Truth and Consequential

Yes, it is rather shocking, as well as appalling, that he is apparently proud of his record.
.
Steve Benen pulled out another moment, when Wallace asked him about a "high point" in the administration's time. Cheney answered "9/11," changing the criterion to "most important."

"I'm not in favor of spending time and energy investigating the outrages of the Bush Administration, with one exception--the approval of the use of torture, which put the United States on the same side and in the same place (Abu Ghraib) as Saddam Hussein and other despicable characters."
.
I can think of two:
.
Katrina. There is more to this than just incompetance.
.
The "unmentioned" portion of the bailout. The raping of the treasure going on right now.

treasure = treasury
.
I wish we had review.
.
And, BTW, the high sherrifs should fix the numblys too!

So Dick Cheney appears to know less about the role of a vice president than Sarah Palin did. Imagine that...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

"I'm not in favor of spending time and energy investigating the outrages of the Bush Administration"
.
Do you mind, please, elaborating on this? I simply do not understand this attitude.
.
Look, I get not impeaching Bush and Cheney at this point (although I was certainly strongly in favor of it a few years ago). But impeachment is a political tool for addressing political problems. OTOH, criminal investigations should not be optional.
.
Part of the problem with using a phrase like "the outrages of the Bush Administration" is that it is simply so broad.
.
Do I think that we should be "investigating" political questions like whether Bush and Cheney lied to Congress about the Iraq threat or about the costs of the Medicare prescription bill? No. But there are a myriad of criminal issues that cry out for investigation. Violations of the Hatch Act. Obstruction of justice in the Libby/Plame case. Destruction of records. Corruption in contracting process. Theft of government property. Electoral fraud. There is simply no good reason not to investigate these areas.
.
For one thing, the last time I checked, a criminal investigation does not require 99.999% of the population (including journalists) to stop doing what they are doing. It does not require our time and energy. You appoint a special prosecutor and be done with it.
.
Beyond that, because these would not be investigations into a current administration, there would be little to no impact on the daily activities of the Obama administration. You would avoid the "under siege" atmosphere of the late 90s.

It's not just the war:

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. An examination of thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed to actively mislead the American public on global warming...

I thought John Bolton did a good job on the Daily Show of spelling out this administration's twisted understanding of the executive branch...

Mr. Cheney it would seem could have been at home in the Hitler adminstration.

Mr. Cheney is right there with the sentiments of the late Rhenquist:
.
Rhenquist had no qualms about sending our country to hell, legally, and said so. His dodge:
.
It was up to Congress to clean up the mess.
.
With people like this, who needs Iran?

Cheney is just acting as though he aproves of his record. I have no idea what he really thinks about anything these days.

This is all about legacy, and thus all about perception.

"I'm not in favor of spending time and energy investigating the outrages of the Bush Administration"
.
Really? Would you rather live in a nation of men than a nation of laws? Because that's what that attitude gets you.

OT-Did anyone else watch Meet The Press yesterday? It is really and truly bizarre watching the things Bob Somerby writes about on a daily basis occur in real time. I watch this exchange Bob describes today and I could not believe what I was hearing. We really do have a terrible press and it's not just the talking heads.
.
At issue was a “new classic” question: Will the Blagojevich matter somehow involve or harm or discredit Obama? When David Gregory threw out the question, Norris reacted quickly. And as she did, she displayed a Key Novelist Skill: She repeated something Obama has said, then imagined what “it may have been better” for him to have said. The “difficult situation” has been created “by the Obama team in part,” she of course said:
.
GREGORY (12/21/08): Is there some exposure here, politically, for Obama?
.
NORRIS: It's been—it's a difficult situation for them, having been made by the Obama team in part because, at the outset, when he said, “My team had no inappropriate contact,” it may have been better to say, “Of course we were speaking to the governor.”
.
GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
.
It may have been better to have said something else, Norris mused, to Gregory's satisfaction. And this is where the mind-reading started. Yes, Norris knew what Obama had actually said. But so what? Through her cohort's unexplained powers, she somehow knew what the public had “heard:”
.
NORRIS (continuing directly): Of course someone was speaking to the governor, because it would be unusual, very unusual if someone on that team—Rahm Emanuel sits in the Senate [sic] seat that was once held by Rod Blagojevich! So they said that there's no inappropriate contact. What people heard, there is no contact.
.
GREGORY: Right.
.
The novelist is a clairvoyant. In reality, Obama had said there was no inappropriate contact between his team and the Blagojevich office. But being clairvoyant, Norris knew what “people” had actually “heard:” Obama had said there was no inappropriate contact, but people had heard something different! Norris, like the rest of her mind-reading cohort, seemed unembarrassed as she announced this key fact.
.
Bob goes on to describe how it got even worse.
.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Bob Somerby skewers these people regularly. The problem: do these people read the Daily Howler?

Joe, I am puzzled by the Ruth Marcus coda: let's not mess with the past - the future under Obama looks so good. Now I am sure there are quite a few people in our prison system who would welcome such an attitude; only problem is it never seems the right time to hold the High Panjandrums accountable.

Today GG uses the same interview as evidence of what many of us expected all along. One of the reasons the excesses of the Bush administration are destined to remain horribly unexamined is because senior Congressional Democrats were thoroughly breifed and utterly complicit in what went on. Certainly Obama's reversal on FISA signals that they have nothing to worry about. Since Joe was rather famously tone-deaf over the importance NSA domestic spying scandal as an example of blatant lawbreaking going uninvestigated, one wonders what basis he cares to use as a justification for investigating the torture regime now.

Just an illustration of how something can't be 'slightly' illegal. Once you've crossed the line, there's no going back.

Dirks-
.
I had a personal denial from a Pelosi staffer at the time it became clear that their complicity was what was driving the telecommunication immunity issue.
.
This runs really deep. I've been racking my brain trying to think of a plausible challenger for Schumer, who is proving to be a pro-choice Al D'Amato. It really is going to be a long dark period in America.

"I'm not in favor of spending time and energy investigating the outrages of the Bush Administration, with one exception--the approval of the use of torture.."
.
...but you are in favor of spending time and energy on 'winning' in Afghanistan? How about these people:

"According to statistics from the California Department of Corrections, thousands of individuals are serving life sentences under California's three strikes law for nonviolent third strikes-in fact, 360 individuals in California are serving life sentences for shoplifting small amounts of merchandise."
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter04/shoplifting.html
.
Should we spend time and energy on incarcerating people who shoplifted a doll or had a joint in their sock? If so, can you give me a good reason why people in this country shouldn't just start dragging people in positions of power from their homes and hanging them? I'm having a hard time thinking of one.

Slightly OT -- I think Dick Cheney would look good as the ghost of Jacob Marley, his chains dragging oil barrels and hooded torture victims.
.
Let him be an admonishment to oh, say, Bill Kristol.

Cheney is an odious man. I hope he gets some comeuppance.
.
Joe, you got points from me for speaking up yesterday on Mathews as to when the press must hold Obama accountable. You said several times the public is interested in the press following up on substantive matters and not the inconsequential silliness that is so frequently done. I don't think the host or others on the panel cared, but I did and I trust others in the viewing audience did.

All I'll say is everyone should read Barton Gellman's Angler to get a sense of how truly insidious and Machivellian Dick Cheney was these past 8 years. Your jaw will hang open in astonishment as you turn the pages.

Count me in among those who want to turn on the page on Bush/Cheney. I think the scale of the problems we face and the solutions we must deliver are so big, so vast that we have no attention or effort to spare but to look forward. Sad, but true. I'm satisfied, if not ecstatic, to let history condemn these men, which is more punishment to their minds than what we rabble can inflict upon them. Worse than making them the center of a prosecutorial circus, I think they would hate it even worse to be ridiculed, trivialized, dismissed and ignored as yesterday's rubbish. Let them be remembered as no more than targets for thrown shoes.

"Can you give me a good reason why people in this country shouldn't just start dragging people in positions of power from their homes and hanging them?"
Sadly, Americans prefer to do that sort of thing to the poor and defenseless.

Then there is no law other than strength and power. Bring back the guillotines.
.
I have to assume Joe feels the same about financial sector CEO's or really anyone he might reasonably encounter at a cocktail party. The slathering proles? Not so much.

Joe Klein
.
As much hell as we all give you I want to take the time out to compliment Joe on his appearance yesterday on the Chris Matthews show. Where as all of the other flacks on the show were talking about how it was their job to be President Obama's adversary Joe was the only one who actually pointed out that its only credible when you are talking about substanstantive issues. If I am going to call you out when I think you are wrong I am going to acknowledge when I think you are right too.
.
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/6996/24748

.
What you are saying is that you think that people should be immune from consequences for breaking the law by virtue of holding public office. It's too much trouble to prosecute a person who has held the highest offices in the land for flagrantly commiting felonies while holding offices of public trust?
.
How will we ever prevent this from happening again unless these people are held to account? Unless there are SERIOUS consequences for committing these acts. And that means prison, and not just "leaving it to history." If they get away with what they have done with impunity, it will be that much easier for it to happen again. The next Republican is just waiting for the chance. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney admitted on public broadcasts that they COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.
.
Yes, it would be a political circus. Yes, it would be difficult for DC folks to see their friends and colleagues prosecuted like the common criminals they are. Is our nation not up to bringing them to account for their crimes? I believe it is.
.

His crooked mouth says it all. Dreadful indeed!

mr klein is a good writer for the Times magazine. he reminds me everytime i read an article of his why i no longer subscribe. hope he has no trouble finding a real job when ya'll finacially fail due to your biases.

"I'm not in favor of spending time and energy investigating the outrages of the Bush Administration"
.
"Do you mind, please, elaborating on this? I simply do not understand this attitude."
.
It's a commonly held opinion among our elites that real accountability and the rule of law should apply only to lesser folks (unless the Vice President constructs an American torture regime anyway). For Joe, this may be especially important should the peons attempt to hold the Cheney Administration, key members of Congress and the talking heads who gave them political cover for shredding the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and engaging in a massive, secret spying program on American citizens. Go figure.