TPMCafe
« What about Josephine the waitress? | Home | Elections Matter »

Cheney Rerouted the In- and Out-Boxes of White House Power

user-pic

There is one book that explains the Bush presidency just about better than any other I have read -- and it hardly deals with Bush. It focuses on Vice President Cheney's all-but-in-name presidency.

Barton Gellman's Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency deserves another Pulitzer on top of the one that Gellman and co-author Jo Becker already won in 2008 for their riveting four part series on Cheney, his team, and their surprisingly large impact on the nation's economic and national security positions.

I reviewed the book for this month's American Conservative magazine. The entire essay is linked here but here is an excerpt for others:

The curious way in which Cheney maneuvered himself onto Bush's ticket is one of many disturbing stories in this new and brilliantly researched account of Cheney's adventures as Bush's "No. 2." Barton Gellman, Pulitzer-winning Washington Post journalist, examines the nuts and bolts of Cheney's power apparatus. He shows how a mere vice president engineered a massive expansion of presidential power, knocked back the constitutional authority of Congress and the judiciary, helped launch an illegitimate war, developed a system for spying on America's citizens, oversaw White House-sanctioned torture, and pushed official secrecy to unprecedented levels. We see how Cheney punctured America's mystique as a benign and respected nation--how he shattered the moral, economic, and military pillars of American power.

Gellman had access to a surprising number of Cheney's close aides and others in the Bush White House. He records previously unknown anecdotes about the inner workings of the administration and Cheney's take-no-prisoners approach to winning policy battles. While Bush and members of his inner circle like Karl Rove seemed to be obsessed with the political machinations of their work, Cheney had a deeper purpose behind his crusades. For him politics and political gamesmanship, seduction, and intimidation were all about changing the nation's policy course--all about principle. Cheney wasn't much interested in weather politics. When Bush ordered him to survey Hurricane Katrina's damage, he reluctantly complied. But his heart and soul were invested in the most important and controversial aspects of the Bush presidency, the policy areas he cared about most--terrorism, intelligence, national security, energy, environmental policy, tax and budget issues.

Gellman makes the fascinating and convincing claim that Cheney's notorious secret meetings with energy lobbyists, which prompted legal complaints from various NGO's, Congress, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, were never about anything important. Cheney and his abrasive lawyer David Addington wanted to bring on governmental crises and tensions with Congress in order to demonstrate the dominance and infallibility of presidential power, which they defined as the "unitary executive." In Gellman's framing, Cheney saw 9/11, discussions with energy lobbyists, and even torture policy as mere vehicles for asserting his vision of a near monarchial presidency.

Angler leads its readers to think that, even without 9/11, Cheney would have found triggers to justify his imperial expansion of presidential powers and official secrecy, his pugnacious disregard for international law, the huge defense spending increases, the war against Iraq--or whatever nation would show that America was an irresistible force--and the massive tax cuts. Gellman argues that Cheney was never an apostle of neoconservatism. He didn't have a burning desire to establish democracy in Iraq. For Cheney, John Bolton, Addington, and others, Iraq was but a means to an end--a tool to expand presidential prerogatives. The same does not necessarily apply to Scooter Libby, a leading neoconservative thinker who strongly favored the invasion for ideological reasons.

This book is simply one of the scariest stories ever written about contemporary America. Cheney and Addington essentially hijacked the bureaucracy of national security and put themselves in the cockpit of government. In chapter after chapter, we read how Cheney set about constructing a secretive system of government and policymaking in which he was accountable to almost no one. We see, for instance, how Cheney pushed through the second round of tax cuts--a move that made even Bush uncomfortable--and how he undermined Christine Todd Whitman, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, over laws regarding air quality.

In contrast to the protagonist and his agents, there are heroes. John Bellinger, a senior lawyer on the National Security Council and then at the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, fought for the interests of Congress and international law. For that, he was beleaguered by Addington and frozen out of the conspiracy to create the legal rationalization for the domestic electronic eavesdropping program. He has nonetheless stayed in the game for the last seven years, trying to bring about a return to Geneva-like standards and end the administration's extralegal detainee policies.

[For more, read here.]

Bravo to Joe Biden who during his debate with Sarah Palin said how it was with Cheney. Biden called him "one of the most dangerous vice presidents in America's history."

Gellman's book tells you why. It's a must read.

-- Steve Clemons is Senior Fellow and Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note


27 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

What you have described is very much the way that a parasite operates in a host organism, or the way that a virus invades and appropriates the cellular machinery to facilitate its own purposes.

Isn't there some way that congress can craft legislation to prevent the Veep from creating their own Shadow Government? Create an anti-biotic against the ravages of the Vice-Presidency?

As an aside, I have heard several agency managers tell me that there is no more frightening moment in their day than to hear their secretary tell them, "The Vice President's office is on the phone."

Terrorizing agency executives should not be part of the VP's job description.

user-pic

Our Federal Statutes have too many holes that allow rouge elements a virtual free hand, such as Rep. Charles Wilson, a now retired Democrat from Texas and Gust Avrakotos of the CIA, who established the mujahideen in Afghanistan and controlled 70% of CIA budget, in the early '80's, by creative appropriations.

user-pic

Terrorizing agency executives should not be part of the VP's job description. c4Logic

Maybe not, but it's a pretty good description of the job of an XO in the Navy, and isn't the Vice-President the second in command of the "ship of state"?

user-pic

Why should the GAO or the OMB be run with the atmosphere of a Destroyer at DefCon 4?

Is that really the best approach to achieving maximum efficiency? I believe Peter Drucker would disagree.

user-pic

The XO's duty is to insure that the ship's departments understand the captain's expectations and are trained in the tactics necessary to carry them out.

The bureaucracy is like the ship's company on the Caine. Maryk's failure is his unwillingness or inability to effectively discipline the officers (and crew) -- to lead them (force them, if necessary) to exchange their loyalty to CDR. DeVriess and their acceptance of his rules and regulations for LCDR. Queeg's.

Cheney can't be accused of that failing.

user-pic

Having worked as an analyst for many govt agencies, and having close friendships with many agency managers--I think your opinion is wrong when you compare them to the ship's company on the Caine. That is pure fantasy, with no basis in reality. Most of these guys will still be here after Cheney is gone, trying to clean up the mess he created, and they are ethical, sensible public servants.

user-pic

Our's is a CIVILIAN gov't, not military. So your rationale is antithetical to our system of laws.

user-pic

It's an analogy* and not a rationale.

* And if I do say so myself, a witty analogy as it plays nicely off the "ship of state" metaphor.

user-pic

You are aiming at the wrong target. It is the President who holds all of the authority of that office. The President decides what, if any power the vice president has. The President has the authority to relegate the vice president to the supermarket opening ceremony circuit if he wishes. The President choses who he takes advice from. The President signs the bills that Congress passes, or vetoes them. Our problem, which was obviously going to be a problem back before the 2000 election, is that George Bush has never been a strong enough president to even wipe his own chin after eating pretzels.

When American voters elect a utterly incapable person as President, this is what they get, and what they deserve. Let's not forget that, or we might elect someone like Palin as president in waiting. We, the voters, just have to learn to accept the responsibilities that are ours in a semi-democracy as we have.

What Cheney has done is wrong, and is very close to treasonous, but he was invited by Bush to do all that he did. And, Bush was placed in office by uninformed, disinterested, irresponsible voters. (With an assist by a corrupt Supreme Court.)

user-pic

Well, I don't disagree with you. That is the Theoria. But the Praxis, in this case, has been quite another thing. I am not even sure that Bush is aware of all that Cheney has gotten away with. When you look at it closely, I think it is quite remarkable, in American History. So far, it's been the perfect crime.

user-pic

hoppycalif2,

Condemning the voters as "uninformed, disinterested, irresponsible" is obviously painting with too broad a brush. The fact is that our democracy requires an informed electorate, and that won't happen until media ownership is de-consolidated.

Alternatively, Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Bertelsmann (Germany), and Viacom could develop a conscience based on something other than their bottom lines. If you think that's likely, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

user-pic

Three thumbs up for the Bartman!

Screw Cheney. Go Bartman!

user-pic

The issue which Cheney's career highlights has been with us since before our founding.

On December 23, 1783 a certain Commander-in-Chief named George Washington uncovered and bowed to Thomas Mifflin, the President of the United States in Congress assembled, and surrendered his commission. Fortunately for the country but unfortunately for the development of law, six years later he was back and only his probity saved us from kingship.

We have never resolved the question of whether the President is our chief magistrate, our commander-in-chief, or our king.

Cheney was only doing what great courtiers always do -- testing the limits of the king's power.

user-pic

I disagree. He was exploiting loopholes in the system of checks and balances to accrue personal power he wielded in the execution of a private hidden agenda belonging to an unseen cabal of co-conspirators outside of the auspices government. He was a shadow government he claimed belonged to no branch of government. Cheney would occasionally load up their coffins by night and move them to a different dungeon to avoid detection.

user-pic

One man's "loopholes" are another man's system improving "flexibilities."

user-pic

Which is a euphemism for what kind of larceny, exactly?

user-pic

We have certainly "settled" what the president is -- and isn't.

He is Commander-in-Chief over the MILITARY -- NOT over the CIVILIAN population.

He can be impeached and removed, therefore is not a king.

And he is not any form of "magistrate" because the Judiciary is a branch separate from the Executive.

user-pic

I was using the word magistrate as the Founders and Blackstone would have -- that is, "a public civil officer invested with the executive government, or some branch of it." The "chief magistrate" would, then, be the highest civil officer in the land.

Under this definition a President could only act if the action was described in a statute. But historical necessity and Congressional inaction and acquiescence have eroded this limitation. For example --

After 18 years of Hoover and the New Deal Congress admitted that it had ceded much of its authority to the Executive and attempting to give the citizen some power when confronted by a federal agency enacted the Administrative Procedures Act.

Under the Constitutional direction to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" the President may, without reference to any law, issue Executive Orders (FDR removing the nisei from the West Coast is an example).

It seems pretty clear that the President's power is a good deal more far reaching than would be that of a "chief magistrate" who was acting solely under an applicable statute.

The questions are 1) where does that power reach its limits and 2) does a particular state of affairs (war, natural disaster, banking panics, etc.) extend the limits.

In my view history, approved by the Supreme Court, argues that we live in an elective monarchy* and that "impeachment" -- think of Charles I's removal for cause -- changes that fact not at all.

* Cheney, Addington, and Yoo were, however, unwise to be so unmannerly as to throw that fact in our faces.


user-pic

George Bush is a mind-controlled robot who is handled by Cheney and God knows who else to do whatever he is told. Anyone who has studied these things can see all the telltale signs in his behavior. We literally have a puppet in the White House.

user-pic

So, this is why I have trouble sleeping: Are they going to let all this power go to a Democratic administration? They will do anything (and have already stolen 2 elections, I believe) to stay in power.

user-pic

No, of course all this power will not go to a Democratic administration.
If Obama does become President in spite of their machinations, he will be impeached ASAP by people who even now are researching this line of attack on him. The point is not to remove him from power, necessarily.

It is to trivialize the safeguards that were installed to protect us from the Cheneys of the world.

Republicans want impeachment permanently off the table. The way to do this is to create enough logjams with it themselves to ensure that when it is actually needed, it won't be used.

user-pic

They already did that with Clinton. If Bill had not been impeached, I am pretty sure that both Cheney and Bush would have been for their many crimes against our country and its constitution.

Weirdly, they actually RAISED the bar on impeachment by stooping so low.

user-pic

CVille,

I fully agree with your post, its a position I've had for quite some time.

user-pic

i don't agree here, because you're dealing with people that will play both sides -- they don't care which -- as long as the ultimate power resides with them. Cheney himself is a not the top of the food chain. get the picture?

user-pic

a very astute comment.

user-pic

Any explanation of how the executive acquired so much extra-Con stitutional power needs to include how our Congress donated its collective testicles to the National Archive. Perhaps I am being unfair: no doubt it would have taken extraordinary courage to face down Cheney and Addington. I wish I'd seen more evidence of the ordinary sort.

user-pic

What gives me hope is that there were those in the White House that resisted. Many lost their jobs but there was resistance. Others on Cheney's bandwagon also lost their jobs because of the leaks and resistance. I hope we can bring Cheney to justice. I think he should be held accountable. Bush was so unqualified that he trusted Cheney way too much. Bush will go down in history as the worst president. As for Cheney and Addington, they should face judgement, too. After all, can't the next president imprison anyone for being an enemy of the state? For as long as he deems fit? Cheney in solitary confinement doesn't seem like punishment enough. Torture? Perhaps. But we all know that won't happen.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Kyle Krahel-Frolander



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address