"The Unraveling of Dick Cheney" Wow! Froomkin WOW!

[underpants]

This is a bit long but it includes several op/ed summaries-basically the only dillema is whether Dick is nuts or if he isn't and IS running the White House.

Great read. 10 pages printed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/29/BL2007012900577_pf.html

While Dick Cheney undoubtedly remains the most powerful vice president this nation has ever seen, it's becoming increasingly unclear whether anyone outside the White House believes a word he says.

"Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he's right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? . . .
--Maureen Dowd

The Friday datadump appears to be news to Dana Milbank


Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia "said that it was 'not hearsay' that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence.

Secrecy Watch

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times: "The Bush administration has employed extraordinary secrecy in defending the National Security Agency's highly classified domestic surveillance program from civil lawsuits. Plaintiffs and judges' clerks cannot see its secret filings. Judges have to make appointments to review them and are not allowed to keep copies. . . .

"In ordinary civil suits, the parties' submissions are sent to their adversaries and are available to the public in open court files. But in several cases challenging the eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers have been submitting legal papers not by filing them in court but by placing them in a room at the department. They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves."

Garry Wills writes in a New York Times op-ed column: "The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: 'The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.'"

Overuse of the term "commander in chief of the United States," Wills writes, "reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline."

[meegbear]

1. Excellent article!!

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[hippiechick]

2. ... was on the home page yesterday ...

:hi: