Dick’s “Presidential-Level” Torture Decision
I’m just now catching up to Dick’s appearance on CBS yesterday. And I gotta say, I’m not sure who comes off as more obtuse in this exchange, Cheney or Bob Schieffer. When Cheney talked about "the volume" of intelligence reports gotten through torture, Schieffer didn’t ask the obvious follow-up about the quality of those huge numbers of reports. When PapaDick repeated the same claim his BabyDick made–that two out of three terrorists surveyed started talking after waterboarding–Shieffer doesn’t ask what happened to Rahim al-Nashiri, and what it means that Dick doesn’t assert waterboarding was effective with Nashiri. When Cheney trotted out the "we used these techniques on our own men and women," Schieffer mentioned neither the evidence that Bush Administration torture went far beyond what went on in SERE, nor the fact that SERE is premised on the fact that these techniques produce false confessions, not real intelligence torture produces unreliable intelligence [corrected per Jeff Kaye].
But Schieffer did, slightly, redeem himself by eliciting this weird response from Cheney on Bush’s role in approving torture (at 5:00 in the YouTube above).
SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you– and you have said– that you approved this…
CHENEY: Right.
SCHIEFFER: … somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?
CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew — he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.
Pardon me, but what the fuck does it mean when a President "basically authorizes" torture?!?!? And what’s the difference between a "presidential-level decision" and a "presidential decision," particularly when a number of key "presidential-level decisions" (such as the shoot down order on 9/11) during the Bush Administration got made by the Vice President?
I understand that some think this exchange constituted Cheney throwing Bush under the bus and it may be that.
But it reads to me instead like the groundwork for launching the same defense that Cheney was preparing in the Plame outing, that Bush "signed off on" the declassification of a bunch of things to rebut Joe Wilson, without necessarily signing off on the exposure of a CIA spy.
This is Cheney reveling in the gutting of our Constitution. And he’s not even sure who gets credit for gutting it. And of course, Schieffer doesn’t press him on the issue, either.
So what is your take Marcy? Is he on tour now to stir up agita for an independent investigation or just cocksure that he will never be held accountable? Because he is definitely not going quietly into the night.
I think he’s very specifically trying to defend the Yoos and Mitchells of the world, and assuming (probably correctly, if Schieffer is any indication) he’ll never be called on the contradictions and deceptions in his speeches.
Oh, my word, you’ve already posted another one. Gotta post this first, though.
Glenn Greenwald
TUESDAY MAY 12, 2009 10:36 EDT
Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…../12/obama/
I wonder what happened in Binyam Mohamed’s torture session that is so much worse than happened with the others. Maybe it’s something horrible against the entire Islamic faith and that would enrage all Muslems?
Hey, Andy Worthington popped in the last thread, asking about non-al Qaeda detainees being turned over to Libya.
This may be the intersection between the U.S. and British national security interests which are being protected, since the UK has protected an “al-Liby” who was contracted at one point to assassinate Qaddafi.
I don’t think any of this is as easy as it looks on the face it.
And I haven’t even mentioned how breaking through to UK government/military prosecution by UK courts for their involvement in rendition/torture opens up the door to Europe-wide prosecutions for their assistance.
I agree EW, Cheney’s use of “basically” and “presidential-level” suggests to me that:
1) Bush did not in fact know everything PapaDick knew,
2) Bush signed off on something he was not fully informed about, and
3) Cheney is once again shape-shifting between his delusional notions of his 4th branch status and that of being a co-equal President.
Oddly enough, I think PapaDick did a lot more damage to himself that to Bush in that quote.
He may have. My hope is that, whatever happens, it’ll exacerbate any tensions between Bush and Cheney.
As I said to drational, I think he imagines he’s primarily protecting the Yoos and Mitchells of the world (though of course, protecting them is the same as protecting himself). This often gets presented in parallel with Bush’s refusal to pardon Libby, who is the James Mitchell/John Yoo of the Plame outing, the guy who took the fall who could implicate Cheney himself. So I hope that Cheney’s anger about the Libby non-pardon will grow into anger that these guys are being sold out, too, and that it’ll set off a big fight between these two.
I agree. I think PapaDick has placed himself in an awkward position on the one hand he clearly was maneuvering behind the scenes throughout the Bush presidency, but to be able to assert the “if the President does it, it’s legal” argument, Bush has to make the claim himself. Cheney may have actually believed in his 4th branch assertions, but the fact is the Vice-President has almost zero authority to do anything. So it is insufficient for him to pull a Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men (”Your damn right I did!”), because he never had the authority to do authorize anything himself.
When you’re the acting head of the Shadow Government (and therefore above the law – under the command of GHW Bush – at the behest of Kissinger and Rockefeller), you don’t need no steenkin’ authority.
He acted above the law because he is.
No. He is not.
That’s the whole point plunger. PapaDick’s fevered imagination is not the same as reality. He had no authority to do most of what he appears to have done while in office. He is not above the law. And it is has become our job to make that abundantly clear to the idiot journalists who give him comfy interviews, as well as to Eric Holder who appears to not have any idea what his responsibilities are as the Attorney General of the United States of America (as opposed to Eric Holder, basketball pal of the President).
You’re missing something here phred. You might have noticed from the Plame/Fitz/Libby fiasco that “law” is just about whatever suits those in power at a given time. This contorted concept has been in evidence (before and) since then wrt fixing things the way PTB want them fixed.
The idea that “we” are gonna do anything about that became irrelevant then and has remained so. Not that I grant no value to activism if it is sensibly applied, but lets at least recognise what we are up against.
Look, you may be ready to make Cheney King of All He Surveys, but I am not.
Cheney. Is. Not. Above. The. Law.
This isn’t about Obama either. This is about the Department of Justice and Eric Holder. We have to demand that Holder stop acting as a political stooge and start acting like the Attorney General of the United States. I think he will get there eventually and I am happy to keep pushing, but if you want to throw up your hands and say it’s hopeless, by all means, feel free. However, I fail to see how it is helpful for you and plunger to lend support to Cheney’s bizarre and indefensible claims of supremacy.
Beg to differ.
You know very well that I am not throwing up my hands, or lending support. How defensive can you get? Please do not rewrite my comment to match your fantasies phred.
I was referring in part to the long period when the Plame affair was in the process of being “adjudicated” and was the prime subject at FDL. Many of the commenters there seemed to agree that the hammer of justice was about to swing at any moment, because the evidence was undeniable – everybody could see it, except for the part kept secret. What happened? All the perps including Libby walked. Well OK, the Libster was convicted of perjury eventually – after all the delaying tactics had been used up, but then….he too walked didn’t he.
Was it ever determined what more serious crimes, what other perps, like Addington and the VP, were allowed to slide by unindicted? No. I base my pessimism on this precedent. And yes it is very evident that Cheney has bosses and handlers further up the chain; they are careful to be never identified; that is their game.
Far as i can tell, the two of you are on about the same page and are arguing out of frustration. It IS frustrating; but the alternative is to give up and nobody here is doing that. So carry on!
That’s my take as well. Posted yesterday on my TPM muckracker blog:
Full:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme…..i-porn.php
Enjoy.
Cheney has always been about in-your-face defiance. I’m trying to remember where I read it, but someone in Cheney’s orbit basically said we’re going to keep doing stuff (and expanding the orbit of the unitary executive, etc.) until someone makes us stop.
Al Gore referred to this in his great January speech several years ago.
Here’s his closing remarks:
Cheney is daring us to stop him. I hope we will.
Bob in HI
Every time Cheney speaks, I go back to Addington’s testimony, and related commentary, which I think is something of a Rosetta Stone (albeit not as authoritative). Everything Addington did was calculated.
Quoting EW’s legendary “Barnacle Branch post” of 6/27/08:
Come to think of it, maybe that’s why he (Addington) brought all those torture documents with Bush’s signature on them–just in case the Barnacle Branch argument didn’t work, he could start threatening Bush.
That’s where we are. Bush “signed off.” But don’t expect him to remember exactly what he signed off on. And don’t expect there to be an authoritative record of it, b/c Dick has all the records. That’s where “basically” comes in.
From that same post, I had also forgotten that Stephen Bradbury had authored a “Harriet does not have to testify” letter but did not accord Addington with the same courtesy.
Is it just me, or is Deadeye speaking very fast in his interview with Schieffer? I don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak in such a rapid cadence, as if he was trying to squeeze out content quickly. He even has to take big breaths between sentences at points in the interview because he is pushing words so hard.
fatser (2) — not good at all on the admin. But I wonder how much of this is a political issue which the DOJ and the UK courts are wrestling with, while state functions in US and UK scramble over how to reduce liability to UK? UK went way overboard to accommodate US demands for rendition, putting themselves at risk of prosecution for war crimes. It’s not going to stop with UK either.
He’s breathing about as well as COndi when she denies being responsible for torture.
Funny, that, this sudden decline in speaking ability among the torture apologists.
I always thought Condi’s speech was that of a hustler, though; she can spin quickly a mess of filibuster as a matter of habit.
Dick is a much more measured speaker, but then he generally does that when he’s speaking from a position of power. This has the appearance of being otherwise.
Panicky, even, more rapid and frequent eyeblink and use of hands when speaking.
BTW, why did the Vice President have the documents in his files at one point??
Given the limited number of times cheney actually spoke during our eight long years in the wilderness, it’s kinda hard now to make an informed comparison. *g*
Oh, we have plenty of material.
Personally, I think the old man is struggling with keeping up with the intertoobz and it’s starting to show. Back in the day we out here in the cheap seats would have had to wait to see clips of interviews presented by news outlets to make such comparisons, and now we don’t have to. The filter is gone and so is the wait now that we have YouTube and the internet.
Panic, old man, panic.
There is a greater democracy of information for sure. Nowadays you can float an idea and it’s around the world in a one second. It’s harder for the terrists to hide their deals behind closed doors. Just think, it wasn’t two decades ago that we were still in the dark. That’s a lot of progress very quickly. Does my age show that I don’t consider two decades a tremendously long time? But, I don’t let it get me down. I just have to go with the flow and not fight it, just maintain my balance. Somehow I don’t think Bush & co can do that. They’re more of a ’stick a firecracker up yer butt and light it & run’ kinda crowd. Responsibility isn’t really in their vocabulary.
Cheney “has every reason to believe” that Bush “knew a great deal about the program.”
But if Bush didn’t know picky little details like torture (not that I believe that), doesn’t that mean that Cheney did? I can’t imagine that Cheney will allow himself to go down to protect Bush. Who gets their neck put in the meat grinder?
Other news, our new man in Afghanistan.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/…..tion-wing/
Did General run Cheney’s Assissination Wing?
http://rawstory.com/08/news/20…..n-coverup/
New Afghan Commander Fingered in Tillman Coverup
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan…..rture.html
Stanley McChrystal: A History of Torture
We hit the trifecta: Cheney’s Assassins, Torture and Pat Tillman. (So far.)
Spencer has a few posts up, also. One of his sources called him “scary smart.”
thanks for the links.
Marcy,
When I posted this quote:
I followed it with, “This is not a bug but a feature.”
Bush Sr, played a role in Cheney learning this approach. It’s all about leaving no tracks. Building networks and putting people in the right places to make decisions that comport with the vision, is a Bush philosophy too.
I think the argument in the last week at the WH between Bush and Cheney was not a power play disagreement. I do not think Cheney “not” being at the “reunion” was a “bad Cheney” message.
I think many knew how Cheney enjoyed power and as he “played with power” he WAS played. The Bush approach of leave no tracks and obfuscate, but make sure the actions of others comport with the vision, was Cheney as VP.
Cheney was put in the right place, at the right time to make well-informed decisions that comport with the overall Bush vision.
Thus, I conclude: Presidential-level decisions = presidential decisions.
This is not a bug but a feature.
I just want to know why he hasn’t been arrested.
Cuz we’re “looking forward” don’t-cha know…
The odds that it was Cheney’s decision in the first instance seem high. It’s how he micro-managed Bush throughout his presidency.
How did Cheney do it here? Under assumed, presumed, stolen “delegated” authority? By having Shrub ratify events after the fact, with only slight knowledge of what occurred, a) because Shrub let things get out of hand, b) because his ego required him to acquiesce in whatever Cheney wanted but required that he appear to be in charge, and/or c) because in the end, as the ship’s captain, he’s liable anyway for his crew so WTF not ratify it?
And who among us supposes that Bush read whatever he signed?
The contrast between the Obama-era Cheney and Bush is certainly striking. It spurs a couple of thoughts. One, that is was carefully planned. They’re sticking to a script and a gameplan that was drawn up before they left office. They’re playing it the way they want to, the way they planned to, and they’re playing offense.
Two, I wouldn’t underestimate Bush. He’s always more savvy and calculating that he seems. “Presidential-level decision” sounds like a classic unitary executive soundbite coming direct from the 4th branch.
Haven’t Statutes of limitations already expired for much of this?
When were the last OLC memos released? In ‘05?
Even though it’s a travesty not to prosecute (even a president and vice president), aren’t there pragmatic legal limitations now? If Bush/Cheney ok’d torture and violation of international treaties in 2002-2004, aren’t they free and clear?
Would the fact that people were killed as a result of torture have any legal impact on the culpability of those who “signed off” on torture?
There are three pertinent limitations periods: 5 years (conspiracy) 8 years (torture not involving death) and no limitations (torture involving murder or criminal death).
Bearing in mind that with conspiracy, the limitation is calculated from the date of the last overt act in furtherance of it.
Including cover-ups, I presume?
Sure: as long as there’s an overt act.
If the particular conspiracy:
[1] is all about covering up the commission of a crime, or
[2] includes the commission of more than one crime and among such crimes, covering up the commission of one or more of them is specifically contemplated, or at least rationally must be included,
then any overt act undertaken to further that goal, such as:
[a] the making of an inherently false statement capable of leading someone who hears or otherwise receives it away from the criminal agreement or any crimes deriving from it or bearing on its existence;
[b] even the making of a technically true statement which nonetheless is capable of leaving the listener, or a person the listener might rationally be expected to report to, with a false conclusion or impression, leading the receiver of the statement away from the criminal agreement etc [see above];
[c] destroying, hiding or suppressing an official record;
[d] destroying, hiding or suppressing an informal record substantially bearing on an official act or record;
[e] inducing another to maintain silence, or say something with intent to mislead, or to destroy, hide or suppress an official record or informal one bearing on it or an official act, by:
[i] an actual or necessarily-implied promise of benefit, or
[ii] an actual or necessarily-implied threat of harm
[among many other possible overt acts — though those types listed here are most typically discovered and prosecuted]
suffices to make out the case — and thus resets the clock.
Thank you for that, LabDancer. So, as these conspirators keep dragging all of this, through their actions, that just keeps resetting the clock. Ok, now I understand why the concept of “conspiracy” is so important here. (And that explains a lot of troll traffic at a recent blog, the title of which had “conspiracy” and “torture” in it.) Many thanks!
Well, it is not quite that simple. It has to be a material overt act within the ambit of that particular conspiracy. A cover up may, or may not, be part of “the conspiracy”, or may be another one in and of itself. It can be pretty complicated, depends on the facts and circumstances, and is ultimately a question for the court and/or jury. This is just not something amenable to a quick answer based upon speculative facts on a blog. LD gave you the right answer to your question, but the question was simplistic and was not fact specific. I don’t think you should necessarily extrapolate out LD’s answer to the point you have.
Quite so. I’ve been — and you, indeed anyone who’s done much in this area — in a number of cases where, quite apart from juries having just to determine the facts, the turning point was whether the facts once found necessarily implied the existence of criminal agreement, as framed in the indictment or otherwise. I think it’s the very ethereality of the crime that renders it so irresistible to amateur theorists.
FWIW here’s the point at which prosecutors are supposed to start:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eous…..m00652.htm
Further in this vein, whereas it’s easy to envision any number of theoretical, possible, fantastical and fantasy conspiracies here; and whereas working from such a vision towards an indictment is improper; one that stands out as probable [which is putting it mildly] is that mentioned two threads down, as discussed in a HuffPost article concerning the obligations on the administration to comply with the National Security Act of 1947 and the FY 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act in ‘informing Congress’.
Thanks, bmaz. Though I wasn’t assuming troll traffic was part of it. Ok, I’ll await Marcy’s blogging at the trials! Even if I’m in my 90’s by then, she may still be in her prime!
EW, good point. I think Cheney is using “Presidential-level” in its military context, except he’s substituting the word “decision” for the accepted term “authority.”
The 9/11 shootdown order places it in good context.
Here’s Dick:
Here’s ex JCS General Richard Myers (2005):
“Presidential-Level Authority” doesn’t necessarily have to come from the President, it can be delegated. I think Dick is purposefully using the two terms interchangible.
Other “Presidential Authority” that was delegated under Bush – SEC Rules.
So, could there have been an EO, secret of course, that designated cheney as able to make “presidential-level” decisions? Since the exact phrase keeps popping up. So is it “code” for some kinds of back-channel “executive” decisions?
There were multiple executive orders, National Security Presidential Directives, Military Orders and unenumerated presidential memos with the intent of an executive order (lettres de cachet, vraiment) which gave broad instructions or orders to all of the administration. Anyone could interpret them widely and still be within the letter of the order/directive, and all of them were based on weaselly interpretations of re-interpretations of law.
Take Military Order of November 13, 2001, for example. Hole-ridden for convenience.
I’m well aware there were many. I’m also aware of EW’s pixie dust theory about whether they needed to be obeyed or not (at the presidential-level, I assume). So you think the “presidential-level” language is “inherent” in some of those decisions made by cheney – without a more specific directive? Or part of the pixie dust? Or both. Believe me, I buy that! These folks were such weasels, especially cheney.
Citizen92 has it pegged at (52).
OVP is not an agency, either — it’s Fourth Branch! w00t for Deadeye!
But seriously, Deadeye all but admitted to it.
Wow, I hadn’t even gone back and seen him use that language with the shootdown. Thanks so much!!
I do think he’s saying he made the decision, just as he did with the shootdown order.
I am beginning to feel like we may have elected a new President — but Cheney is still pulling a lot of strings and making things happen. However, with that said, klynn noted in #8 above:
Sheikh al-Libi’s death looks awfully suspicious, and perhaps he was a “track” that had to be taken care of. Could it be that BigDick is afraid that he could be next?
It would sure make a great plot for a novel of high intrigue!
There is a lot of truth to this position I think. When viewed with Iran-Contra and the Iran hostage crisis lens, it is clear that the Bushies ( poppy and to some extent shrub ) Were doing the Carlyle thing here with Cheney as consigliore.
They weren’t supposed to loose on any of this but Carlyle group went belly up. They made great pains awhile ago in the Wapo to run the Cheney series outing the 4th branch as shadow (read blameable ) goverment.
Since I view the Reagan admin as the test case for what we have now. Its not at all suprising to see. Especially when you see moves like the DOD moving Cheney’s private kill squad general up to run Afghan command. Who is pulling what strings here. Likely its the long arm of the Bush clan who were in power for 20 of the last 28 years.
The ONLY reason to torture is to extract precisely the confession being demanded of the victim…
“Tell us Sadam and Osama are lovers, and we’ll stop drowning you!”
The US government knows for a fact that confessions that result from torture are not to be taken at face value. Therefore it follows that if leaders in possession of such knowledge opt to torture, they are doing so specifically to obtain false confessions – intentionally – for political reasons.
Is this shit easy to figure out, or what?
As my sister loves to say,
Cheney’s behavior in the last few weeks is quite striking. Suppose he’s worried that he’s about to be put through the grinder, similar to the way Libby was treated?
I get the sense there is still something out there that is being missed with respect to Cheney and his strenuous insistence on protecting the nation. Perhaps some illicit activity that we don’t know about yet prompted his actions. (And I’m not a torture apologist.)
My own speculation is that someone was double-crossed.
This reason for Cheney’s change in demeanor sounds the most likely to me –he’s both no longer in a position to magically declassify documents or do any other 4th-branchy things, and the non-pardon of Libby acquainted him with the fact that the Kossacks work for the Czar (h/t Brad DeLong, et al.)
He still has some sway in some agencies, and that Seymour Hirsch says their presence has cowed the ‘just wait until 1/21/09′ folks, and is very impressed with Cheney’s continuing reach, but the interview makes him seem like he believes himself more vulnerable.
“CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew — he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.”
I’m glad you caught it too EW. Weasel words. He’s guilty. Everybody knows.
Now he is counting on his “authority” to squeeze by, and his cache of facts that implicate all the other perps, including of course, many of those with the power to put him away. My question is, how safe are those above Cheney? Because he knows at least some of them, and he knows the orders he was given over all those years since Wyoming congressman or whatever.
He also knows with certainty, that when the craop hits the fan seriously, he will be sacrificed just as all those others have been.
This has been a really phenomenal show – glad I was here to see it.
Leonard Cohen was presciently channeling Dick Cheney years ago (from “The Future”)…
He who strikes the first blow admits he’s lost the argument.
Chinese Proverb
With a little probing Schieffer might have gotten Cheney to admit that Bush “signed off” on EIT using Crayola and at the time believed he was signing a birthday card.
can we start referring to torture as sadism in order to elicit the appropriate amount of outrage?
How do we authorize an order for Sunday talking heads to use CIT (competent interrogation techniques)?
How can anything be “presidental level”? There is only one president and there is no one on his “level”. So he
either signed off on this or he didn’t.
Bush frequently delegated onerous tasks such as readin’ an’ writin’ to Barney so he could dedicate himself to more important things like nappin’ an’ bike ridin’.
LOL
So Bush was on the level of Barney? At least it wasn’t a bitch.
Well, they didn’t see eye to eye on everything and I would not say they were intellectual equals (wouldn’t be fair to Barney).
that old feeling of embarrassment and humiliation i knew so well with bush is creeping back up on me.
there is a reckoning due for this country that i haven’t seen yet. i only hear talk of it, like it’s out in the distant future. the longer these war criminals walk freely amongst us the longer the shadow of shame.
we willfully invaded a nation that had done nothing to us and we continue to cause the deaths of innocent people there to this very day. the fact that we tortured people for the justification to do that is beyond anything the taliban or al quaeda has done to us.
Cuffs, meet Dick
Bars, meet Dick
Key, what key?!
‘Presidential-level’ is a designation that is neither Executive or Legislative, but is attached to the former by statute. For the purposes of resultant decisions, ‘Presidential-level’ deciders shall not be considered an Agency.
Where is this statement from?
Tangentially OT~~
Just learned of a new book by Russ Baker, “Family of Secrets – The Bush Dynasty, The Powerful Forces That Put It In The White House, and What Their Influence Means For America”. There is a 1 hour interview recording from Guns and Butter, the Berkeley station, in which Baker traces the history of the Bush Secrets, and Cheney’s company, Halliburton is mentioned near the end.
http://informationclearinghous…..e22595.htm
.
That book was an FDL Book Salon two months ago – hosted by emptywheel.
“He basically authorized it.”
He knows that nothing will happen to him at this point.
Very sad. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, Eric Holder. Thank you, mute Democrats.
Now we have to listen to Cheney shove his law-breaking in our faces.
Signing off on something indicates that the agreement was a mutual one between two or more people, that is to say, in this instance, Bush concurred with Cheney. It’s not necessarily an authorization, as such.
I don’t think I agree with you, but I would say it sounds as if someone else might have dreamt it up or wrote up an order or something and ran it by Bush to get a signature to make it an official Presidential order.
If that’s what you meant, then yes, it could’ve been that kind of agreement.
In some offices you have to have something on paper and then “run it by” a bunch of people for signatures or initials before it can be executed. This process doesn’t specify where it originated.
Boy, if I were in the media, I’d see if I could get an interview with Bush to see what he has to say about that last “basically authorized” bit. “Mr. Bush, did you ‘basically authorize’ it? Dick Cheney says you ‘knew a great deal’ about the program. How much did you, in reality, know”. Unfortunately, there are no media to gain access to private citizen George Bush to ask the question. Not in THIS country, anyway. (There are MANY, of course, who are more than capable of doing it. Marcy Wheeler. Amy Goodman. Maybe Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow.)
Personally, I’d like to see that Irish BBC interviewer who pissed Bush off so much do it.
I just can’t help mysef:
dead eye dick must be thinking this random disclosure of all his deep dark secret crimes is like torture
looks like the repuglitards need a plumber
sorry nadajoe, they need a different kinda plumber
ya gotta be “of a certain age”, and dedicated to wickedly sharp ironic karma to fully understand all the entendres in this post …
If John Ashcroft had, while drugged out and recovering from major surgery, has signed off on the Domestic Spying authorization at the behest of the White House…would that have meant he “basically authorized” it?
Maybe they got Bush to sign it while they plied him with alcohol.
“Yeah, the drunk signed off on this, although we dosed him with booze and drugs and lies about the danger of Al Qaida taking over the country.”
Would someone please trip Cheney as he walks by and then arrest him please? Thank you.
Nothing says enduring legacy for Cheney/Bush quite like — NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..84044.html
The question for Dick is how does he define “basically”
As Ed said “take it to the Judge”
Sue Ann Arrigo describes a similar situation, of Cheney getting Bush to authorize use of DU in Iraq, in this recent post at Al Martin’s Conspiracy Planet. She sounds almost over the edge and not believable unless one compares her accounts to the dribbling-out of documentary evidence and Cheney’s own revelations during his recent public appearances.
It’s worth reading through her voluminous earlier writings, starting here and here, with much more at Conspiracy Planet and downloadable from mediafire as PDFs or .docs through ’Case 29’. [These can be found by Googling ”Sue Ann Arrigo” + ”Case XX”, where XX = 19, 20, 21, 22B, 22C, 22D, 23, 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, 24E, 25A, 25B, 25C, 26, 27, 28, 29.] She has also compiled a file which she has sent to the Spanish Judge Garzon.
Despite her seemingly over-the-top narratives, I tend to believe her. But, then, I suppose it’s also possible that she’s been put out there to be discredited, much like the Texas Air National Guard document used to take down Dan Rather. The content of the document was true, but the provenance of the copy of the document Dan Rather had was questionable.