Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

hazlnut · Aug 13, 2009

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush
'Statute of Limitations Has Expired' on Many Secrets, Former Vice President Says

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009

In his first few months after leaving office, former vice president Richard B. Cheney threw himself into public combat against the "far left" agenda of the new commander in chief. More private reflections, as his memoir takes shape in slashing longhand on legal pads, have opened a second front against Cheney's White House partner of eight years, George W. Bush.

That phrase jumped out at me. Partner? That's not how the constitution sees it. Cheney always came across as someone who thought he was the President's equal in terms of power and responsibility. The unprecedented expansion of VP powers aside, he always came off in interviews as if he thought of himself as the co-President.

Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.

However, in the beginning of his second term, he declared himself the 'decider' and decided he was really going to have a go at being President. To co-president Cheney, this must have been infuriating.

I'm more interested in the tell-all book from Bush than I am from Cheney. Of course, if Cheney's book comes out first, this might inspire Bush to get more honest.

Every time something new is revealed about what really went on behind-the-scenes at the Bush White House, I'm never surprised.

Cheney comes off in some ways as the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men -- he wants so bad to tell people what he did and why he did it. I'm hoping his editor and advisors don't hold him back. Let the chips fall where they may.

Harshaw · Aug 13, 2009

hazlnut said:
Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

That phrase jumped out at me. Partner? That's not how the constitution sees it. Cheney always came across as someone who thought he was the President's equal in terms of power and responsibility. The unprecedented expansion of VP powers aside, he always came off in interviews as if he thought of himself as the co-President.

First, those were the author's words, not Cheney's. And I think that characterization, as provided by the author, pretty much shows the slant of the article.

Second, it was Clinton who greatly expanded the role of the VP with Al Gore; Cheney did different things, but his role in the administration was no greater than Gore's. Maybe you should check into things that happened before you started paying attention if you want to comment intelligently.

stekim · Aug 13, 2009

From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make.

It was not just an appearance. He actually lacked the intellect. The problem is, he surrounded himself with people who were not stupid, but ideologically bankrupt.

Lightdemon · Aug 13, 2009

This article is basically a commentary of the following image:

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

hazlnut said:
Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

That phrase jumped out at me. Partner? That's not how the constitution sees it. Cheney always came across as someone who thought he was the President's equal in terms of power and responsibility. The unprecedented expansion of VP powers aside, he always came off in interviews as if he thought of himself as the co-President.

As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.

However, in the beginning of his second term, he declared himself the 'decider' and decided he was really going to have a go at being President. To co-president Cheney, this must have been infuriating.

I'm more interested in the tell-all book from Bush than I am from Cheney. Of course, if Cheney's book comes out first, this might inspire Bush to get more honest.

Every time something new is revealed about what really went on behind-the-scenes at the Bush White House, I'm never surprised.

Cheney comes off in some ways as the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men -- he wants so bad to tell people what he did and why he did it. I'm hoping his editor and advisors don't hold him back. Let the chips fall where they may.

I always greet such speculation with bemusement. The desperate desire of those, who couldn't contain their fevered hatred for the Bush Cheney administration for no better reason than they were against the Iraq war and still hysterically believe Bush stole the election from the dumbest man in America, Al Gore, to speculate is the realm of gossip columns and nothing that could be considered factual or real world.

Cheney didn’t increase the POWER of the VP any more than previous VPs. Well, Biden may be the singular exception where the current administration wishes to hide him away to prevent further embarrassment from his foot-in-the-mouth stupidity. It is as absurd as suggesting that Bush vastly increased the power of the Presidency any more than other war time Presidents.

Again, this is nothing but another one of those “because you say so” issues that seem to have a never ending life of their own.

dirtpoorchris · Aug 13, 2009

You can almost pick up a scent in the air of how much Cheney must have abused Bush's trust at first. I bet Cheney made hell for Bush when Bush was to lazy to dig up what Cheney was really doing.

Lightdemon · Aug 13, 2009

To me, this article made Bush seem like the victim.

Dr_Patrick · Aug 13, 2009

Lightdemon said:
To me, this article made Bush seem like the victim.

It's probably quite true. I don't think Bush was stupid, but I think that he, like many people would be, was a bit out of his league around Cheney & Co. It seems like they exploited that weakness whenever they got a chance.

Redress · Aug 13, 2009

For me, I am pretty indifferent. The article is pretty clearly Anti-Cheney, and while I am as well, I don't think it helps to run off and make assumptions based on a biased article. let's wait for the book and condemn Cheney for his own words. I am sure there will be plenty to condemn for those of us who believe the liberal ideology.

Coronado · Aug 13, 2009

hazlnut said:
As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.

That's how I've seen the Bush presidency as well -- badly advised early on by people who were in it more for their own personal gain than anything else. By the time Bush finally wrested the reigns away from them, it was too late.

aps · Aug 13, 2009

Redress said:
For me, I am pretty indifferent. The article is pretty clearly Anti-Cheney, and while I am as well, I don't think it helps to run off and make assumptions based on a biased article. let's wait for the book and condemn Cheney for his own words. I am sure there will be plenty to condemn for those of us who believe the liberal ideology.

Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

I am betting we can all come to much better conclusions after we have actually READ the book when it ACTUALLY comes out. But alas, this is just a wild-ass guess on my part.

:2wave:

Redress · Aug 13, 2009

aps said:
Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?

Oh no, I don't think he will be particularly honest. I just think that things he is proud of are things you and I are going to be appalled at. I think his book will give you and I plenty to complain about, while conservatives scratch their head not understanding our outrage.

Redress · Aug 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I am betting we can all come to much better conclusions after we have actually READ the book when it ACTUALLY comes out. But alas, this is just a wild-ass guess on my part.

:2wave:

Ok, that is twice...really, who are you, and what have you done with the real TD?

Is this the first time we have ever said the same basic thing in a thread?

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

aps said:
Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?

Good lord, even with all the investigations and millions spent resulting in NOTHING to support such hyper partisan emotionally biased claims, you still go on and on and on like the Energizer bunny don't you?

Why is it that even when confronted with REALITY and the FACTS Liberals cannot contain themselves to spew their vitriol for people whom they disagree with politically. :roll:

Now this is not suggesting that Cheney or anyone else who publishes a book always tell the TRUTH, but to sit here and speculate in a vacuum of reality and the book even being published is beyond the pale.

:roll:

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

Redress said:
Ok, that is twice...really, who are you, and what have you done with the real TD?

Is this the first time we have ever said the same basic thing in a thread?

I assure you Redress that we have not said the same thing. You said; "I just think that things he is proud of are things you and I are going to be appalled at. I think his book will give you and I plenty to complain about, while conservatives scratch their head not understanding our outrage."

Nothing in that statement would fit my "hyper partisan" opinions. Now you can sleep better. :rofl

Redress · Aug 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I assure you Redress that we have not said the same thing. You said; "I just think that things he is proud of are things you and I are going to be appalled at. I think his book will give you and I plenty to complain about, while conservatives scratch their head not understanding our outrage."

Nothing in that statement would fit my "hyper partisan" opinions. Now you can sleep better. :rofl

Read the post of mine in this thread before that one.

Redress said:
For me, I am pretty indifferent. The article is pretty clearly Anti-Cheney, and while I am as well, I don't think it helps to run off and make assumptions based on a biased article. let's wait for the book and condemn Cheney for his own words. I am sure there will be plenty to condemn for those of us who believe the liberal ideology.

Goobieman · Aug 13, 2009

hazlnut said:
That phrase jumped out at me. Partner? That's not how the constitution sees it. Cheney always came across as someone who thought he was the President's equal in terms of power and responsibility. The unprecedented expansion of VP powers aside, he always came off in interviews as if he thought of himself as the co-President.

Sometimes the Pres and the VP work closely together, sometime they do not. The Pres has the authority to delegate whatever executive power he might choose to the VP. Big deal.

As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies.

Ok, this is fair enough.... but then...

From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability...

... comes the ad hom.

:doh

hazlnut · Aug 13, 2009

Harshaw said:
First, those were the author's words, not Cheney's. And I think that characterization, as provided by the author, pretty much shows the slant of the article.

I can agree with that. It is the author's characterization of a speech. I'm sure there will be a rebuttle from Cheney. But, I'm sure you'll agree, that as informed readers, we must read between the lines and combine other information when forming an opinion. In one of Cheney's appearances on a Sunday morning a few months back, he did reveal some of his displeasure with the President's reluctance to fully pardon Libby. In watching that interview, I got the feeling that he was holding back--his tone, facial expression, body language hinted at a deeper spite and anger with the President's final decision on the Libby issue.

IMO, Cheney's overall tone and attitude since leaving office, combined with what we do know about his relationship with Bush, all jive with the author's characterization. I guess apologists will see it as a 'slant'.

Second, it was Clinton who greatly expanded the role of the VP with Al Gore; Cheney did different things, but his role in the administration was no greater than Gore's. Maybe you should check into things that happened before you started paying attention if you want to comment intelligently.

Not true at all. And I'm not just saying that because truth detector believes it to be true (which is a sure fire indicator of the contrary) -- but Gore was very much the traditional VP as a promoter of programs, president of the Senate, and #1 in the line of succession. He traveled abroad, spoke out on issues... all very traditional and not pushing the boundaries the way Cheney did.

Even with what little we know about what Cheney actually did behind the scenes, that's still more than Gore ever did in terms a setting policy, framing the message, advising the president.

However, if you want to post some specific examples, your comment might have some validity. Right now, it reads as a failed attempt to deflect and derail the thread.

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

Coronado said:
That's how I've seen the Bush presidency as well -- badly advised early on by people who were in it more for their own personal gain than anything else. By the time Bush finally wrested the reigns away from them, it was too late.

OMG, we are moving to a new realm of speculation; it wasn't all Bush's fault, everything is Cheney's fault! :rofl

I wonder who people will blame after Obama is done wrecking the nation’s economy and currency; Biden? But alas, they are keeping him away from the public due to his propensity to prove what a dense moron he is.

Or perhaps it will continue to be the Bush/Cheney conspiracy.

Coronado · Aug 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
OMG, we are moving to a new realm of speculation; it wasn't all Bush's fault, everything is Cheney's fault! :rofl

I wonder who people will blame after Obama is done wrecking the nation’s economy and currency; Biden? But alas, they are keeping him away from the public due to his propensity to prove what a dense moron he is.

Or perhaps it will continue to be the Bush/Cheney conspiracy.

I never mentioned Cheney in that post.

Truth Detector · Aug 13, 2009

Coronado said:
I never mentioned Cheney in that post.

I know, but I threw it in for chits N giggles because, as the Liberal arguments go, Bush was a moron and a pawn for Cheney; can't have one without the other right? And that is the thread topic, Cheney, not Bush.

:2wave:

P.S. I wasn't mocking you either.....it was a "just sayin."

The Prof · Aug 13, 2009

i say respectfully, no one cares except partisans and historians

america is focused like laser on health care, which is dying on the operating table

cheney and george w what's-his-name don't signify

carry on

Coronado · Aug 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I know, but I threw it in for chits N giggles because, as the Liberal arguments go, Bush was a moron and a pawn for Cheney; can't have one without the other right? And that is the thread topic, Cheney, not Bush.

:2wave:

P.S. I wasn't mocking you either.....it was a "just sayin."

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

FWIW, I don't think Bush was a pawn; I think that, as every president, he realized that he couldn't possibly know and do everything, so he needed advisors and administrators, and ended up getting people like Mike "Heck of a job" Brown.

Harshaw · Aug 13, 2009

aps said:
Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?

:roll:

Where are the "truths" here? The last one is particularly childish.

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Walk with me in hell.

The Image b4 Transition

King of Videos

The Image b4 Transition

Androgyne

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Voluntary Resignation

Passionate

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Voluntary Resignation

Voluntary Resignation

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency