Excellent summation
February 1, 2002 1:11 PM   Subscribe

Excellent summation of the Cheney/GAO tussle by someone who knows a thing or two about cover-ups: John Dean.
posted by kittyloop (12 comments total)

 
from the story, on having it go to the supreme court:


"For the Vice President to prevail would only require the support of the same five conservative justices who put the Vice President in his current job with their ruling in Bush v. Gore. But should these justices decide to hold in favor of Cheney in the GAO lawsuit, and thus neuter the Congress's authority to investigate the Executive Branch, the ramifications will be much more serious and far-reaching than the results of their aberrant holding in Bush v. Gore - which they themselves limited even as they handed it down. "


posted by Blake at 1:26 PM on February 1, 2002


A few days ago, someone from Cheney's office was quoted as saying "bring it on" when asked about a possible GAO lawsuit. I wonder what that person is saying now?
posted by Potsy at 1:53 PM on February 1, 2002


I'm not too concerned with the justices in the Supreme Court...cause I hold a shred of belief that they'd be worried about the executive branch could get too much power...and that there will be a democrat in office one of these days...or at least somebody who disagrees with them.

But it's true that if they side with Bush/Cheney, then they will weaken the oversight powers of the J & L branches of our government....and that's a scary thought.

Then again, these are scary times, and I never thought I'd be around to see a president who won the popular vote lose to a usurper who won the electoral vote...and I'm appalled that this didn't lead to an overhaul of the electoral college.
posted by taumeson at 1:54 PM on February 1, 2002


The man's biases are apparent, but I like his analysis. It does not make sense to me that Cheney would take on all the heat that he is merely on principle. People have always seen the surrent administration as being in bed with big business, and now with the collapse of Enron, they are seen as being in bed with big corrupt businesses.

Why reinforce that image? John Dean is right to point this out. I'm curious.
posted by thewittyname at 1:55 PM on February 1, 2002


Great link. This is the best and most balanced analysis of the whole mess that I've seen.
posted by bshort at 1:56 PM on February 1, 2002


A very serious problem. If the cvase goes to Supreme Cpourt and they have a split vote, then therewill be great contempt for our system. If on the other hand, they support against Cheney, we may in fact find out we have a very big scandal on our hands that has been kept from us and again there will be great contempt for what is taking place. A no win situation it seems
posted by Postroad at 2:09 PM on February 1, 2002


A lot of people see Bush/Cheney as having high morals. (No, not most people here, but overall, this appears to be the case.)

In my opinion, learning that Bush/Cheney are just as corrupt as the next guy wouldn't be too horrible. Maybe people would start concentrating on what a canidate brings to the office rather than saying "well, he's not Clinton".

I'm getting a little tired of people in the lower tax brackets thinking that Reaganomics actually helped them. I look forward to see what comes of this case, whether there's a full blown scandal or not.
posted by jragon at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2002


"I resisted all three branches of the U.S. government in attempting to get me to be a little rat like John Dean." G. Gordon Liddy .
posted by Mack Twain at 4:03 PM on February 1, 2002


It does not make sense to me that Cheney would take on all the heat that he is merely on principle.

This is only unbeleivable if you beleive that Cheney has no principles. The whole concept of having principles means that you are willing to take unpopular stands because of them.

I'm getting a little tired of people in the lower tax brackets thinking that Reaganomics actually helped them.

Eh? Just because Reagonomics didn't help you, doesn't mean that your experience was shared by all those in the lower tax brackets.

And as for John Dean being capable of an unbiased analysis: "In fact, not since Richard Nixon stiffed the Congress during Watergate has a White House so openly, and arrogantly, defied Congress's investigative authority." I guess he forgot about Clinton's executive privledge assertations during investigations - or the whole Iran-Contra debacle. I'd say that there is a greater history of the White House stiffing Congress than there is of cooperation.

And Dean is the same guy who in a Salon premium article wrote - "I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Enron's political largess was somehow involved in the Florida vote counting debacle."

And this quote is the topper: " they are simply trying to cloud the air with smoke to obscure what would otherwise be a clear-cut legal answer" The words "clear-cut" and "legal answer" in the same sentence ought to be a tip off as to how seriously to take Dean's analysis.
posted by schlyer at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2002


That was a pretty good article, and I'm not just saying that because he used the phrase "nine months of shilly-shallying".

This is only unbeleivable if you beleive that Cheney has no principles.

I believe Cheney has priciples. However, the pricipled stand he's claiming to take (refusing to allow Congress to know what was said at these meetings) doesn't jibe with what is actually being asked of him (to provide the names -- not the discussions, but just the names -- of the people present). That's the element which, to me, makes his posturing rather unbelieveable.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 4:22 PM on February 1, 2002


In case anyone is interested in reading the January 30th statement from David M. Walker, which John Dean quoted, but didn't link to, it's here (pdf).
posted by bragadocchio at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2002


A few days ago, someone from Cheney's office was quoted as saying "bring it on" when asked about a possible GAO lawsuit. I wonder what that person is saying now?

"Man, I wonder if they're gonna show the hot Republican woman on West Wing next week."
posted by phoenix enflamed at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2002


« Older What role gender plays in marriage, let alone cust...  |  Candystand.com... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments