WaPo series on Cheney

Anybody get the idea that the "method" of attaining and wielding power has been the purpose driving Cheney, moreso than the policies themselves? I get the impression that it was his goal to develop an all-consuming power vacuum after seeing policy foundered by in-fighting, leaks and indecision in previous administration. In a way I admire Bush/Cheney's (and I'm not alluding to anything here) almost sociopathic drive to enact their policies. They don't care if they offend other members of the GOP, the press, or what their poll numbers say. Nobody has any leverage on them at all. And the Constitution? They've got a lawyer that sees things differently so if you want to take it to court, go ahead they'll be out of office before anything is decided. Pure genius.

 

Winner, winner, chicken breakfast!

 

Part three is now up...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/a_strong_push_from_back_stage/index.html

 

Cheney's power derives in part from meticulous preparation paired with a strong will to prevail. He knows what he wants, and as one rival put it, Cheney and his staff are "just ferocious negotiators."

 

It got ugly at the gaggle this morning.
http://www.first-draft.com/2007/06/today-on-hold-3.html

 

Perino has been getting eaten alive ever since Tony Snow went down. I thought she might get better, but I reckon being able to not look like a dumbass while defending the indefensable is God-given, not learned. That was yesterday's, I think. Today should be even worse. I loved the "Pissing off Helen" section:

Q But how you can say it's a vigorous debate if the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor were not involved in debate for two years, two years?

MS. PERINO: Ed, I'm not commenting on that.

MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on that either way.

Q But how can you make the claim -- if you're not commenting on it, how can you --

MS. PERINO: I'm commenting on my personal experience at the White House.

Q But how can you make that claim, though, that there's a vigorous debate? The top two national security officials were not involved in that debate. How could it be vigorous?

MS. PERINO: I don't know that to be true, Ed, so I'm not commenting --

Q So is it false?

MS. PERINO: I don't know that to be true, so I'm not commenting on it.

(Pissing off Helen)

Q Can you send someone out here who can? You're stonewalling. Is the President a member of the executive branch? Is he answerable to any law, to any executive order? I mean, what is this? What's going on here?

MS. PERINO: Helen, the President, of course, is head of the executive branch.

Q Any accountability to the American people?

MS. PERINO: Absolutely.

Q Does the Vice President see top secrets in this administration as a member of the executive branch? Does he attend NSC meetings?

MS. PERINO: In his executive duties, as discharged by the President, he does see classified materials, yes.

Q And he is allowed to?

MS. PERINO: Victoria, go ahead.

Q We should get someone out here who can answer our questions.

 

Part 4 is up.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html

The more I read and the more I think about I it, the more I become convinced he is the single biggest poison in this country right now.

I would absolutely love to e-mail his office and say so if I didn't fear for my wife's livelihood.

 

God bless Helen Thomas.

 

I'm still befuddled by the multiple man-sized safes in his office where Cheney kept normal working materials.
WTF?
On a side note, one of the shoot'em up video games has a mode where if you shoot the shotgun 10 times in a row it goes into something called "Cheneymania"

 

mission accomplished.

 

This is a great closing graf to the part 4 article:

A federal appeals court has since found that the rule change violated the Clean Air Act. In their ruling, the judges said that the administration had redefined the law in a way that could be valid "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world."