Thomas DeFrank of the Daily News revisits the topic of Cheny's ire at Bush's non-pardon of Scooter Libby:
Sources close to Cheney told the Daily News the former vice president repeatedly pressed Bush to pardon Libby, arguing his ex-chief of staff and longtime alter ego deserved a full exoneration - even though Bush had already kept Libby out of jail by commuting his 30-month prison sentence.
"He tried to make it happen right up until the very end," one Cheney associate said.
So why do Cheney and the press keep coming back to this? Set aside the fantasies of the fantasists that this signals the start of the Final Showdown between Bush and Cheney (The Joker v. Darth Vader - don't miss it!). The Bush-Cheny rift is a useful tale for Bush legacy-boosters who want to promote the notion of Bush as something other than Cheney's pawn. Hence the closing paragraphs:
About the same time, however, an official who has worked closely with both men mused that the relationship "isn't what it was" when Bush tapped Cheney as his running mate in 2000.
"It's been a long, long time since I've heard the President say, 'Run that by the vice president's office.' You used to hear that all the time."
Works for Bush. As for Cheney? I would guess that he was, well, overly upbeat in his assurances to Libby about an eventual pardon. Cheney failed to deliver but at least he can assure his own supporters and Libby's that he was on their side and fighting hard.
And why is that important for Cheney? The innocent and more likely) explanation is that he wants to be seen as having been loyal to his teammates. Folks looking for a darker explanation will lean to the notion that Cheney wants to be sure to keep Libby in his corner. Quietly in his corner. After all, why would Libby rat out the one guy in Washington who fought for him, persistently and publicly? That explanation is a bit thin, since Libby can't have any chance of a full pardon from the Obama Administration regardless of what story he might tell. However, if Libby is looking for a book deal to supplement his income, one might suspect that the value of the book would depend on the story he sold.
The Captain has thoughts on Bush's motivation.
They will go after him, regardless that's what the team at the OLC is for, and Rumsfeld too
Posted by: narciso | February 17, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Morrissey is full of it, in this instance.
Posted by: PaulL | February 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Looks like traffic has fallen on this site. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that nobody wants to be associated with the party of BushCo any longer.
Don't worry. During the BushCo war crimes trials traffic will increase as the brown shirts come out to express their undying love of hate.
Posted by: Sam | February 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Looks like traffic has fallen on this site. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that nobody wants to be associated with the party of BushCo any longer?
Don't worry. During the BushCo war crimes trials traffic will increase as the brown shirts come out to express their undying love for hate.
Posted by: Sam | February 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM
There. Double posts should help your numbers.
Posted by: Sam | February 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM
There. Double posts should help your numbers.
Posted by: Sam | February 17, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Sam- traffic has fallen because you no longer come here to post your list of Iraq fatalities.
Posted by: MayBee | February 17, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Looks like traffic has fallen on this site. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that nobody wants to be associated with the party of BushCo any longer?
Nah. Everybody's outside waiting to pick up their $13 of Obama manna when it appears as dew on the ground.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | February 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM
How pathetic is it that trolls like Sam still have their RSS feeds set up to alert them every time TM posts about Libby?
Posted by: Porchlight | February 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Sam, it seems that the traffic for this site was at its peak during the whole Plame-Wilson "-Gate". Things may have dropped off a bit since then, but with a seemingly endless supply of Richardsons, Blagos, Rezkos, Burrises, Rahmbos etc., perhaps the opportunity for much "-Quiddick"-related traffic isn't too much to HOPE for.
Posted by: Dave | February 17, 2009 at 01:28 PM
Posted by: Dave | February 17, 2009 at 01:29 PM
It is a pity that Mr. Libby's life has been so damaged by a successful political attack. Will Fitzgerald take his turn on the lathe of heaven or will he, like "Deep Throat" Felt, escape?
Posted by: Frau Jedöns | February 17, 2009 at 01:38 PM
Okay, now I'm not even getting the new threads listed at the top of the page. Mine ends on "The Last Alliance". What is going on?
Posted by: Jane | February 17, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Posted by: cathyf | February 17, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Good point cathyf... that thought has crossed my mind too. Poor fitz, he'll have to go back to prosecuting victims. Oh wait, he never stopped.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | February 17, 2009 at 02:43 PM
Can Libby re-introduce his appeal?
===============================
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Bush, from the time he was Governor of Texas, never pardoned people. Never. Also, Bush is sort of known for not changing his way of operating for ANY reason.
One of the ways I have used to judge Bush opponents (and some Bush supporters here) over the years is whether they insisted that Bush was going to pardon Libby
(or, in the waning days, whether he was going to pardon Cheney or other alleged torturers). I tend to think those who insisted Bush was going to pardon away really were afflicted with BDS.
Posted by: Appalled | February 17, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Remember the twelve law school professors who were appalled?
====================
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2009 at 03:03 PM
I'd be happy to sit in a tree with Bush and/or Cheney if I were a bad girl and didn't respect their marriages or my own. But otherwise, I'd be in the tree...
Posted by: bad | February 17, 2009 at 03:48 PM
i'm wondering just how public that cheney has gone afterwards.....has he actually been quoted?
Posted by: BobS | February 17, 2009 at 04:16 PM
This is my most visceral disappointment in Bush. I'd like to hear his reasons for not pardonning him.
===========================================
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2009 at 05:24 PM
Don't forget Bush had an "interview" with Fitzgerald in the Oval Office, Kim.
Either Bush did some quick tapdancing (doubtful) or he had to acknowledge that Cheney and Libby were running a rogue operation under his nose.
Either way-even Bush ended up sick of Cheney.
Posted by: Don | February 17, 2009 at 05:39 PM
There were other conflicts going on at the time--like Israel in Gaza and Iran plus the financial meltdown.
That could also stress a relationship such as theirs.
Posted by: glasater | February 17, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Either way-even Bush ended up sick of Cheney.
You're an expert on the topic of making people nauseous, right Don?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 17, 2009 at 05:50 PM
Good one, Captain Hate. Don should know.
Posted by: PaulL | February 17, 2009 at 05:59 PM
TM seems to have laced his posts with eau de troll, Paul, being strangely obtuse enough in his conjectures to attract the arrogantly feeble minded. Kind of like the President with no birth certificate.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 17, 2009 at 06:30 PM
bad,
You just can't get it through your head that he's mine! Well, mine and Lynn's.
Posted by: Sue | February 17, 2009 at 06:52 PM
I agree with the Capt's second explanation. I onve had an appeal from a watergate conviction in the Ct of Appeals here. Ramsey Clark's dad was riding circuit and was on the panel, having left the SCOTUS. As I explained the error of law the judge had committeed, he kep saying, that the jury had found him guilty..It's a Texas thing I guess. I tried nicely, and then a bit rudely, to note that if the jusry found my client guilty based on the judge's misstatement of the law, the jury's decision did not command the ordinary respect accorded their findings. I won BTW. But my point is it is a Texas thing not to easily overturn the jury's decision and remember Bush is not a lawyer nor a man apparently interested in intricate arguments of law.
I expect that Cheney did fight for Scooter who all accounts suggest he treated like a son but I also believe that the description of a RIFT between the two is probably exaggerated.
Posted by: clarice | February 17, 2009 at 06:55 PM
were running a rogue operation under his nose
The people running the rogue operation were the leftists Congresspersons claiming "We Can't Win". Saying "We Can't Win" assures the terrorists they can.
Posted by: Pagar | February 17, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Heh, Don, the rogues were in the CIA and there are plenty more still there.
======================================
Posted by: kim | February 17, 2009 at 07:08 PM
You just can't get it through your head that he's mine!
Of course, I understand that. But it doesn't matter because I don't want it to.
lalalalalalalalalalalala
Am I a democrat now?
Posted by: bad | February 17, 2009 at 07:19 PM
"Am I a democrat now?"
Not unless you can produce a certificate signed by a licensed proctologist. There are some simple tests that can be performed at home to determine whether you might become one but I can't describe them on a family blog.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 17, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Hope everyone this*** - heh, the comments are priceless
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 17, 2009 at 07:30 PM
Hope everyone this*** - heh, the comments are priceless
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 17, 2009 at 07:31 PM
There are a lot of reasons not to like Cheney, and a dislike of him was quite prevalent among senior military people while he was VP and, before that, when he was SecDef.
And I think Scooter was guilty (though I still am hard put to say why he did what he did). In the final analysis, I think that's why Bush settled on commutation and let it go at that. He is much more a man of principle than we are used to seeing in the White House.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 17, 2009 at 08:12 PM
That was fun, Tops. They use a lot of raw language over there.
Posted by: bad | February 17, 2009 at 08:24 PM
There are a lot of reasons not to like Cheney
Such as? The only reasons I ever heard were that he had used the Mossad to frame the Arabs to whip up support for his police state and war for oil. I'm guessing you have different reasons.
Posted by: bgates | February 17, 2009 at 08:31 PM
That was fun, Tops. They use a lot of raw language over there.
It's like putting salt on slugs, although I can kind of feel sorry for the slugs
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 17, 2009 at 08:45 PM
Captain, did you comment over there? If so, I'm going back. I just read and laughed.
Posted by: bad | February 17, 2009 at 08:48 PM
No, I'm not wading in that slime. I have to have a certain respect for the opponents in order to engage them; that place is just the site of the damned.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 17, 2009 at 08:53 PM
The disillusionment was pathetic. BLESS THEIR HEARTS!! It isn't as if they haven't had plenty of clues.
Posted by: bad | February 17, 2009 at 08:56 PM
btw, that prior comment isn't meant to imply that I have any respect for the verminous trolls that I ridicule here; in their cases I want to drive them away by humiliating them. Admittedly some of them are too ignorant to know when they've been pwn3d but in those cases it can at least be entertaining to the more aware.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 17, 2009 at 08:58 PM
"I'm guessing you have different reasons."
I do, and I'll give one as an example: as SecDef, he directed the firing of a four-star officer without so much as a phone call to the man, and without informing the Joint Chiefs that he was doing so. Thirty-plus years of service jettisoned in that fashion by a prick who had never put on a uniform.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 17, 2009 at 09:17 PM
I heard that Obama runs a few things past Biden's office.
Paper or plastic?
And
Can I super size that for you?
Posted by: gus | February 17, 2009 at 09:19 PM
Has Raw Story, gotten anything right, ever, really, Including the idea that Valerie Plame
was the chief analyst on Iran, if that was true we'd be in deep deep trouble.
Posted by: narciso | February 17, 2009 at 10:04 PM
I reckon a SecDef is going to piss off a lot of brass if he's doing his job right--not that that is his job.
Cheney impressed me by cancelling one of his own long-standing pet projects in 91. The fact that I was working on it is immaterial.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM
You people are funny as hell. People defending Cheney and "disappointed" that Bush didn't pardon Scooter. There's a higher judgement than the Supreme Court and he's gonna whoop old Scooter's arse good and hard.
I'm bookmarking this site for sure. Capt. Hate, what a great handle. So fitting for a Repubitard.
Posted by: TheHellYouSay | February 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Karl Rove is a big fat pig. I heard he farts at the dinner table...
Posted by: TheHellYouSay | February 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
And did I mention that Donald Rumsfeld is a senile old mass murderer. I think he's been sort of an exception to the rule when it comes to serial killers in that most of them are pretty smart.
Posted by: TheHellYouSay | February 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM
BGates,
Thanks again. It's like magic.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
And Condoleeza Rice is dumb as a rock. She must've got all those diplomas from sending off to the address on the inside of matchbooks.
I have to admit that I haven't liked much that Bush did in the last 8 years, but standing up to Cheney against getting his pal pardoned took some pretty big cajones (especially from such an impish little man).
Posted by: TheHellYouSay | February 17, 2009 at 10:30 PM
You lament the dearth of trolls and they magically appear to reaffirm your faith in the bottom half of the bell curve.
Posted by: sbw | February 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Send Better TROLLS!
C'mon THYS, Ad Hominem attacks (especially of others) don't even raise an eyebrow from Captain Hate (or most others here). Now I understand why CH wouldn't even try with the likes of you...
You really want a response? List out all the "transgressions" of BushCo, replete with HARD EVIDENCE.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | February 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
sbw-
They come from Axelrod's RSS feeder and astroturf magic machine.
Posted by: mel | February 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Right someone who is fluent in Russian and Czech, the real protege of Dr. Korbel, real dummy there. I've had differences with her policies in the past, but one can't deny her brilliance. This is a woman who survived
Bombingham, when many of her classmates didn't and still keeps a positive,optimistic
disposition.
We're going to count on the Supreme Court who through away the Magna Carta with Kelo, two hundred years of precedents on military tribunals, barely got Heller right, they'd probably get Zenger jailed now, if the mood
was adverse. Well isn't that the heart of Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by: narciso | February 17, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Topsecretk9:
Looks like a bit of buyer's remorse in Obamaland...choking on their KoolAid? LMAO
Posted by: Mark Turner | February 18, 2009 at 02:31 AM
You'd think they would come over here to gloat about how much better their guy is making the world. I mean, with evil Republicans in office, naturally they were out of sorts, since their guy was not allowed to perfect the world. But now Republican rule is a distant memory (especially for people whose history starts this morning every morning) - why dwell on 2008? Why not talk about how wonderful everything is now?
Posted by: bgates | February 18, 2009 at 02:57 AM
THYS-Obama's Justice Department is defending Rove's claims of executive privilege and Putin is warning Obama about excessive central control of the economy. Wake up and smell the roses.
H/t TSk9 and Steph.
======================
Posted by: kim | February 18, 2009 at 04:50 AM
There does indeed seem to be a stunning absence of commentary about how wonderful a job Obama is doing. The people whose opinions of the "stimulus" count the most--those who invest in American business--have already spoken, and the verdict is calamitous. Not even Paul Krugman gives him a thumbs up. It's gonna be a long four years for the country, but I predict a barrel of laughs at JOM.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 18, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Dow has dropped 2,011 points since election day. Change investors obviously believe in.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 18, 2009 at 09:12 AM
This was the piece I was referring to, I think I pointed out that at the Davos conference,Putin, he was similarly aggressively critical, and he has a right to be. He's not a Communist, he's a Russian nationalist, he may see himself if not as a Czar, but the hardline prime minister like Stolypin, who was tough on the SR terrorists, but was a reformist in terms of he economy. Of course he sees Obama as terminally naive which works for him in the short term, but as Flynn rathersarcastically
pointed out some time ago, he and Sarah, although Medvedev even more so, see eye to eye on the saliency of the energy issue. Except it's a zero sum game to them, we gain at their expense
Posted by: narciso | February 18, 2009 at 09:39 AM
"I reckon a SecDef is going to piss off a lot of brass if he's doing his job right--not that that is his job."
Along these lines - SECDEF's boy wants to kill dedicated CSAR
In From The Cold has this update:
"As we noted last month, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young has serious doubts about the Air Force's Combat Search-and-Rescue (CSAR) mission. Late last year, he bluntly asked the service why it needs a dedicated force for those missions...
In response, USAF leaders offered the following points: (1) The service's rescue units represent the only dedicated CSAR force within DoD; (2) Air Force rescue squadrons have saved over 2,800 personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, flying missions "in high risk areas that the other services cannot support," and (3) USAF rescue crews can deploy more quickly for humanitarian missions overseas, as they did during the 2006 tsunami relief operation in Indonesia.
Unfortunately, the importance of Air Force CSAR capabilities is apparently lost on Mr. Young and some members of Congress. After Young's initial inquiry, the House Armed Services Committee also questioned the need for standing rescue forces, and plans to spend $15 billion on the next-generation CSAR helicopter. "
Posted by: Davod | February 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
the bus route is littered with bodies... maybe he is planning on deploying CSAR to the presidential motorcade?
Posted by: Stephanie | February 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM
CSAR is occasionally deployed in domestic SAR missions also, especially when circumstances overwhelm local resources. I worked with the Tucson team some years ago during some serious flooding in central AZ.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | February 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
We're spending hundreds of billions on junk, but we are gonna cut military spending to the bone. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure there won't be any ramifications to that.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 18, 2009 at 12:20 PM
In what appears to be a scene out of the TV show "NUMB3RS", a Californian geography professor has used techniques for hunting endangered species to pinpoint three houses in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden could be hiding.
Posted by: Neo | February 18, 2009 at 01:15 PM
TheHellYouSay,
Area 51 just called wanting to know if you'll be home for dinner tonight?
Posted by: Fisher | February 18, 2009 at 06:27 PM