RIP Darth Cheney

Yes, plenty of others have written already, but here's my few thoughts.

Torture. That's the bottom line, not just being a neocon nut in general.

In the 2008 presidential transition, people like me prodded Dear Leader to name a war crimes special prosecutor. Rahmbo Emanuel nixed that, and O'Bummer wouldn't override him. 

Weaselshit Anthony Romero (he is, for MANY reasons), executive director of the ACLU, was a weaselshit with "prosecute then pardon." 

Judge Napolitano, who perhaps deserved more credit even back in the day, wanted Cheney — and Bush — indicted, then of course prosecuted, without mentioning pardons. 

A year later, Uncle Fester admitted to being a war criminal, after all. 

Of course, today, many BlueAnon, and lamestream media like CNN, are normalizing Darth Cheney cuz he and daddykins' daughter Liz were/are Never Trumpers. (That said, even after Dems regained control of Congress in 2007, Fancy Nancy Pelosi refused to support Kucinich's impeachment push.) Reality? This same Liz, so high and mighty about the power of Congress after Jan. 6, 2021, a dozen years earlier didn't want to talk about her dad hiding secret CIA assassination plans from Congress. More on the hit squads here. 

Speaking of media, there's also the issue of whether or not Shrub Bush was Uncle Fester's puppet, along with the related idea, per the likes of Tim Weiner, of whether or not Bob Woodward was a sucker for a line of Bush bullshit. Woodward's lies regarding both already started in 2005. This brief may get us closer to Bush-Cheney relationship.

That said, give Vlad the Impaler Putin credit for telling Cheney to STFU long ago. 

Forwarding to the Middle East of then and today? Darth only liked democracy when it was pro-Merikkka. Freely elected Hamas? Can't have that. (They were, Ed Buckner, or pretty much so.)

Domestically, meanwhile, there was his sekrut energy task force. Daughterkins never challenged that, did she? Per the link, never did any Gang Green type enviros that sat in. Non-Gang Green, like Center for Biological Diversity, were never invited.

In a combination of domestic and international, Darth had connections to international bribery. 

Speaking of lies and liars, here's Shrub on Darth's death:

"I counted on him for his honest, forthright counsel, and he never failed to give his best. He held to his convictions and prioritized the freedom and security of the American people."

Uhh, sure. Those lies are joined by others from Nuclear Condi Rice and Slick Willie Clinton.

Woodward trolling for a new book?

Or is he just out-stupiding himself? I can't think of any other reason for him to blather about an Obama-Clinton 2012 ticket.

But, he is:

"It's on the table," veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward told CNN's John King in an interview Tuesday on John King, USA. "Some of Hillary Clinton's advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012."

Ahh, what "supersecret" Hillary advisers, Woody? Tell us, so we can see just how stupid, on the one hand, or delusional, on the other they are.

First, as even Poppy Bush knew, you can't just dump an incumbent Veep, if you're already batting from weakness. FDR did it with Cactus Jack Garner because Garner opposed much of the New Deal AND FDR's abandoning the two-term tradition. But, FDR was strong enough to do it, and looking for somebody who would shore him up with liberals, especially after the GOP nominated Willkie.

Ike tried to get Tricky Dick to jump but was wayyyy too smart to try to push him out.

And, on the other side of FDR, the last time a sitting Veep was pushed aside was Hannibal Hamlin in 1864, and that was the choice of the GOP to relabel itself as the Union Party and get a War Democrat on the ticket. Lincoln himself liked Hamlin more than enough to keep him on the ticket.

The Axe is clearly smarter than Woody; or than Mitch Daniels, Leslie Gelb, or others believing this moonshine, as he immediately shot it down.

Next, Obama's thin-skinned enough he doesn't want his re-election to have to depend on massive kowtowing to both Clintons. As well as knowing this would make him a lame duck in spades.

Flip side is that if an Obama-Clinton ticket loses, we know who gets blamed. At least by those writing history from the south side of Chicago.

What's really happening is the same Clintonistas unhappy she wasn't tabbed as Kumbaya's Veep in 2008 have latched on to the recent Gallup poll saying she could draw 37 percent in Democratic primaries in 2012, and are trying to leverage something.

Folks, there's nothing to leverage. Obama dumps Biden, and independents consider him a loser.

Woodward-Bernstein take on Bush in homeland

The Watergate-famous reporter duo of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein spoke where I am at, in Odessa, Texas, at The University of Texas of the Permian Basin last night and, 20 miles from his birthplace of Midland, did not hesitate to critique George W. Bush’s legacy.

Of course, the cynic in me asks why didn’t Woodward say some of this five years ago instead of continuing to angle for more Bush Administration “access” to write his next book? (In fact, during their forum, Bernstein was more critical of Bush than Woodward.)

Obama has no timeline on Afghan troops decision

Bob Woodward reports President Barack Obama first has a series of national security strategy meetings scheduled before making any decision. Is Obama refusing to set a decision timetable to lean on Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal on his threat to quit if he doesn’t get all the troops he wants?

Meanwhile, Frank Rich reminds us not only of Afghanistan-Vietnam parallels, but that, through his choice of “advisors” such as Fred Kagan, McChrystal had politicized his job well before his carefully-leaked threat to quit if he didn’t get more troops.

So, if Obama is making him wait, and sweat, and cool his heels, good.

Can Bush even take a leak without asking Cheney first?

Apparently not, or barely not, at least, according to Bob Woodward’s latest breathless tree-killer:

In the midst of the surge debate, Bush decided to replace Rumsfeld, who had served as defense secretary throughout the war and had long argued that the United States needed “to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government.” Bush chose Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, without consulting Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld’s chief patron, the book reports. Bush informed Cheney of his decision on Nov. 6, 2006, the day before the midterm elections. "Well, Mr. President, I disagree," Cheney is quoted as saying, “but obviously it’s your call.”

So, why didn’t Darth Cheney launch the palace coup at that moment.

The book also details the crucial connection from Bush to David Petraeus via former Air Force Chief of Staff Jack Keane.

The biggest item is that it claims much of the decline in violence in Iraq was due to new covert ops, and NOT the “surge.”

I’m sure Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, speaking of taking a piss of one’s free will, is going to love hearing how we’re spying on him 24/7.

That said, re the book itself, this is what my take is:

I think Woodward got punked again, after showing signs in his previous book that his 30-year post-Watergate self-induced coma was finally over.

I mean, per the review, the book sounds OK, but it also sounds like it still has plenty of Woody's fawning breathlessness for BushCo, too.

And, that all said, it's a WaPost in-house review. I'd like to hear what other folks say in terms of reviews.

Bob Woodward – buckraker and hypocrite

Not muckraker but buckraker. No wonder Woody has wanted that quasi-independent editorial stance vis-à-vis the WaPost all these years. Not only has it let him write new books in advance as serialized pre-releases in the paper, it’s insulated his buckraking from Ben Bradlee criticism.

And, Bobby W. doesn’t come cheap. Ken Silverstein says he makes $30-$50,000 every time he opens his mouth on a dais.

Woodward, meanwhile, tries to halowash (my term for charity-focused whitewashing) his grubby fingers and image:

In a 1996 Frontline interview, Woodward said he gave all of his lecture money to charity, the charity in question being a foundation run by him and his wife, the Woodward Walsh Foundation. Woodward seems to have greatly increased his speaking appearances in recent years, which probably helps explain why his foundation’s assets have soared, from assets of $347,602 in 2000 to about $1.8 million last year.

Yet the foundation doesn’t seem to do much genuine charitable work. Last year it doled out a meager $17,555 in grants. Over recent years more than half of the foundation’s money went to Sidwell Friends, one of the richest private schools in Washington (with a reported endowment of over $30 million) that caters primarily to the children of the local elite (like Woodward’s children). Meanwhile, the foundation has also supported needy causes like “Citizens for Georgetown Trees,” which prettifies Woodward’s neighborhood, the “Little Folks Nursery School” (“For the 2007-2008 school year, the tuition is: For morning only–$12,150. For the full day–$14,900”), and In Town Playgroup, a private daycare outfit.

Beyond that, Woodward giving the money to charity doesn’t take full account of how he profits from the speeches.

First, he gets a tax deduction for all these charitable contributions. So, actually, he gets back one-third the value of his charitable donations.

Second, I’m sure he’s paid airfare, motel, etc. to show up at these places. He’s not donating a cash equivalent of that to charity, is he? Nor the frequent flier miles he’s racking up, assuming he buys his own flights and then gets reimbursed.

Third, what if he takes advantage of corporate largesse to get comped an extra night’s lodging by the organization to whom he is speaking, or by the hotel chain, and takes a little vacation time?

So, to sum up, his charitable donations actually only cost him about 67 cents on the dollar, they help him lower the cost of his kids’ education and boost his property values, he’s not donating everything to charity anyway and he’s probably taking some freebie vacations in there somewhere.

In addition, as Silverstein hints, other people at some of Woody’s speaking gigs are the type of people he used to investigate for their financial dealings.

And, Woody’s suck-up-itis shouldn’t be surprising anyway.

Update: Ken Silverstein reports that Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell is giving both Woody and Broder a slap on the wrist, while promising “further investigation.” Why does this sound like the Bush Administration?

Bob Woodward – ‘self-effacing guy’

That’s the word from Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie said about the legendary-in-his-own-mind Woodward continuing to work for the WaPost at a buck a year as a “special asset” after taking a Post buyout.