Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cheney Spies On White House Staffers - Think Progress

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:02 PM
Original message
Cheney Spies On White House Staffers - Think Progress
Washington Post Profile Reveals Stealthy Cheney Spies On White House Staffers

<snip>

Today, the Washington Post unveiled the first in its lengthy four-part series on the unprecedented influence and power of the vice president.

Shortly after Bush was elected, “Cheney preferred, and Bush approved, a mandate that gave him access to ‘every table and every meeting,’ making his voice heard in ‘whatever area the vice president feels he wants to be active in.’”

According to the article, 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:

At the White House, Bellinger sent Rice a blunt — and, he thought, private — legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. …

One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and “was concerned” about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were “routed outside the formal process” to Cheney, too. The reverse did not apply.

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. If Bush consulted Cheney after that, the vice president became a sounding board for advice he originated himself.


Attorney General John Ashcroft “was astonished” to learn he had been pushed aside. “What the hell just happened?” Secretary of State Colin Powell asked upon learning through the media that the order had been signed. “National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out.”

<snip>

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/24/cheney-wp-profile/

HOLY SHIT...

:wow:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. That explains plenty - including the lack of cooperation Fitz got and the present
silence of the cornered rats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. We're dealing with a dangerous man.
So dangerous that he can overrule Colin Powell, Condi Rice and John Ashcroft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's pretty normal. Crooks RARELY trust anyone else!
I'm positive there's criminal activity behind all his secrecy, and his biggest fear is that someone close enough to know will talk! Most often the MAIN crook has everyone watching everyone else with little rewards when they turn up any suspicions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ask yourself the last time a President claimed executive privilege and wasn't hiding something bad.
Edited on Sun Jun-24-07 01:10 PM by originalpckelly
Aside from the rights of a normal defendant, the President or any of his staff should not have any special immunity from criminal or other prosecution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think we should quit using the elephant to signify the Republican Party
An octopus would be a more fitting tribute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. jolly roger?
Edited on Sun Jun-24-07 01:33 PM by BushDespiser12

RePugnican PrIde
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Love this quote from the article on "a different understanding"
In his Park Avenue corner suite at Cerberus Global Investments, Dan Quayle recalled the moment he learned how much his old job had changed. Cheney had just taken the oath of office, and Quayle paid a visit to offer advice from one vice president to another.

"I said, 'Dick, you know, you're going to be doing a lot of this international traveling, you're going to be doing all this political fundraising . . . you'll be going to the funerals,' " Quayle said in an interview earlier this year. "I mean, this is what vice presidents do. I said, 'We've all done it.' "

Cheney "got that little smile," Quayle said, and replied, "I have a different understanding with the president."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Or...


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. I'm surprised that they were surprised
Were Powell, Ashcroft and the others really that naive? Did they really think Bush was in charge?

Didn't they know that Cheney and Bush think of themselves as completely above the law? The rest of us knew it, even at the time. I can only say that, as bad as this administration has conducted itself and governed our country, I have NEVER been surprised at anything they've done. Never.

I have a hard time believing the people who worked for Bush were this ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. IMPEACH PRESIDENT DICK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Tell me this man isn't a perfect case of Antisocial Personality Disorder
Diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV-TR)

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, currently DSM-IV-TR), a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

The manual lists the following additional necessary criteria:

* The individual is at least 18 years of age.
* There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
* The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

Mnemonic

A mnemonic that can be used to remember the criteria for antisocial personality disorder is CORRUPT<3><4>:

* C - cannot follow law
* O - obligations ignored
* R - remorselessness
* R - recklessness
* U - underhandedness
* P - planning deficit
* T - temper

Criticism of the DSM-IV criteria

The DSM-IV confound: some argue that an important distinction has been lost by including both sociopathy and psychopathy together under APD. As Hare et al write in their abstract, "The Axis II Work Group of the Task Force on DSM-IV has expressed concern that antisocial personality disorder (APD) criteria are too long and cumbersome and that they focus on antisocial behaviors rather than personality traits central to traditional conceptions", concluding, "... conceptual and empirical arguments exist for evaluating alternative approaches to the assessment of psychopathy ... our hope is that the information presented here will stimulate further research on the comparative validity of diagnostic criteria for psychopathy; although too late to influence DSM-IV." <5>

Sex differences: APD is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women. The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria does not take into account relational aggression, in which women are more likely to engage than physical aggression.

Diagnostic criteria (ICD-10)

Chapter V of the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases offers a set of criteria for diagnosing the related construct of dissocial personality disorder.

Dissocial Personality Disorder (F60.2), usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behavior and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by:

* callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
* gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
* incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
* very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
* incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
* marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalizations, for the behavior that has brought the patient into conflict with society.

There may also be persistent irritability as an associated feature. Conduct disorder during childhood and adolescence, though not invariably present, may further support the diagnosis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Very good
I've always thought these types have characteristics of both sociopathic and psychopathic illness.

These personality types are highly sought after and cultivated in the corporate leadership ranks. You can't advance to middle management even, unless you exhibit this personality type. Its the gold standard for executive behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I guess the CORRUPT part we already knew.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Ah, the return of Tricky Dick .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. If he is spying on his own people, he has to be spying on the Dems too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. And... The Way Dems & Reps Are Acting, I Think They Are Being Blackmailed !!!
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. It's possible, but if they are, or if they are under threat of any kind
Edited on Sun Jun-24-07 06:03 PM by Morgana LaFey
it's their responsibility and duty to resign with a BIG "going out of business sale" on the Truth.

Anything less supports treason (or what I'd call treason) and the destruction of the nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cassiepriam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall in place.
Yes I agree, that is one reason for the Dem's failure to take action.
They aren't afraid of the voters, they are afraid of Cheney and Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-24-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. This is the missing link for me
For all this time there has been some ineffable something that was missing: who was Bush answering to, who had his ear, that kind of thing.

Now the only thing missing is what Cheney has on Bush that keeps him Top Dog. There has to be something. Bush ain't no shrinking violet, ya know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
20. Kick !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC