecta
June 24, 2007
9/11 didn't change anything for Cheney. It just gave him cover. The energy task force was pre 9/11. The terror attacks allowed Cheney to get away with more under the cover of darkness.
Cheney deserves a good impeachment if we care about quaint notions like the constitution.
Posted by Joe Alsop
June 24, 2007
This signature behavior should have been obvious to all the minute Cheney was selected to head Bush's vice presidential search committee, and it came back with his own name.
If you have not experienced it before, now you know what it is like to be played for a sucker.
Posted by pva
June 24, 2007
I think it's important, from an institutional perspective, to recognize that Cheney's advice to Baker was advice for a Chief of Staff, not a VP. The Chief of Staff's role is inherently to protect the Pres., the VP's is not necessarily so.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
The "perfect storm" for catastrophe: An incompetent boob that plays at being the President and Commander Guy; a secretive sociopath working the levers of government to his own ends behind the scenes; and a somnambulant, lazy, inferior press, unable to move beyond haircuts and earthtone suits and whatever Drudge/Politico recommends that you get excited about.
This has played out right under your nose. You all are just now discovering this? The center left blogosphere have been knowing about this and talking about this for YEARS!
But enough recriminations. What are *you* going to do about it, Karen? Is Time going to follow up with some stories of their own to shed more light on this? Does Time Mag have any journalists with the chops to follow this story? Or is its role going to be, like in the Scooter Libby case, to rise up in full-throated defense of the Cheney Administration, dismissing those of us who are "concerned" about his secretive power of being motivated by (clutch your pearls here) partisanship and mean-spirited revenge against such a nice guy. I expect William "The Bloody" Kristol to step up first, followed by Joe Klein.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
Just as I predicted. Time Mag's piece on how Cheney has secretly taken over the Executive branch and remains unaccountable is framed by Michael Duffy as a political story -- ohh, those silly naughty partisans! To wit:
~~
It is a classic confrontation more than 30 years in the making, and it will continue until the Bush era ends: One side is completely comfortable with using its subpoena power against an executive branch, while the other is utterly content to ignore it.
~~
Apparently the people at Time Mag sit around reading the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune all day, and then regurgitate the stories in a shortened, simplified form that emphasizes the trivial.
Posted by Mr. Donut
June 24, 2007
"There is plenty of new information in the first installment by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker.
Technically this is correct, Ms. Tumulty, but you are being totally disingenuous. It's only 'new' information in the sense that we, the great unwashed masses to whom you regularly pontificate, are now getting into real specfics, instead of the educated guesses we've all been forced to make. You in the media have been complicit in allowing the Veep and his office to act as they have, yet you've completely failed in your responsibilities to shine a light on it and make sure Jane and Joe Sixpack understand it, too. Only now that the whole enterprise is unraveling are you bothering to talk about it in a serious way.
You suck. Yeah, I'm feeling vituperative-sque today. Henny Penny! Call Dean Broder and grab your smelling salts.
Posted by ama
June 24, 2007
Good Morning, Karen!
This article was highlighted on C-Span this morning, and most people who called in were dismayed, as you might expect. Some of them thar 26 percenters are still hanging in there, including at least one delusional Alabama woman, believing that Bush and Cheney are beyond reproach, no matter what wretched things they do to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
One of the commenters at WaPo kinda echoes James' comment above:
"The media and elected officials have known for 6 years about Cheney's corruption in the White House. This is right from the Nixon play book and Cheney was trained during the Watergate years. Now the media is acting like this is new. If Nixon wasn't Pardon by Ford this would not have happen. This is an example of what happens with a criminal President doesn't have to pay for his crimes.
Posted by: qqbDEyZW"
Many have said that pardoning Nixon and closing our eyes to the mischief perpetrated by Reagan paved the way for the corruption of this administration.
QUESTION: When will we stop these kinds of illegal/extralegal misdeeds?
Posted by trifecta
June 24, 2007
We are blaming the media a bit too much.
We demand crap, we get it. The media is a business too and we deserve to be accountable for our passivity.
An interesting example of this was Fox news. They were geared to air a likely dreadful failed PBS documentary on Islam that PBS declined because it stunk. Frank Gaffney, a chief neo-con made it, so you can only imagine.
Fox News postponed the documentary because of "breaking news". The woman in Ohio was found about 4 hours before the air date. Therefore it had to be wall to wall coverage. Even on Fox, conservative agit prop takes a back seat to viewer porn that we all watch.
CNN, Time, the Washington Post will all start caring about Cheney's lawbreaking when we give them a hint that we as a public give a darn.
If the American people showed as much interest in our constitution being violated as this week's missing white woman, we would have a this week in Cheney violating the constitution segment sponsored by Proctor & Gamble.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
"CNN, Time, the Washington Post will all start caring about Cheney's lawbreaking when we give them a hint that we as a public give a darn."
Please detail how we go about doing that.
Posted by markieK
June 24, 2007
Maybe now the public will follow us netroots and demand Bush and Cheney impeachement so we can put Madame Pelosi in as President and then pass our initives in Congress and then elect Hillary and save america from the neocons forever.
Thank you WaPo!
Help us help you.
Vote Democrat.
Call your senators and reps and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW.
For more, go to the DailyKos.com
Posted by kth
June 24, 2007
Judging from the first installment, it appears that the article will mostly emphasize Cheney's brilliance and ruthlessness as a Machiavel, but will focus less on his utterly boneheaded stupidity and the fact that he has been dead wrong on every point on which he has seen fit to pronounce publicly.
(e.g., his affinity for the crank Laurie Mylroie (who believes that Saddam was behind the OKC bombing), his assertion that Saddam coordinated with Al-Qaeda, Atta in Prague (utterly and repeatedly debunked), "insurgents are in their last throes", etc.)
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"Judging from the first installment, it appears that the article will mostly emphasize Cheney's brilliance and ruthlessness as a Machiavel, but will focus less on his utterly boneheaded stupidity and the fact that he has been dead wrong on every point on which he has seen fit to pronounce publicly."
Exactly. And Bush has claimed the same powers too--he says he's exempt from his own Executive Orders.
They need to be removed immediately--or arrested.
Posted by linda
June 24, 2007
Ahmen to all of the above + my usual born-again Nixon virus: :)
Another footnote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/23/guantanamo.ap/index.html
Baker III still has his 'notes'? lol Those didn't go through the shredder and he could find them? lol
How can you let anyone of the HOOK, by crook, like Powell and Rice who were in the thick of things. Rice has consistently defended 'the policy' in all the parts of the world where we still talk to people. Seems to me that whether Gonzo wrote it or signed it, that puts Gonzo in the same wing of Alcatraz Remodeled. Water Gate/Iran-Contra Redux Part III
I would also add the coverage of the Ford presidency during the week of his funeral with every other word being his 'brave, brilliant but opposed Pardon' leading up to the 'Pardon Me, Fred' is that a Cheney advisor on your staff for your maybe candidacy.
CNN has not covered anything for so long, it is SNEWS compared to FAUX where ORilemup is running a propaganda war that says 'no news' is what the American Public needs. The only way you can stay informed is to have a Thesaurus, a copy of the New Bush-Webster Dictionary, a real knowledge of history and your mouse running the maze on the net.
Just like an oak tree in a drought year producing a bumper crop of acorns to ensure survival of the species, Yoo and others in big numbers continue with the 'out of favor' into a Major University/Think Tank recycle program to spread the word to the next generation.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
from the Post-- "Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security." "
These things are not new--why is it only now that it's making the news? Why haven't reporters ever pushed back?
And the 9/11 stuff leaves out the actual calls about shooting down planes--why is that? Why is none of that even mentioned?
Posted by sentinel
June 24, 2007
Don't look for any tough reporting by the MSM. This is only coming out now (and was in the blogworld eons ago) because some fellers inside are talking. Like the US Attorneys it will drip drip until Jan 2009. Cheney will breeze along aided and abetted by Addington and Co.
If there was ever a time when Colin Powell could have stood for something it was then. But being a team players trumped everything: integrity be damned.
What the poll on Cheney's popularity????
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
I was proved fucking right. Already.
~~
Kristol Defends Cheney, Williams Says He’s Creating A ‘Secured Undisclosed Bunker Of His Mind’ »
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor [and Time Magazine columnist] William Kristol defended Vice President Cheney’s decision to exempt himself from an executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information.
Kristol said the exemptions for the president and vice president were “reasonable enough.” He called it “a pain in the neck” to have “some bureaucrat” from the National Archives “come and inspect your safe to see whether you’re locking it up properly each night.”
~~
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/24/williams-kristol-cheney/
I expect Joe Klein to be the next to step up to defend this sociopathis criminal.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"One of the angles that's gone largely unnoticed about all of this is that it's actually old news. Cheney started holding himself out as some kind of unaccountable, pseudo-fourth branch of government way back in February. The blogs noticed, and explained how crazy the argument is, but the media yawned. No one pushed the White House to explain, the Republican-led Congress barely lifted an eyebrow, and everyone just moved on, satisfied that Dick Cheney had established his own superbranch.
It's interesting -- and if anyone can explain the reasoning, I'm all ears -- but the same important story that was ignored in February is suddenly fascinating in June. The same questions that bloggers asked then are unexpectedly interesting to everyone else now.
As Digby noted, "Nobody gave a damn until Henry Waxman decided to issue a report that wondered why Dick Cheney was trying to shut down the agency that had crossed him. Then everyone 'discovered' that Dick Cheney has created a fourth branch of government that answers to no one -- something we were talking about months ago." " -- http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014787.php
And it's not just months ago, but years ago. Why is that? And will the media continue to paint this as a Waxman/Democrats v. Cheney/GOP thing as usual?
Posted by Tom Betz
June 24, 2007
Why is anyone surprised by this?
Remember, Bush came out of Texas, where the Governor (except for the potential to pardon or commute death sentences) really has very little power in the affairs of government government, and the Lt. Governor actually runs things. Bush's political positions have always been more or less figurehead positions.
H.Res. 333 is looking more and more important every day.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr333/show
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
We're expecting a long, long, long overdue Cover Story in Time on this, Karen.
(we won't hold our breath tho--Paris Hilton is getting out of jail, i hear, and there's another missing white woman, and Edwards might get another haircut or Hillary might be grating or something, or another reporter might discover that Obama is black or half-black, or how very wide and manly and sweet-smelling the GOP candidates are...)
Posted by Kristi
June 24, 2007
More from the article:
"A prodigious appetite for work, officials said, prepares Cheney to shape the president's conversations with others. His Secret Service detail sometimes reports that he is awake and reading at 4:30 a.m. He receives a private intelligence briefing between 6:30 and 7 a.m., often identifying issues to be called to Bush's attention, and then sits in on the president's daily briefing an hour later. Aides said that Cheney insists on joining Bush by secure video link, no matter how many time zones divide them.
Stealth is among Cheney's most effective tools. Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president. Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped "Treated As: Top Secret/SCI." Experts in and out of government said Cheney's office appears to have invented that designation, which alludes to "sensitive compartmented information," the most closely guarded category of government secrets. By adding the words "treated as," they said, Cheney seeks to protect unclassified work as though its disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security."
Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
Washington Post Profile Reveals Stealthy Cheney Spies On White House Staffers -- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/24/cheney-wp-profile/
"...Cheney used that influence to bypass key presidential aides and thwart any dissent about Bush’s authorization of the unconstitutional military commissions to try detainees. The Post reports “almost no one” had seen the legal draft establishing the commissions, except Cheney’s closest aides. Cheney then took astonishing measures to ensure that internal objections would not reach the President, even resorting to spying on White House staff: ..."
Posted by Tom Betz
June 24, 2007
James: Here's the detail you asked for.
If you don't know already, find your Representative's name in the lookup box at the top of this page:
http://www.house.gov/
Here are three toll-free phone numbers to call, no waiting, to get the the Congressional switchboard:
877-851-6437
800-828-0498
800-459-1887
Ask the nice operator to transfer you to your Congressperson's office.
Advise your Congressperson's staffer who answers the phone that you consider it critical to the survival of the Republic (and of your Congressperson's political career) that your Congressperson immediately co-sponsor and push for consideration and passage of H.Res 333.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr333/show
Follow up with an e-mail and postal mail making the same point.
Follow up with another phone call, another e-mail, and another postal mail letter every week reinforcing the same point.
Enough details for you?
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
And is this thing even running in the actual Washington Post itself? Is it running on Page 1? Anywhere in the printed paper at all?
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
More of Cheney's handiwork: -- The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming -- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/1
"...It is no secret that industry-connected appointees within the White House have worked actively to distort the findings of federal climate scientists, playing down the threat of climate change. But a new investigation by Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. ..."
Posted by rmrd0000
June 24, 2007
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
"CNN, Time, the Washington Post will all start caring about Cheney's lawbreaking when we give them a hint that we as a public give a darn."
Please detail how we go about doing that.
_____
I am pessimistic, CPAN had a re-run of a conference on Watergate and Presidential Accountability.
Both Woodward and Berstein were moderators.
They did reflect on how current pressures made it imperative to get a story out quickly, if not completely. Bernstein noted that the WaPo website had three diffent stories ready to go when John Edwards was about to announce his decision on continuing or ending this campaign, after his wife's breast cancer recurrence. For 51 seconds the wrong story was posted on the WaPo website.
Bernstein stated that the public had the information they needed because of the press. Not mentioned was the fact that Cheney's view of the VP's office was picked up by Digby, TPM, etc back in February, or that TPM noted the importance aof The DOJ firings long before it hit the MSM radar. In fact Time mag's editor and Chris Mathews initially downplayed the story.
The MSM has become too insular. They do not hear the voices of the public.
Joe Klein, for example, attacks those who have different views as crazy lefties, ditto for Broder. Klein in fact takes pride in getting attacked by tose who disagree with his august opinion. Mathews, Broder and a host of others are likely to share Klein's viewpoint.
Changing the MSM will be difficult
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"Changing the MSM will be difficult"
Is it changing, or just getting them to go back to doing their jobs?
Why isn't investigative journalism practiced anymore, and when it is, it's shoved off to a blog or buried? Why is the affection and access to those in power more important than the truth--and even more important than their profits and readership? It didn't take the Libby/Plame crimes for most of the public to know that for the most part, reporters and the media are totally compromised.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
Also, the very basic facts on that Executive Order still haven't been reported--it mentions the President and Vice President multiple times.
Posted by A Hermit
June 24, 2007
Of course none of this is really new, except the fact that the beltway cocktail circuit has finally woken up and decided to actually talk about it.
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
Karen, thanks for posting this. I'll give my prediction of what happens here:
1. Conservatives like Bill Kristol start defending Cheney (this has already happened).
2. David Broder says the House should ignore the issue saying "legislate, not investigate".
3. Rick Stengel goes on Meet the Press and says "this issue is really bad for Democrats."
4. Right-wing blogosphere concludes "Clinton did it too", reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post dutifully include in each of their pieces the fact that "Bush defenders point to the fact that Clinton once made a phone call from a pay phone, which some say was equally secretive."
4. Michael Kinsley shows up here to tell us it's no big deal, that it's all justified by some obscure provision in the Articles of Confederation.
5. Joe Klein says that, whatever you think of Cheney, the man is "intellectually honest, unlike Michael Moore."
6. Ben Smith of the Politico discovers that Barack Obama once paid 13 bucks for a pastrami sandwich and charged it to his campaign. "Journalistic" mayhem ensues as Tim Russert assembles a panel to answer the question: "Can we trust a man who paid 13 dollars for a pastrami sandwich to look out for working class people from South Buffalo?" Points out that Big Russ has never paid more than 8 dollars for a pastrami sandwich.
7. Paris Hilton tries to shoplift some shoes from Prada. Twenty four hours a day coverage on CNN for a week.
8. The story is completely forgotten save for the occasional Washington Post editorial about how pointless investigations have impeded Congress's ability to get anything done.
The End.
Posted by Hoplite
June 24, 2007
Years, *years* after the fact, and with one of Bush's legs out the door, you people finally start reporting on this. Who wants to bet that if Bush's approval rating wasn't at 30% this story would never have seen the light of day? On the bright side, we sure do know all about Edwards' haircuts and home, Gore's power bill, Hillary's devious calculations, and what school Obama went to as a 10 year old. It isn't as if you people are *totally* worthless. Is it.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
Of course, where there's Executive wrongdoing and crimes, there's Gonzales obstructing things: "...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? ..." -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19391241/site/newsweek/
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
>Posted by Tom Betz
>James: Here's the detail you asked for.
Thank you for the information, Mr. Betz. I regularly contact my own Congresscritters and members of various committees as well, by telephone and by email and website, numerous times when needed, including their offices in DC and their offices at home, and task every adult person in my considerably large household to do the same, by holding the telephone in their face in lieu of food and beverage, if need be. (No offense intended)
The question was "How to get the *media* to do their job."
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEAAAAACH!!!!
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
How do you guys get those cool lines across the column?
Posted by rmrd0000:
"Joe Klein, for example, attacks those who have different views as crazy lefties, ditto for Broder. Klein in fact takes pride in getting attacked by tose who disagree with his august opinion. Mathews, Broder and a host of others are likely to share Klein's viewpoint."
I learned a new term. Dunning-Kruger effect.
From Wikipedia:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.
[...]
1. incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill,
2. incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
3. incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
4. if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.
[...]
As Dunning and Kruger noted,
“ Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
.
.
.
.
Remiiiiind you of anyone?
.
.
.
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
"The question was "How to get the *media* to do their job.""
Fire all the people at the top (with a few exceptions like Karen) and start over. I think that working reporters *ARE* doing their jobs. The problem is the Rick Stengels, Jay Carneys, Joe Kleins, and David Broders. If they were all fired and replaced by people who were interested in journalism rather than name dropping and real estate, thing might start to improve.
Posted by gary B
June 24, 2007
Now is the time to impeach so we get PResident Pelosi and everythning then will be mor ebetter.
Posted by CHENEY / BUSH 2008
June 24, 2007
Feingold, Murtha, Reid, and Schumer wanted Al Queda to have free phone cards and pro-bono legal access for life to Foley Square, as a birth right.
Cheney has simply done the correct thing, i.e. deny the myopic enabling of terrorists, at home and abroad.
Liberals still don't get IS, do they?
Oh well.
HILLARY HAPPENS.
Posted by linda
June 24, 2007
Remember the Gallup Poll that was used to discuss Congressional approval rating (+/-3):
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27946
TV News...23%
Newspaper...22%
Both are down 8 since May 07
New Poll shows only 39% think we are winning war on Terrorism.
http://www.galluppoll.com/
Seems like there are strong indications that it time for a change. No matter how it is marketed, the 'no sales' are growing. Good business sense would say that the market for the product is dwindling. A new product is needed. Changing the packaging, redesigned web pages/sensationalism, isn't going to cut it.
Posted by Bows and Flows of Leftist Crap
June 24, 2007
"...Gov. Mike Beebe, who has not yet announced an endorsement for the 2008 race, told Clinton, "Senator, on behalf of almost three million Arkansans, welcome home..."
There are 3 million democraps in Arkysaw?
Who knew.
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
I thnk the crossword puzzle is the best part of the paper, don't you?
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
I thnk the crossword puzzle is the best part of the paper, don't you?
Posted by CHENEY / BUSH 2008
June 24, 2007
The war on terrorism will be won when the murdering mullahs are replaced by actual people.
Until then, we IS at war.
Posted by ama
June 24, 2007
Remiiiiind you of anyone?
******
Oh, James, you are gonna get it when Daddy Klein returns!
Better pad the back of your pants with something because he's gonna try to wear out your britches! ;)
Posted by Hillary #1
June 24, 2007
Hillary! Hillary! Good for you and good for me! Hillary! Hillary! Vote for her and free healthcare there will B!
Posted by Janet Cooke, Typical Presser
June 24, 2007
Oh thank Allah we have the Poontang Post to speech us the truth!
Signed, Janet Cookster.
Posted by CHENEY / BUSH 2008
June 24, 2007
And the funny pages in the New York Times IS even better!
Posted by rmrd0000
June 24, 2007
Posted by CHENEY / BUSH 2008
June 24, 2007
Posted by Bows and Flows of Leftist Crap
June 24, 2007
---
Dunning-Kruger effect exemplified
Posted by kammie
June 24, 2007
Look, people. If you want to get some truth, from what really happened on 9/11 through all the scandals and illegalities of this corrupt administration you cannot get the info from the MSM. I appreciate their help in trying to steer us back to a more thoughtful and liberal america and I hope people like Joe Klien continue to help the cause, but to really get at the truth you need to dig much deeper.
You need to leave the corporate fat cat MSM types like Time and go to the DU or the Kos and open your eyes. It will blow you mind and reaffirm the liberal fire that burns inside the heart of every true American.
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
Doesn't the Dunning Kruger effect pretty much exemplify the liberal democrats?
Posted by rmrd0000
June 24, 2007
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
Doesn't the Dunning Kruger effect pretty much exemplify the liberal democrats?
Oviously not
Note the language used by the wingnuts versus the Liberals.
Word salad versus detailed thought.
Note to Anonymous wingnut
You can't discern the difference because of where you fit on the bell curve
Posted by linda
June 24, 2007
My g'parents version of Dunning-Kruger:
Dunderhead...
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/dunderhead
I think it got up-dated in the 80's to "FB" [f***brain]
Posted by amamama
June 24, 2007
rmrd0000
This is what the neocons want. They want us to act intolerant like they are. The best thing to do the GOP trolls is explain why our liberal ideals are so much better for America and world than theirs. Calling them wingnuts does not show the tolerance us liberals are reknown for.
Posted by John in Boise
June 24, 2007
I wonder for how many years after Bush the libtards will blame Bush for anything bad that happens. We see the blank deer caught in the headlights look of the Democrats who are "running" Congress now. Whatever will the Dems do when they realize that they actually have to come up with a new act once Bush is out of office.
Should be fun watching...
Especially when the core Dems (the KOS KLOWNS, DUmmies, and MorON.org crowd does not get their way.
Posted by rmrd0000
June 24, 2007
Calling them wingnuts does not show the tolerance US liberals are reknown for.
------
Is that you Glenn Beck?
Posted by Hoplite
June 24, 2007
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
Fire all the people at the top (with a few exceptions like Karen) and start over.
-----------------
I'm completely at a loss as to why Tumulty, who has been a "journalist" at the very top of what her "profession" has become through the entire period of its decline, should somehow be exempted from the consequences of her own actions, and inactions, which aided that decline. She tosses a few bones to people here by -- very occasionally and selectively -- responding to their criticisms, and every once in a while she'll publicize someone's blog. And for that, she's somehow washed away all sins?
Please, those of you who like this person, show me *in her actual published work* what she has done to earn the respect you are giving her. I genuinely would like to see it.
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
Fair enough, Hoplite.
You do agree that Klein, Carney, etc. should be fired, though?
Posted by arch stanton
June 24, 2007
Tom T, I think you've laid it out perfectly. I laughed when I read your list, until I realized that its actually a pretty accurate prediction of what will likely occur, then I became sad.
Karen, did you really expect to surprise your readers w/ this post? Most of us read real blogs like talking points memo or raw story, we already knew this stuff...a long time ago. As pointed out, if Dems start pushing investigations and demand accountability, the scenario will be described as 'petty partisan bickering' by the cocktail party elites.
'The media is a business too and we deserve to be accountable for our passivity.'
Gonna have to disagree. News was once a loss leader for the nets, but they considered news coverage an important duty. The 24 hour cable news era changed all that, but if you expect the proletariat to wake up and start demanding informative, content rich, fact filled and celebrity free news coverage, you will be sorely disappointed. In fact if 'we' had our druthers, we would just replace CNN and MSNBC w/ 24 hour Access Hollywood...I don't buy this transference of responsibility.
Posted by Tom Betz
June 24, 2007
James:
You don't think the media would pay attention to H. Res. 333 passing the House? Or even hearings being held in the Judiciary Committee on its provisions?
That's how you get their attention. You make it impossible for them to ignore.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
Except that cable news has been declining in ratings too, just like Time and its brethren and all newspapers. The whole set is declining, and increased gossip hasn't helped at all.
This whole Cheney thing, like the Attorney thing, is tailormade for a place like Time. It's pathetic that they've never covered any of it, and continue not to. They're not interested in any news that's not spoonfed them, or pulled from Drudge and its little GOP sister Politico.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
They've all known all of this too, and haven't cared--for years. They knew Cheney was off-limits and it was all ok with them.
Posted by Cranky Observer
June 24, 2007
> There is plenty of new information
> in the first installment by Barton
> Gellman and Jo Becker.
Count me among the puzzled concerning this line: the information about Cheney has mostly been available two years gone for those who have cared to look for it. And the outline was clear with the Energy Task Force situation six years ago. The traditional media has just chosen not to report on it during that time period.
Cranky
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
There are two types of people in the US. Those of us who think the US legal system is the greatest legal system in the world. So great that no crime, no matter how large or evil, can't be handled fairly and justly. And the second type is like the Vice President. People who think the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed and must be drastically changed or ignored.
Posted by Hoplite
June 24, 2007
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
You do agree that Klein, Carney, etc. should be fired, though?
------------------
You are asking the wrong question, because you are approaching this from an erroneous premise: that Carnie Jay and Palooka Joe were put in their current positions with the expectation that they would be anything other than what they are. They are, in fact, faithfully doing the jobs they were hired to do, the jobs the people at Time knew they would do when they were looking around for cardboard cutouts to attach job titles to.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"And the second type is like the Vice President. People who think the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed and must be drastically changed or ignored."
We call those people criminals and remove them from office--or we should be.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
ama -- bring it on!
Tom, actually, I am pessimistic that even if there was a vote on impeachment it would not wake the profoundly lazy and corrupt Washington press out of their slumber. They are incapable of doing anything beyond talking to each other and reading Drudge/Politico to write their stories. There is nothing original written.
This is how they work:
~~
Peter Beinart: Well, I was doing mostly, for a large part it was reading, reading the statements and the things that people said. I was not a beat reporter. I was editing a magazine and writing a column. So I was not doing a lot of primary reporting. But what I was doing was a lot of reading of other people's reporting and reading of what officials were saying.
~~
That's what Joe does too. He reads what other people say and regurgitates. That's what Karen does mostly too. That's what Cox does. That's what they all do. Read what other people write, and regurgitate it. And I don't imagine that anyone in Washington is thinking the even Dick Cheney should be impeached. Not as long as William "The Bloody" Kristol has any say about it. And he has a lot of say. TV Facetime. Prime Time real estate. Oh yes.
(Beinart quote from Moyers "Buying the War."
Posted by TomT
June 24, 2007
"You are asking the wrong question, because you are approaching this from an erroneous premise: that Carnie Jay and Palooka Joe were put in their current positions with the expectation that they would be anything other than what they are. They are, in fact, faithfully doing the jobs they were hired to do, the jobs the people at Time knew they would do when they were looking around for cardboard cutouts to attach job titles to."
I agree with you. Every once and a while I like to pretend things aren't as bad as they really are.
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"... Only in the US does the Vice President wield absolute power above even the President. This is the sort of "democracy" that these folks would love to export across the globe. ..." -- http://ajbenjaminjrbeta.blogspot.com/2007/06/lord-high-executioner.html
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
Public Integrity.org in 05: see the timeline at right-- A Penchant for Secrecy -- http://www.publicintegrity.org/lobby/report.aspx?aid=760
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
"... George W. Bush gave twenty interviews in 1999 to Mickey Herskowitz, a friend of the Bush family contracted at the time to ghostwrite his autobiography. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq at that time, ...
Herskowitz said that Bush's beliefs on Iraq were shaped by Dick Cheney's ideas, ..." -- http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/8128
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
While they continue to do as they please: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/24/america/NA-FEA-GEN-US-Coming-Home-Wounded-Worst.php
Posted by p_lukasiak
June 24, 2007
I want to reinterate what Linda mentioned way up there....
Cheney is scum, but there were people at very high level of government (like Powell, Rice, Ashcroft) who were in a position to do something about this, and chose not to act publicly.
Ultimately, this all comes back to the venality and incompetence of George W. Bush -- and the simple fact that Cheney's autocratic tendencies, and Bush's acquiescence to them, were public knowledge for years, yet the mainstream media treated it all as "business as usual" -- something to be remarked on in a skit on Saturday Night Live, but of no critical importance to the nation.
And the fact that the Bush administration has to sink to approval ratings in the mid-twenties before the corporate media starts reporting on this is merely evidence of how "in the tank" the Beltway media is.
And nothing will change until David Broder is spirited away to Guantanamo.... by which time all of us who have been speaking out for YEARS will have already been silenced....
Posted by Jeanne Fischer
June 24, 2007
For Cheney:
Johnny Got His Gun.
Also, dedicated to those in the press who are still dithering about leaving Iraq.
TAMPA, Florida: He lies flat, unseeing eyes fixed on the ceiling, tubes and machines feeding him, breathing for him, keeping him alive. He cannot walk or talk, but he can grimace and cry. And he is fully aware of what has happened to him.
Four years ago almost to this day, Joseph Briseno Jr. was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range in a Baghdad marketplace. His spinal cord was shattered, and cardiac arrests stole his vision and damaged his brain.
The 24-year-old is one of the most severely injured soldiers — some think the most injured soldier — to survive.
"Three things you would not want to be: blind, head injury, and paralyzed from the neck down. That's tough," said Dr. Steven Scott, head of the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center at the Tampa VA Medical Center, where Briseno has twice been hospitalized for extensive care. In recent days, Briseno was hospitalized yet again, this time at the Washington, D.C., VA Medical Center.
As a high schooler, Briseno liked the Discovery Channel and CSI, and wanted to be a forensic scientist or investigator. He was 20, attending George Mason University, when he was called up from the reserves and sent to war.
Today in Americas
Obama affirms role of faith in politics
Debate on U.S. immigration bill is renewed
How a car crash in France deeply affected a U.S. presidential hopeful
After he was shot, he was flown to Kuwait and then to a military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. His parents and two sisters rushed to his side.
"They told us, 'Prepare for his service.' That's how bad he was," said his father, Joseph Briseno Sr., a retired career Army man.
But he survived. From Germany, he went to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, then to McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. In December 2003, he went home, to Manassas Park, Virginia, where his parents, Joseph Sr. and Eva, quit their jobs to care for him.
"All our savings, all our money, was just emptied ... the 401(k)s, everything," said Joseph Briseno, who took a new job a year and a half ago to make ends meet.
Various charities, especially Rebuilding Together, raised money to renovate their basement, supply a backup generator for the medical equipment, and install a lift so they can hoist "Jay," as they call him, into a chair and bathe him in a handicapped accessible bathroom.
"If you asked me this from the very beginning, if we can handle it, I wouldn't lie to you. I would say no, that there is no way. There's no way that we're going to learn all these things. But my wife and I, we learned everything. We are the respiratory technician, we are the physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists ... his wound care nurse," Joseph Briseno said.
"It's a lot of work and it's hard, and some days are harder than the other days. But we don't take this as a burden for us because he's our son. We will do everything for him."
The family has help from VA-provided nurses, but not around the clock. Jay's mother and father often do overnight duty, making sure their son is turned every four hours so he does not develop bedsores, which can become infected and threaten his life. If they do not turn him and keep him on schedule, he does not sleep well and becomes agitated.
At the Tampa VA, a nurse taught Jay Briseno to swallow his saliva — a big step that allowed him to have some pureed foods instead of just tube-feeding. He has not been able to handle any solid food, though — his injuries are too profound.
More recently, the Tampa staff tried to wean him from the respirator. This involved painstaking therapy to strengthen his diaphragm by placing weights on his belly and gradually increasing the air pressure on the machine to try to create resistance and muscle strength. So far, it hasn't worked.
He has had other trials: surgeries, procedures and medications for bladder problems, high blood pressure, the opening for his breathing tube, dead tissue on his tongue — even an ingrown toenail. The latest is the bone disease, osteoporosis.
He can respond to questions by grunting or grimacing, and occasionally can say "mom" or "go," but not consistently. He often opens his mouth.
"We believe he is very frustrated because he wants to say something. Those are the hardest times for us, especially when he's sick or not feeling well. He just lays there. We don't know what's wrong with him," Joseph Briseno said.
They pray that he will continue to improve, not get worse. And they hope to move to Tampa, where they believe their son can get the best care.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
You want to see what REAL writing and analysis looks like? Writing that *should* be appearing in mainstream mags like Time Magazine, instead of the piece of crap by Duffy (Oh! Those naughty boys! They are soo, so Partisan!);
Emptywheel has an excellent analysis of the WaPo article. Great writing. Great insight. Intelligent. Why O Why can't someone like her write a piece for Time Mag?
She concludes:
~~
It's a remarkable article. For it shows that Cheney controls all of the information getting to Bush, which provides the Vice President a way to intercept even the most important legal advice (such as, that Bush will be committing war crimes). And when that doesn't work by itself, Cheney works the refs, using conservative groups to pressure Bush to implement Cheney's plans.
Which makes you wonder. Why is it that these people believe that Cheney is not the one leading? What about this portrait suggests Cheney is anything but a shadow President?
~~
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/cheneys-method.html
Posted by Liberal Patriot
June 24, 2007
IMPEACH THE DARTH CHENEY NOW!
IMPEACH THE DARTH CHENEY NOW!
IMPEACH THE DARTH CHENEY NOW!
IMPEACH THE DARTH CHENEY NOW!
PROGRESSIVES OF THE WORLD UNITE!
Posted by Holly a
June 24, 2007
Not only do we need to impeach Cheney and Bush but we need to put the neocons in a penalty box so they cannot be Pres or VP for 25 years to make up for their war crimes and constituitonal crimes and for the false impeachement of one of the great men of our time and their stealining of th e2000 and 2004 elections.
Posted by Bill C.
June 24, 2007
This is watergate all over again.
The neocons should resign.
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
Just think, if only Al Gore had not had his presidency stolen that we would now be celebrating continued peace, the WTC would still be standing, Iraq would be free of American occupation and thousands of Americans would not be dead and we would already be making progress on global warming and Katrina may not have happened.
Posted by George
June 24, 2007
James
I love the writing in TIme.
JOe and Ann and Karen are amongst the great progressive thinkers of our time and a crdit to the movement.
Posted by linda
June 24, 2007
Everyone seems to have missed the James Baker III connection in my first post. Please review quickly the following, especially the early political career. So in 'bed' with the Bush's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
These people do NOTHING without a plan for a purpose. Scrub is in the toilet waiting for someone to flush. How close are the committees getting to the 'real deal' with the international neighborhood holding their noses when the USA approaches?
What better way to protect Georgie Porgie than to shift the 'guilt' and the 'spotlight' on Darth? Not that Darth is an innocent scapegoat. He is deserving of walking the plank or being put in stocks in the public square, but Poppa Bush has always taken care of the wayward cub, and I don't see it changing.
They get Darth to take the 'heat' off of Boy Georgie and all the President's men/women, get 'Pardon Me, Fred' elected and all is well in Texoilistan.
Posted by Dan
June 24, 2007
Now is the time for the progressives to save america from darth.
IMPEACH NOW!
TEll Nancy Pelosi to get off her butt and do what those of us who put her and her friends in office want them to do.
Or it's back to the green party with me.
Posted by Fingers
June 24, 2007
When Senator Clinton is pres and Senator Obama :) is VP you will see what a ethical leadership looks like!
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
We must not let the neocons know we know cheney is president or george will still steal another election since he hasn't had two terms!
Posted by DU Root3423
June 24, 2007
We need to mobilize the netroots to get the word out and make the impeachment happen.
We cannot wait for 2009.
For the children's sake.
We have to get it done.
Go to the DU to learn more.
Posted by SEA
June 24, 2007
It was common knowledge. Bush occupied a post beyond his competence. Cheneny and Rumsfeld were masters of bureaucratic infignting the Nixon years.
They captured the president easily.
If you had seen Rumsfeld's and Cheney's performances at press conferences and TV talk shows, you would have understood that Bush wouldn't stand a chance at Cabinet meetings.
To be frank, if he didn't go along with Cheney's machinations, Bush would have been laughed out his own cabinet meetings.
So, he chose to pretend to be the decider, going along with Cheney and Rumsfeld.
That was a trategy of Greek proportion.
Posted by SEA
June 24, 2007
I don't think W would understand what Greek proportion means. I guess he didn't have to, because he was the "decider".
Posted by Crust
June 24, 2007
Re "the post-9/11 [2001] Cheney mode of operation contradicts what the pre-9/11 [1980] Cheney had advocated":
Of course there was a lot that happened between 1980 and 2001, not just Sept. 11, 2001. E.g. Cheney, when tasked with selecting a Vice President for Bush, selected himself. That already suggests someone willing to use the process to impose his views on the President (or Presidential candidate at that point).
And of course the advice he gave to someone else for the role of Chief of Staff doesn't necessarily reflect that much on what he himself would do in a different role (Vice President) even in 1980.
I'm not affirmatively saying it's false that 9/11 "changed everything" for Cheney. I'm just saying it's not altogether clear that that's the case. 9/11 happened pretty early in the presidency so we never be able to answer that definitively. But I do think that, for instance, Cheney's behavior with respect to the Energy Task Force prior to 9/11/2001 is of a piece with his later behavior.
Posted by Gary G
June 24, 2007
Silly liberals and your silly wittle conspiracy theories.
As long as you are not in charge you remain mildly amusing.
When in charge you are dangerous to the American way of life.
Posted by jayackroyd
June 24, 2007
This is an especially propitious time for another edition of what digby says. Karen,could you please pass this on to Richard Stengel:
I understand that it must be difficult to speak on TV, especially when you are facing Chris Matthews' bizarre, wild-eyed questions. But this is a really dumb comment coming from the managing editor of TIME magazine about Hillary:
----
STENGEL: That's why she has to be so strict
about the war, because it's like Nixon can go to China, the woman has to seem like she's more militaristic even than the men. And that's a part of what she's got.
------
No, it's nothing like Nixon can go to China. Nothing at all. Nixon could go to China because he wouldn't be red-baited by Nixon for doing it. Another example of that cliche is that Bill Clinton, who was perceived as a liberal friend to the African American community, was supposedly able to enact welfare reform because he wouldn't be called a racist by liberals.
In this election, the military paradigm would fit John McCain, for instance, if he were running to end the war. Only he could carry that message without being called a coward by John McCain. I think everyone knows how this works, don't you?
Maybe he was just tired. I hope so. Because if he really is confused about the "only Nixon could go to China" trope then the state of the media is even worse than I thought.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
"Of course there was a lot that happened between 1980 and 2001, not just Sept. 11, 2001."
He was, of course, Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993 for Poppy Bush. He presided over the biggest reduction in military force in our history. He was SecDef at the time of the first Iraq War, though he pretty much sat and twiddled his thumbs through that.
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
Bad cheney bad chney bad chney bad cheney bad cheney!
Posted by Anonymous
June 24, 2007
Obama will be so much better than cheney as VP.
Posted by Doogie
June 24, 2007
CHENEY IS BAD.
OBAMA IS GOOD.
CHNEY IS BAD.
OBAMA IS GOOD.
CHNEYE IDS BAD>
OBAMA IS TH$ BEST.
Posted by floopie
June 24, 2007
Hillary needs to stop Cheney now.
Posted by James, Los Angeles
June 24, 2007
Laura Rozen (through Digby) has some *very* interesting observations about the WaPo piece.
~~
A veteran newspaper editor friend has some sharp observations about the Post Cheney piece:
A careful reading of the story of Cheney's coup against a feeble executive reveals that paragraphs 7 through 10 were written and inserted in haste by a powerful editorial hand. The banging of colliding metaphors in an otherwise carefully written piece is evidence of last-minute interpolations by a bad editor whom no one has the power to rewrite.
~~
.
Care to shed some light, Karen?
.
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/006337.html
Posted by joey
June 24, 2007
Cheney clearly is behind the UFo coverup!
Posted by Joe K
June 24, 2007
James, how dare you accuse Karen of editorial miscreance? She and the other writers at Time are committed to ending Cheney's reign of consitutional malpractices as we all are. Time.com is our friend.
Treat it with the respect it deserves.
Posted by Tookie
June 24, 2007
I think Cheney was behind the tampering of the DIebold machines in 2004 too.
Posted by Coco
June 24, 2007
what we need is an investigation into the corruption of the Cheney. Once Hillary is president we can get it done.
Posted by linda
June 24, 2007
INTERNATIONAL SIGNAL OF DISTRESS-----------
---------Fly the FLAG upside down----------
Posted by amberglow
June 24, 2007
That Next Hurrah piece is excellent. It really is the kind of thing we should be getting from all the media.
"... The present oath repeated by the Vice President of the United States, Senators, Representatives, and other government officers has been in use since 1884. The oath reads:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." -- http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/daysevents/vpswearingin.htm
It's obvious that's been broken in every way possible.
It's also just as obvious to many that Cheney was always going to step down before the end ("for health reasons"), unless they really were planning to be real dictators and stay in office. I bet he's gone before August, and the DC GOP 08 pick is placed as VP. Is that Romney? McCain?