I was struck by these passages in an article in the Washington Post, "Cheney Uncloaks his Frustration with Bush," by Barton Gellman.
Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets."In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."
Listen to the implications here: "Bush moved away from him. . . . an independence that Cheney didn't see coming." It seems clear that Cheney considered his own position to be the center of the administration, that he once had Bush enmeshed within that center, and that he then lost that hold on him. Early jokes about ventriloquists and dummys were too simplistic -- but not wrong. Cheney didn't just pull strings: he exerted the powerful influence of his conviction and manipulated the information that went to the president, and always managed to be the last one in the room when Bush made decisions. He was too subtle to be easily dismissed as a puppeteer, but no less powerful.
I do not believe that Cheney was corrupt in the sense of egregious personal gain. But I do believe that his arrogant certitude of the rightness of his way and his utter determination to increase the singular power of the "unitary presidency" against all encroachments by Congress or the Courts, bordered on fascism. If you only consider the ways in which he managed to ignore and manipulate the Constitution's separation of powers, there would arguably be reason for impeachment.
Here's more from Gellman's article:
"If he goes out and writes a memoir that spills beans about what took place behind closed doors, that would be out of character," said Ari Fleischer, who served as White House spokesman during Bush's first term.
Yet that appears to be precisely Cheney's intent. Robert Barnett, who negotiated Cheney's book contract, passed word to potential publishers that the memoir would be packed with news, and Cheney himself has said, without explanation, that "the statute of limitations has expired" on many of his secrets. "When the president made decisions that I didn't agree with, I still supported him and didn't go out and undercut him," Cheney said, according to Stephen Hayes, his authorized biographer. "Now we're talking about after we've left office. I have strong feelings about what happened. . . . And I don't have any reason not to forthrightly express those views."
If this isn't just book hype -- and that isn't like Cheney -- then we may get some interesting revelations. I personally believe that Cheney is a zealot of the highest determination, and that having lost the power of the presidency (once removed) he will use this book to proclaim what must be done and how his efforts to achieve that during his eight years as VP were thwarted by a callow president who became less malleable and ultimately "moved away from" him.
In fact, from the tone of this, it sounds like Cheney might be ready to give up his loyalty to the office of president, now that he's out of office; and we could see the biggest expose of the Bush presidency yet. It would not be tell-all for the sake of gossip, but to advance Cheney's own messiantic worldview -- and to explain how Bush thwarted his grand plans.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment