"No Choice"

by hilzoy

Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, on the commutation of Libby's sentence:

"The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was "very disappointed" with the jury's verdict. Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.""

"I'm not sure Bush had a choice"? Oh, please. Except for presiding over the Senate and serving as the Federal government's only constitutionally mandated spare part, the Vice President has no power that the President does not give him. For most of our history, that meant that Vice Presidents had no power at all. They tried desperately to transform presiding over the Senate into an interesting job, or met with dignitaries too obscure to be worth the President's while, or chaired commissions on topics destined to be forgotten. Tom Lehrer gave a pretty accurate summary of the situation of Hubert Humphrey, transformed by the office of the Vice Presidency from a liberal firebrand into a potted plant:

"Whatever became of Hubert?
Has anyone heard a thing?
Once he shone on his own,
Now he sits home alone
And waits for the phone to ring..."

For all I know, George W. Bush may feel as though he is powerless in the face of Dick Cheney's fearsome indomitable will. But that doesn't mean that journalists have to write as though that that feeling is accurate, or as though there's anything inevitable or unremarkable about the fact that the White House is presently occupied by a weak, frightened little man who doesn't dare stand up to someone whom he could, if he wished, send back to the old Executive Office Building, where Vice Presidents used to while away their empty days, thinking wistfully of decisions that were being made elsewhere.

Comments

[cleek]

but he's The Decider!

anyone else here assume he was trying to convince himself, as much as he was trying to convince us, when he said that ?

[rilkefan]

Presumably a precipitous withdrawal of the source of decision-making from the OVP to its peace-time posture in Bush's office would have wrenching effects. A well-organized retreat might take half a year due to logistical complexities and force protection, not to mention the degree to which insurgent activity would be whipped up.

[zmulls]

Thank you for quoting Tom Lehrer.

Next time you discuss the immigration issue, be sure to quote from the George Murphy song as well.

[Anderson]

"I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.""

The single best quote for showing how bad this White House has become. I mean, seriously: an adviser to the President either seriously meant this, or thought it was a plausible excuse. Either way, wow.

[Count Cant]

i think Quirrel has been hosting Voldemort for a long time now. It's too late for the servant to challenge his master--now he can only cringe and grovel.

oh, and talk tough to the White House Press Pool, who are even more spineless than he is.

The good news in all of this: the walls of secrecy that helped them to pull off a virtual coup for the first six years are rapidly falling down. Things this bad or worse happened in 200 through 2006 and we simply never heard about them. Now the facade is crumbling, fast.

[BigHank53]

Hey, which of the Republican candidates will be the first to announce that he's going to have Cheney be his VP, too?

[Fledermaus]

I think there was a back-door deal with Libby and Cheney. Libby had him listed as a witness and dropped him at the last second with no explanation. Of course it didn't matter if he lost because of the "understanding" come to between Libby's lawyers and the OVP.

[Jay C]

Hey, which of the Republican candidates will be the first to announce that he's going to have Cheney be his VP, too?

Maybe the GOP will let Dick Cheney manage the selection process for VP again. After all, it worked so well the last time!!

[sglover]

Well, don't forget that Bush is the same guy who couldn't appear before a 9/11 investigation commission without Cheney sitting at his side -- a pretty pathetic episode that never got nearly the attention it deserved. So if the Idiot Prince did manage a really serious rift with Cheney, it'd be a little like an auto-lobotomy. And given that Libby almost certainly had lots of interesting songs to sing, I don't think a more explosive issue has ever come between our executive branch duo. Certainly they didn't argue any over launching wars or gutting the budget.

[Anderson]

it'd be a little like an auto-lobotomy

Ah, the old campfire song --

"I'd rather have a quagmire in front of me,
Than to have an auto-lo-BOT-omy."

Isn't that how it goes?

[Ugh]

Isn't that how it goes?

Boo.

Did you quit blogging again?

[kth]

I was reminded of Cheney's speech the morning after Election Day 2004:

Thanks to you, President George W. Bush won the greatest number of popular votes of any presidential candidate in history. This has been a consequential presidency which has revitalized our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world. Yet in the election of 2004, we did more than campaign on a record. President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.

Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love. It has been my special privilege to serve as vice president alongside this exceptional American. He's a man of deep conviction and personal kindness. His leadership is wise and firm and fearless. Those are qualities that Americans like in a president, and those are qualities we will need for the next four years. If ever a man met his moment as leader of this country, that man is George W. Bush.

Emphasis added. I remember a vague sense of disgust when Cheney uttered those bolded words, like, gimme a break, there was never in my country's history a President more out of his depth and less in charge of his Administration. Come to find out, Cheney shares that opinion:

After naming John Roberts to the Court and then to the Chief Justice’s chair, the President, for once, rebelled: without getting permission from down the hall, he nominated his old retainer Harriet Miers for the second opening. (“Didn’t have the nerve to tell me himself,” Cheney muttered to an associate, according to the Post.)

[kvenlander]

Hey, which of the Republican candidates will be the first to announce that he's going to have Cheney be his VP, too?

It does look like they all are auditioning for the Clueless Figurehead position, doesn't it?

Hollywood-Watergate Fred, The Mighty Mighty Varmint Hunter, Tuff Talkin Cross Dresser, and Saint "Listen, I'm SORRY about all that Straight Talk Stuff - hear me prostrate myself again on your altar" John.

It worked last time, right, the "he ain't so bright but he's gonna have smart eggheads around 'im"?

[russell]

Here is how I make it out.

There is zero chance that Bush will ever be impeached. That's because it's highly unlikely that real, honest to God, smoking gun quality evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor will ever be credibly attached to him.

If the baldly, factually illegal domestic eavesdropping stuff didn't get any traction, it's hard to know what would.

I say we should all ask our Congresspeople to impeach Cheney. There's plenty to work with in the way of grounds. Start with claims of special "fourth branch of government" status and work your way back from there.

It shouldn't be that hard to do, and there wouldn't be much of a political downside.

Everybody hates Cheney.

I don't know if the guy is barking insane or merely evil. Don't know if it's a character flaw, if it's due to medication, or if he's just that kind of a guy, but IMO Dick Cheney is a black hearted SOB. t's time to get him the hell out of government. It's actually about 30 years past time.

Getting rid of Cheney will cut the heart out of everything wrong with the Bush administration. With Cheney gone, IMO Bush will be a paper tiger. Promise him a nice library named after him, let him dress up in a flight suit now and then, get some folks to tell him he's a misunderstood genius, and he'll be happy to serve out his term peacefully and without much of a fuss.

Impeach Cheney.

Thanks -

[Jay C]

Impeach Cheney.

Thanks -

Posted by: russell | July 09, 2007 at 07:59 PM

You're welcome.

Now the BIG question: who does he get replaced by?

(and please please please don't say "who could be worse than Cheney?" - things like that have an unfortunate way of coming true...)

[Jay C]

Ack! Sorry!!

[cleek]

it's highly unlikely that real, honest to God, smoking gun quality evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor will ever be credibly attached to him

"misdemeanor" today means something different than it back in the day. we're not necessarily talking about the same set of issues that would ensure a criminal conviction.

i still agree that there's no way it's going to happen, regardless of what Bush does. the Dems just don't know how to play the game. they think they can play by the old rules and shame the other team into joining them. not gonna happen.

[russell]

Now the BIG question: who does he get replaced by?

Whoever Bush picks, probably.

please please please don't say "who could be worse than Cheney?" - things like that have an unfortunate way of coming true...

Yeah, you're right about that. To be perfectly honest, I'd be pleased to take my chances in return for the opportunity to see Cheney go down.

As much as I dislike Cheney personally, that isn't really my reason for wanting to see him thrown out. IMO it's extremely important that Congress assert its authority, with prejudice, and soon. They need to draw some blood, and I don't much care whose, as long as it's a big fish.

I halfway expected it to be Gonzales, although I wasn't particularly surprised to see Congress fold. If they have the balls to make it happen, Cheney would be the perfect guy to take down. The more wrongheaded and perverse the initiative spawned by this administration, the more likely it seems to spring from the OVP.

And, for me, as much as I disagree with, and in fact despise, Bush's policies, the question of impeachment per se is not primarily a partisan issue. Congress needs to assert its legitimate authority to oversee the actions of the executive.

The theme of the Bush administration, from January 2001 until now, has been the assertion of unaccountable, unrestricted executive authority. They've pushed every boundary they could, and have been wildly successful in the process.

If the precedents they've set are allowed to stand, we're screwed. Congress needs to draw blood. Someone, preferably some collection of someones, needs to be called to account in a meaningful way -- impeachment and/or jail. Otherwise, we're on track for dictatorship.

That doesn't appeal to me.

Thanks -

[john miller]

" shame the other team into joining them"

Shaming only works with people who have a conscience and have some sense of what the word means.

[russell]

Now the BIG question: who does he get replaced by?

Whoever Bush picks, probably.

please please please don't say "who could be worse than Cheney?" - things like that have an unfortunate way of coming true...

Yeah, you're right about that. To be perfectly honest, I'd be pleased to take my chances in return for the opportunity to see Cheney go down.

As much as I dislike Cheney personally, that isn't really my reason for wanting to see him thrown out. IMO it's extremely important that Congress assert its authority, with prejudice, and soon. They need to draw some blood, and I don't much care whose, as long as it's a big fish.

I halfway expected it to be Gonzales, although I wasn't particularly surprised to see Congress fold. If they have the balls to make it happen, Cheney would be the perfect guy to take down. The more wrongheaded and perverse the initiative spawned by this administration, the more likely it seems to spring from the OVP.

And, for me, as much as I disagree with, and in fact despise, Bush's policies, the question of impeachment per se is not primarily a partisan issue. Congress needs to assert its legitimate authority to oversee the actions of the executive.

The theme of the Bush administration, from January 2001 until now, has been the assertion of unaccountable, unrestricted executive authority. They've pushed every boundary they could, and have been wildly successful in the process.

If the precedents they've set are allowed to stand, we're screwed. Congress needs to draw blood. Someone, preferably some collection of someones, needs to be called to account in a meaningful way -- impeachment and/or jail. Otherwise, we're on track for dictatorship.

That doesn't appeal to me.

Thanks -

[OutSourced]

Unless Cheney and Bush are caught in a threesome with Karl, there aren't the votes in the Senate for conviction. But as EW said this morning, that should not stop House Democrats from starting an Impeachment Inquiry. I agree, and the II should review claims against both the president and vice president.

An II is a necessary step and precursor to a an impeachment. The investigators conclude with a report to the House and a recommendation for or against impeachment. An II would collectively put the House investigation into the proper framework as a pre-criminal proceedings, which may help defeat some of the more egregious claims of executive privilege claims. It would document the findings in a permanent record, including the fact that sentiment was so against the president and vice president that the II took place, regardless of the ultimate recommendation, the lack of votes in the House to impeach, or lack of votes in the Senate to convict.

Regarding Cheney, Bobo Brooks' frequent disclaimers to the contrary, Cheney is an effective but extraordinarily destructive force. He is a Master Bureaucrat who would destroy a working govt to prevent it from opposing him. The same goes for anyone else in or out of govt.

Cheney's great handiwork is his ability to get Shrub to ignore all other advice but his. He seems to frame the issues in such a way that they all challenge Bush's manhood. Any decision contrary to Cheney's views are framed as an admission that Big Dick may be one, but that Shrub doesn't have one. That's quite a feat of maniuplation and a dangerously immature personality at the top.

A competent personality as president would limit Cheney's role to attending every military funeral at Arlington. But that's the thing. Cheney was asked to be VP (by whom, really?) because Bush is Bush; and Cheney gets away with it because Bush is Bush. Which Isikoff knows full well. So, he is either engaging in snark or he's a complete jackash when he sets up that quote and doesn't follow it with others about about how gobsmacking it is that the president is afraid of and subordinate to his VP. Cheney has perfected a silent coup, which the cuckolded Bush, like an inadequate spouse, keeps insisting has never happened.

[russell]

Unless Cheney and Bush are caught in a threesome with Karl, there aren't the votes in the Senate for conviction. But as EW said this morning, that should not stop House Democrats from starting an Impeachment Inquiry.

I couldn't agree more.

You win some, and you lose some, but you never win unless you play. It is, really, time and well past time to push back.

Start the inquiries and see where they lead. Subpoena everyone. If they don't show, hold them in contempt. If they still don't show, throw them in jail. If they want to play hardball, play hardball, and bring your best game. Use whatever is available.

The time to play nice is long, long, long gone. There is no more nice left. We used it all up. Enough is enough. Folks need to be brought to account, and to be seen to be brought to account.

Not a member of the executive branch?
Not subject to subpoena?
Unitary executive?

If it's a bluff, time to call them on it.

If it's not a bluff, time to run them out, because they're making up their own Constitution.

These guys -- Cheney and his crew in particular -- are not interested in good governance. They aren't interested in observing the Constitutional and legal limits of their office. They aren't interested in what's good for you, for me, or for the nation.

They want everything they can grab, because for some perverse reason they think it's their right.

Throw them out.

Thanks -

[S Brennan]

A copy my letter to my Reps/Senators/Interested Public officials which seems germane to this discussion:

----- Original Message -----
From: S Brennan
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts

Appropriate Salutations to All,

I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts,

The way I understand it, Lewis Libby's presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President's office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a "high crimes" which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%.

The constitution's wording does not specify what officer in regard to impeachment they are referring to in Section 2. - Article II - U.S. Constitution(please see below). Unless one believes the framers were naives, it is fair to assume they meant what they said...the US President can not pardon his way out of an impeachment...regardless of which officer is being impeached (please see below).

I believe, Patrick Fitzgerald and others have made a legal error in saying that the Libby commutation was legally permissible under the US Constitution. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available for removing "civil officers of the United States" reprieves are not permissible per section 2 article II of the US Constitution in cases of impeachment. Whether acted upon or not, this is a demonstrable case of impeachment.

[1] - Could you please explain to me why the US Constitution does speak directly in contravention to this case?

[2] - Can Representative Pelosi's decree that Impeachment "is off the table" become a legally binding declaration, by which the US President is free to Pardon even in cases where impeachment would be involved because that possibility had been removed through fiat?

[3] - If [2] is true, can the house leadership effectively abrogate Section 2 & 4. - Article II of the U.S. Constitution at will?

I believe these are legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Thank you in Advance,

Best Regards,

S Brennan - US Citizen/Taxpayer
e-mail: [email protected]

"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Section 2. - Article. II - U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Section 4. - Article II - U.S. Constitution

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html

[Jesurgislac]

russell: That's because it's highly unlikely that real, honest to God, smoking gun quality evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor will ever be credibly attached to him.

His own admission that he's instigated warrantless wiretapping of US citizens on multiple occasions?

His commutation of Libby's sentence?

[Simp]

An interesting possibility was raised by Sen. Schumer today.

Did Bush only commute Libby's sentence to preserve his Fifth Amendment rights? Pardoning him would not. He would no longer have any reason to not finally tell the truth other than protecting Uncle Cheney and the dork next door.

[Diogen]

The prospect of Cheney impeachment is laughable. This Congress has shown little taste for a hard fight-- witness the capitulation to Administration over Iraq funding. Moreover, only marginal GOP resistance is necessary to bring any such proceeding to a complete halt. Having widely ignored their primary mandate (get out of Iraq), what makes anyone think that this Congress will really do anything about impeachment?

[Katherine]

The Tom Lehrer song in this post got stuck in my head, and inspired me to honor our current Vice President in song…This is to the tune of Phil Ochs’ "Here's to the State of Mississippi”/”Here's to the State of Richard Nixon”. It's not half as good as the original, but almost as bitter--& I think it’s actually better than Eddie Vedder’s recent attempt at the same thing):

Here’s To The State of Richard Cheney

Here’s to the state of Richard Cheney
At his undisclosed location, he hides his files away
Stamps “top secret” on the pages, and locks them in a safe
But when you call your cousin, he alerts the NSA
It’s for him to give the orders, your job is to obey
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Richard Cheney find yourself another country to be part of.

And here’s to the laws of Richard Cheney
Congressmen will gather in a circus of delay
While the Constitution’s drowning in an ocean of decay
The President can torture, I’ve even heard them say
Yes corruption can be classic in the Yoo and Cheney way
Oh, here’s to land you’ve torn out the heart of
Richard Cheney find yourself another country to be part of.

And here’s to the prisons of Richard Cheney
400 men in Cuba, by a bay where no one sails
Wait in silence and in shackles, their faces growing pale
Six years without a hearing, cause the evidence might fail
But Scooter is a good boy, we can’t let him go to jail
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Richard Cheney find yourself another country to be part of.

And here’s to the people of Richard Cheney
The senators and ministers and oil CEOs
The paid-for propagandists of the Sunday morning shows,
But the worst one is the coward in the White House who although
he calls himself the President, will never tell Dick no.
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Richard Cheney find yourself another country to be part of

And here’s to the wars of Richard Cheney
When it comes to other lives, he’s never been a coward
Though Iraq’s become a graveyard, with Baghdad as its bower
And more blood stains the desert with every passing hour
Dick knows that in Iran they will welcome us with flowers
Oh, here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of
Richard Cheney find yourself another country to be part of.

[Tim]

Slugs

It also explains the bulges on Bush's back.

[hilzoy]

Katherine: brava.