I can't stand Margaret Carlson. She is a member of the corrupt and incestious beltway pundit class. She was one of the media whores spreading Gore is a liar talking point during the 2000 election.

Still, I am glad you had a good time.

Chris Matthews is another reprehensible Washington media whore. I wish you had asked him why he never invites real liberals on his shows. He usually invites 2, 3 hard line right wing ideologues and pairs them with a Washington Insider like Howard Fineman and calls it balance. It is like he was a memo from the Powers That Be at GE to exclude liberals.

Good to be reminded of Paul Scofield in one of the great portrayals.

I think the line about "planted with laws . ." is actually "planted thick with laws . .".

There's also the exchange between Thomas Cromwell and the Duke of Norfolk where Cromwell suggests that Norfolk had better be on the King's side:

Norfolk: "He (the King) didn't tell me."
Cromwell: "Well, he told me".
Norfolk: "Cromwell, are you threatenin' me?"
Cromwell: "My dear Norfolk, this isn't Spain, this is England!"

A MAn for All Seasons-

What a great movie for these times!!!!!!!!!

Remember silence implies consent...........

Thanks for your note Nan. I do realize that those who are professional pundits and commentators can seem taken in by the need to protect significant parts of the status quo. I get that -- and I try to be more subversive.

It was an interesting evening -- and thus I wanted to share....but it did have a lot of the dimensions that you would not like.

One thing that was quite interesting that I didn't report on the blog per se was that I got there rather early -- and Tony Blankley was there speaking to Joe DeGenova when I went in. I didn't barge into their conversation given my criticism of Blankley earlier in the week.

However, I did hear them exclaim "Armitage" loudly -- and they sort of hissed, and spit (not really, but metaphorically) about Armitage. I really could not hear what they were saying and may be taking something out of context. But it seemed clear that they were angry at Armitage for something -- but not sure what.

So much for gossip, which really is gossip -- but perhaps this will make sense to someone with more knowledge than I have about Blankley's reason to be dissing Rich Armitage.

best,
Steve Clemons

it's been forever since i've seen that movie but you brought it rushing back... excellent post, superb in fact... the laws are the only boundaries we have and they've been painstakingly crafted over many, many years... conventions, norms, agreements, policy, standards of conduct, laws - they're all we've got... without them, there's a bottomless black hole which, tragically, we have already been falling into since bush waived geneva in 2002...

thttp://www.takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Dear JB (not John Bolton): You are right. I checked an alternative script and it had 'thick' so adjusted the text. Many thanks, Steve Clemons

Steve,

Beat you to this post by a couple of weeks: http://agonist.org/story/2005/10/14/112133/43

Bravo nonetheless!!!

A Man For All Seasons is my favorite movie ever.

I love The Man For All Seasons too, and have it on DVD. Problem is--when arguing the de-merits of torture with Cheneyites--in finding a nice tight sound bite to sum up Sir Thomas More's debate with William Roper. Liberal debate points are so damned verbose and complex, even when articulated in Socratic fashion by More (via screenwriter Robert Bolt)!

I'll go with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for today's times, and hope that the torn and at times misdirected Good ends up dropping the Bad, big time.

Dear Sean-Paul, What is that line about great minds? Seriously, excellent post of yours that I was sorry not to see until today. I have updated my blog post at the bottom to give your site appropriate credit and a link. best, Steve Clemons

How can you torment us with that comment about Walter Pincus?

Jeff -- sorry to torment. It's not on purpose -- but I have to protect my sources if they are going to keep speaking to me. Thanks for noticing that though,

Steve

Twice this week I have referred to Cheney as "satanistic". I find it interesting that Steve seems to read the man in much the same vein as I do. My comments have NOT been made in a tongue in cheek manner, I truly do sense that there is an evil in Cheney that transcends the opportunistic grubbing greed that we have come to expect from our politicians. I hope that Steve will comment about his paragraph that states..."Cheney is a menace to this nation's security -- because in his zeal to pursue the devil -- he is undermining our nation's norms and very essence. He is handing our nation to the devil by engaging in terms of battle that are not constrained by law.".....

Bluntly, Steve, do you see Cheney as "evil", and if so, in what sense of the word? Do you believe there is a devil to embrace, and, if so, is it your opinion that Cheney has embraced him?

Steve you are far, far too generous in your praise (thank you!) and I promise I wasn't link whoring! I just wish we had more people in DC like Wilkerson these days willing to tell the truth. It seems we are making progress.

I, too, wondered at Steve Clemons comment

"Cheney is a menace to this nation's security -- because in his zeal to pursue the devil -- he is undermining our nation's norms and very essence. He is handing our nation to the devil by engaging in terms of battle that are not constrained by law".

Steve needs to elaborate a little bit more instead of simply quoting from Sir Thomas More. What devil is Cheney chasing? Is Cheney consumed by the devil? This should be interesting

Dodd would be a terrific candidate, and he's long toyed with the idea of running, but I think a number of things keep him from doing it. First, he's got two children that he would rarely see if he were to run, and Jackie, his wife, would probably not approve of the decision to run either. In addition, he's got baggage from his single days that may or may not become an issue during the campaign. I love Dodd and would immediately jump on board if he were to run, but I don't see it being a realistic thing.

Why did Wilkerson choose to talk at this time? Why did Powell lie to the UN and the American people?

I'd always thought that when "A Man for all Seasons" was appropos, it was the time Paul O'Neill and Ron Susskind's book came out and Paul spoke his mind to the American public when he was interviewed on 60 minutes...about the Iraqi invasion and the planning for it...Who in this current administration would now be seen as a Thomas More?

Senator Dodd is a smooth talking politician's handmaiden. He voted for the Iraqi resolution. I would not vote for him.

Here's a question, I remember reading somewhere, perhaps it was Josh Marshall's essay in the Washington Monthly, about how Cheney was at one time percieved as a moderate but that his voting record in Congress always betrayed this, as it was harshly conservative. The question is this: how could a guy that was praised by so many as being congenial and friendly etc. . . turn out to be the cheif backer/supporter of torture? Steve, maybe you've addressed this somewhere else, but if you haven't, do you have any suggestions where I might go to read more? It seems to be an fodder for one helluva profile.

Steve,

Tell Matthews that he will have no problem topping the WC commencement speaker in 93', Bob Woodward.

As someone who actually likes and respects Matthews (for one thing, he *did* have more incisive questioning before the war than almost everyone on cable news -- not a high bar to meet, but still), it would be interesting to hear whether he thought it was bad for his cable news ratings not to beat the war drum at the time and what that means for American discourse (I believe he suggested this in an earlier speech/interview).

While we are in a literary/film mood, it is also time to take another good hard look at Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" too!

Quoting A Man for All Seasons?

Been There.

Done That.

Got the T-Shirt.

Of course, I was probably doing this too early to be a good member of the Sensible Liberals Club. When I started worrying about Jose Padilla, the demise of habeas corpus, and the culture of torture, it was alarmist. Now, not so much.

And I was hardly in the vanguard.

Pissed Off American writes: Bluntly, Steve, do you see Cheney as "evil", and if so, in what sense of the word? Do you believe there is a devil to embrace, and, if so, is it your opinion that Cheney has embraced him?

Cheney could certainly play the Devil's henchweasel.
It's like he had a stroke or something. He seems
to speak out of one side of his mouth, hunched over,
with this intent look in his eye. Frequently you
see him gesturing with his hands in a claw like
pose.

So yeah, Cheney could be the Devil's henchweasel.

While I appreciate the drama of a Devil's henchweasel
as much as anyone, I don't belive in it as anything
more than a rhetorical device. What I really
believe in is the banality of evil.

Not that I'm much of an expert, but my understanding
is that the Devil and his henchweasels do evil
because they know it's evil. Evil is their
job, their middle name. It's a tough job being
the Fallen Angel, but the Devil plays it to the
hilt ("better to rule in hell...").

In the case of Cheney and the neo-cons, they actually
believe that what they are doing is in the best
interests of the United States. As Steve noted
in his comment about "A Man for All Seasons",
they believe they are doing good and they will
do "what is right" regardless of the cost.
Rather than doing the Devil's work, Cheney and
Co. believe that they are on the side of good
(or perhaps in their terms, God).

Mankind is more horrifying than anything inhuman
that Steven King or the other horror writers has
ever written about. But outside of a few psychopathic
killers, people rarely do something evil knowing
it is evil. Humanity has people who will torture
you and burn you at the stake, all to save your
soul.

Chris Matthews wanted to get some tips on how to beat every other commencement address ever given there. My partner, who teaches at Washington College, suggested that he mimic the Saturday Night Live impersonations of him.

A one-two punch that would have sent me rolling on the floor with laughter:

1) He admits to not having a novel thought in his head.

2) Oscar Wilde suggests he ape himself being aped.

All we need is Dorothy Parker to rework her quote: There's no there there.

Oops...

I forgot:

Hat tip to Gertrude Stein.

Steve -
Do people you meet in various venues worry that their comments and ideas will show up in your blog? How do you handle confidentiality?

How do the ethics and mores for a policy devotee, political analyst and online journalist shift as you move through your different "professions"?

Steve Clemons >"...He is handing our nation to the devil by engaging in terms of battle that are not constrained by law..."

As his string pullers wish

I have, for some time, thought that Mr. Cheney is a very sick individual because of the heart problems he has & the medication(s) that go along with it

Something not correct w/his brain speaking organically

[the hardware is whacked which causes the software to glitch - for those that use those perceptual filters]

"We the people..." are in some deep deep trouble

"Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords." - Pompey

Yvonne,

"While we are in a literary/film mood, it is also time to take another good hard look at Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" too!"

The Crucible was the play that best described the Starr Chamber. Arthur Miller even wrote an op-ed in the NYT arguing that the climate in DC reminded him of Salem in the 1600s.

I can't stand Margaret Carlson. She is a member of the corrupt and incestious beltway pundit class.

nan, the whole assemblage was "corrupt and incestuous" to the point where I thought that the "punchline" of steve's story was that quite a few mentally-deficient-political-analysts-to-be were spawned that evening and scurried to the HQ of FoxNews where they would be nurtured before being released on the world.

(and really steve... can't you at least give us the number of expletives used by Pincus when you mentioned the name "Bob Woodward" to him?) :)

Honda Civic has received the Motor Trend Car of The year Award. While I take no great satisfaction in announcing this news I do take good lessons learned from a proud company. Honda sticks to the ideal that it sells where it manufactures, their main manufacturing is in Japan and America, and their main selling areas are Japan and America. American companies such as Ford, GM, and Chrysler, stumble over each other trying to ship jobs to cheaper countries to build a more profitable vehicle. Honda has focused its resources on building a sound vehicle; their vehicles are reliable and very rarely need major service in the first few years. Honda builds customer loyalty by providing employment to its market base, their American counterparts continuously lay off their market base and employ low wage help in countries where the employees cannot afford to buy their product. There is never talk of outsourcing in the Honda Corporation, they hire the best domestic talent and expect results. Many American companies state they cannot find good talent in their marketing bases and they must ship the work out in order to meet demand, why has Honda not encountered this problem in America? American companies try to rely on our feeing of patriotism by telling us “ Buy American”, yet they are turning right around and building in Mexico, China, India, and Korea, then they slap their American made hood ornament on the vehicle as it gets delivered to the showroom. Honda is constantly expanding in the United States while GM, and Fords is constantly contracting. I support GM, Chrysler, and Fords, I have owned at least one model of each type, but I feel they can take a lesson learned from Honda. I believe they should focus more on building back up their market place in America by employing more workers, at a fair wage for both the employee and the company. I also believe they need to focus on their domestic talent and quit outsourcing all of their engineering and development. Focus on building a good vehicle not a cheap one. I never hear Honda discussing how much it costs to build a vehicle, or how much money they will make this quarter or the next. What I do hear is how they want to build the best. They understand that if the build a good car and have a healthy amount of employees the rest will take care of itself. Let’s hope that this time next year I can write about one of the big three taking home the motor trend car of the year.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

Steve,

My educated guess about the Armitage hissing:

Let's assume for a moment that the speculation is true that Armitage was Woodward's and Novak's leaker...

Much as Novak tried to initially excuse the Plame leak by saying it came from "no partisan gunslinger", there is a congealing CW on the right that the whole Plame fiasco can be laid at Armitage's door.

The exact context of Blankley's hissing is, of course, shrouded in mystery, but I'd guess it was somehow about Plame.

Yes, Cheney is a menace. But he acts with acquiescence of the president, not as a loan wolf. The same with Rumsfeld and all the others given rein by the small, emotionally-deformed man who lives in the White House.

As far as Senator Graham goes, I saw part of his interview on Hardball tonight, spouting the latest talking points for what his liege needs to do to get back on track. The suggestion that le dauphin needs to retrieve his party's reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility was laughable after all the ban-busting policies enacted by him and his party. Ah, but not to Matthews, who went into his full-throttle tabloid-Uriah Heep act.

Graham also praised John McCain to the skies as tight-fisted fiscally and strong on defense, predicting McCain would be the guy other Republicans call on to shore up their support with constituents during the off-year elections in 'O6.

I have yet to see a Republican politician interviewed on tv who hints at having a clue -- let alone acknowledging -- the deep, deep trouble this country is in domestically and on the international stage. If Graham did, he'd brush off Matthews' questions about what Republicans need to do to get back on their feet and start talking about the real problems of racial and economic injustice his own party has done so much to advance, and the hard truths we all have to face if we are to halt this country's, this world's, downward spiral into despair.

I can buy Armitage leaking accidentally to Woodward, but it seems like an entirely different set of motivations would be involved in talking to Novak.

Incidentally, if Armitage indeed was Woodward's source, one ironic reason he might have kept quiet about it so long is that his boss Colin Powell's anger over the leaks may have been what helped break the scandal open. Armitage wouldn't have wanted it known that he accidentally had a part in them.

Many do not associate the name Al-Jazeera with what is known as journalistic integrity. However, does being a bad journalist, or a biased reporter, justify the wrath of a whole country? This is the question Al-Jazeera representatives are floating out there. Many in America believe the Al-Jazeera network was a propaganda tool utilized by individuals with a vested interest in keeping the Middle East at a status quo, others think they are an extension of the anti-Semitism and hatred of America and Israel. Most in either Israel or America would probably not have a problem if a missile or two went wide right and accidentally took out a few Al-Jazeera reporters and assets. However, the question is not whether you approve of Al-Jazeera or their tactics, the question is whether the American government targeted for destruction a foreign reporting service that was in opposition to the current U.S. administrations Middle East policies. The United States is denying the accusation that they ever considered the potential targeting of Al-Jazeera but Al-Jazeera believes the rumor to be fact and they are seeking confirmation from government officials in Great Britain. If the accusations end up being true and contrary to American denials then America suffers a great loss of face in the Arab world, on the other hand if the accusations are false Al-Jazeera most likely loses nothing, and this is the frustration most people have with this journalistic association, Al-Jazeera. The Al-Jazeera network is known for embellishing facts and figures in regards to certain stories that reflect a negative spin towards Western Civilization. They have countless times been caught broadcasting stories with erroneous facts and figures and that when later proved inaccurate are never corrected. I understand the administrations frustration at dealing with this type of organization and the sense of aggravation they apparently have at being called to the carpet by such a nefarious journalistic corporation. However, if the facts are true then there will be no problem proving them wrong if only to prove their point to legitimate news reporting agencies. I have always been told to take the high road when at all possible so I hope the current administration does this and properly clears the air on this very nefarious accusation.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

"In the case of Cheney and the neo-cons, they actually
believe that what they are doing is in the best
interests of the United States. As Steve noted
in his comment about "A Man for All Seasons",
they believe they are doing good and they will
do "what is right" regardless of the cost."

Yeah but ...

Some of us out here have a slight but significant different take on this.

Everything stated above about the Neo Cons is accepted. Their slavish, but now clearly myopic devotion to their ideology is well documented everywhere.

Dick Cheney 'punked' the Neo Cons. He used them and their middle east crap just as Karl Rove has 'punked' the Christian Right to attain his political goals. Neo Cons were merely vehicles for his ride.

This is about the meglomanical ambition and greed of one man. He does not concern himself with good or evil (your Arendt reference), if you follow the 'Dick as Neo Con' narrative, you'll find lots of dead ends and broken threads.

Mindful there are plenty of grown ups posting here, I am always hesitant to tie complex situations in to neat,tidy packages, but it really is this simple. Frustrated as many have been the last 5 years to "make sense" of all that has threatened us, it only makes sense through the prism of Cheney out for Cheney. Rumsfeld is his second or psychic twin, but Cheney is one more example of History turning on the mundane of ego and greed.

"A Man for All Seasons" is one of my Fave Raves, too; and I've been quoting one of my favorite bits in it, as regards the Bush Admin. The dialog is between More and Cromwell, just as Cromwell is maneuvering to replace More as the King's most trusted counsellor. More says (approximately; not an exact quote):

"You may tell the King what he may do, and what he ought to do; but you must never tell the King what he can do."

More is warning Cromwell not to tell the King he's above all laws and can do whatever he wishes; Cromwell, of course, doesn't listen.

I think of that one a lot lately. Bush fancies himself a king in any case, and he's surrounded by courtiers who've been telling him (a la The Torture Memos) that he's above the law.

The sad part is, I think Cheney really believes he's doing the best thing for the country. But as in "Heart of Darkness" and one of my previous comments, he now seems to think he's outside the law and morals of our society and anything he does is justified by his view of what's best for the country.

Look at what they're already starting in West Africa.

I was stationed in Turkey during the 70's and went to a local prison to meet three Americans imprisoned for drug smuggling. We blackmailed the Turks into passing stiff drug laws, then cried foul when they imprisoned our citizens.

The food was a gruel made from sheep's intestines, the cells were unheated concrete cells. I know the Turks regularly pistol whipped their own people, and executions were common. One of the female prisoners became pregnant.

Now to qualify for the EU, they've greatly reformed their justice system. I doubt its great, but as we hear more and more of torture and prisoner abuse in our own country, it amazes me that the US has slid so far backwards while other countries reform their institutions.

Not just in the military, but handcuffing and arresting grade schools kids, arresting kids for splashing in puddles, arresting people or taking them off planes for wearing the wrong T-Shirts, attacking peaceful demonstrators in Oakland, and various beatings.

The example that Cheney et al. are setting will filter down through the rest of our society to the most local of enforcers. While he may think he's protecting our country, he's corrupting us at every level.

I've heard that when Chris tried Hardball on this administration, they refused to show up on his show. He probably barely held on after they cancelled Donahue. Things are slowly changing as the administration loses its strong hand, even Wolf was going after a communications director today.

I think that by going to that dinner you have experienced what it is like to stand where all the trees are cut down by your own hand.
What I am surprised about your dinner is that there was no commentary about the Murrow film(I have not seen it yet). I would have thought Anne Coulter and her ilk would be screaming like Banshees but they are strangely silent. Would I be right in surmising that they too have found themselves standing where the trees have been cut down by their own hand?
In any case I do not think a movie is the right medium for the situtation we are in. TV in its attempt to hit the middle in its hey day is more apt. Magnum PI is my choice. The line is "that old Chinese Curse; May you live in interesting times>"

Cheney as the devil? Well, close--see Ted Rall's cartoon contribution for 10/3 (http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2005/10/03/)

clare boothe lucid,

"but Cheney is one more example of History turning on the mundane of ego and greed."

I agree completely. I don't think Cheney is driven by ideology. He is driven by a "will to power". Simple. In a different time/country he might have chosen communism or some other ideology to pursue his lust for power. But it is lust for power more than anything else that drives him.

That should be "bank-busting", not "ban-busting" in my previous, November 22, 2005 08:49 PM post. Regrets.

Graham is a menace, too, and in the long run may be a worse one than Cheney, in that he almost succeeded in eliminating the protections of the writ of habeas corpus (protections that reach back to the Magna Carta) by stealthily putting his amendment that stripped the federal courts of their jurisdiction to consider writs of habeas corpus complaining about the horrors in Guantanamo. 800 years of Anglo-Saxon Rule of Law flushed down the drain, and not even a moment of debate. Luckily Bingaman caught him at it, but the compromise the Senate came up with isn't much better -- and can there be any doubt that the little prick will try again soon?

My pick for a classic movie: Porky's.

The sad part is, I think Cheney really believes he's doing the best thing for the country.

Nah....

The only reason THIS COUNTRY is of TERTIARY importance to Cheney is because he lives in it.

If he gave PRIMARY or even SECONDARY importance to this country he wouldn't have, as Halliburton's CEO, offshored to Bermuda various pieces of the company.

No Cheney cares only for his immediate well-being.
He is definitely a me-firster.
A true repug of the highest order.

That's why, in his mid-sixties, he has the body of a decrepit 80-year old. For years he ate only the richest red meat. For years he mocked hippies on bicycles. For years he laughed at do-gooders and their "rabbit food."

Only the best for corporate, corpulent Dick.
Only the best...

And now?
Well...
He is in shambles-- moribund and malignant; flatulent and fatuous.

He is getting exactly what he has sown:

Both the body-politic and his own body have abandoned the stench emanating from his cancerous soul.

He is going to die a miserable death.
But then... he's earned that right.

oh my,completely fascinating post Steve for many reasons and some highly absorbing comments!

anyone wondering about the real Cheney I highly recommend "Rise Of The Vulcans" by James Mann,former LATimes writer if I recall correctly.Trust me your hair will be standing on end by the time you finish.Very well researched.

Now regarding movies I feel slightly foolish the first thing that immediately popped into my head(Cheney and his neocon wife BOTH scare the hell out of me,almost more than anyone else;wait,the title of ultimate evil could belong to Michael Ledeen) was the latest and last of the Star Wars films "Revenge of the Sith" That script was written with Cheney in mind!

We can question Cheney's character, I would say vanity and lust for power, but even more horrifing is why do people like him get into powerful positions. Is he a reflection of us?
Part of the work of civilization is to rise above the dark facination of evil and every time there is a break-down in civilization the potentiel monsters are present.
There is some consolation in Cheney's poll numbers, but so few people vote. Montaigne and La Boetie discussed in a lengthy correspondence why when people are liberated they immediately throw themselves into the hands of a new tyrant.
These people are always in the wings of the world theater.
Do be careful of the "Woodward" syndrome in attending too many Beltway parties, your blogs are needed.

Steve, this is a little too inside the beltway for me. Will have to delete your blog if you don't quit the ga-ga stuff over Carlson, Dodd, et al. Pity. Everyone gets swept up in that crap.

Kate, You should move on then. Steve Clemons' blog is very diverse, but if he didn't share some insider stuff ala "West Wing" and "Commander in Chief", he wouldn't be hitting his stride. Clemons is interesting not just cause he says smart stuff and challenges the establishment, but also because the establishment lets him in the door. I think it's very cool, very interesting, and I don't want him to change a single thing in how he does his blogging. So, if it's not right for you, take off. It's right for lots of us.

Since we're in Iraq to help the Iraqis, and it's the Iraqis that are going to deal with any mess (and each other) we leave behind, why not let THEM vote as to whether or not we stay or go? Give them three clearly defined options:

1. The US will withdraw troops when three conditions are met: death or capture of 10(?) most wanted terrorists; restoration of electricity and sanitation services to 75-90% of the country; and cessation of sectarian violence for a period of X days.
2. US will immediately withdraw troops from cities and will re-form at and secure the borders.
3. US will immediately and unconditionally withdraw.

Lots of room for error, but it's a place to start and it's more effective than calling each other cowards and liars. Let the Iraqis vote.

Blogwonk, if this establishment lets someone in the door it means the invitee is not ruffling anyone's feathers. Now that you have ushered me to the door because you do not care for diverse opinions, I am assured I am in the wrong place. Adios.

Steve, as usual you are right. The country is under stress. I like it that commentators and elected officials are wise enough to turn to the arts for help in finding their way back to sanity. Old Wise Ones know a thing or two that these folks can access, if they remember to do while their heads are spinning.

"Graham is a menace, too, and in the long run may be a worse one than Cheney,"
Posted by Basharov

And he is running for 08'.

Initially part of the good little soldier 'chorus' of the impeachment farce/tragedy, now look at him.

Events of the last 6 months have eliminated the agreed upon front runners; Jeb and Frist. And Graham has been busy.

Personally, I misjudged and dismissed him and I wonder if Frist and the other leaders did the same. He is more stealth than mere opportunist.

The gathering storm of Abramoff/Pre War Intel/Fitz is going to shred the GOP (no longer just progressive wishful thinking) and it's power structure, so someone like Graham will not only be viably clean, he and others will be in a position to dictate to them instead of the traditional 'them' dictate to candidates.

Three years away and we have no way of knowing how it will shake out with Hagel and McCain, but make no mistake, he is running

Kate, calm down...didn't mean for you to take it so personally. You are clearly unaware of this blog's contributions to "ruffling the feathers" of Washington. I recommend that you look into the archives on Clemons' role in getting Lawrence Wilkerson to outline his criticism of Cheney or Rumsfeld, or his comments on gay cardinals in the Catholic Church and the church's hypocrisy, or his battles with David Frum and the neocon world. Clemons is all about ruffling feathers, but he does it in a dignified way. If you want flamers, then Clemons is not one of those, but there are occasions (John Bolton) where Clemons' shrillness has incredibly exciting impact. So don't leave unless you want to. All are welcome but if you don't want Clemons to go to fancy parties, you are going to be disappointed. Many of us like to hear what the insiders are saying.

Like I've said before, the people in this town, chattering and ruling classes, are way too much in bed with one another. This is another example of my point.

koreyel,
I don't disagree with you at all. But I think in his mind he's justified his actions by thinking he's doing what's good for the country.

And of course, the movie version of "Heart of Darkness", "Apocalypse Now", the ultimate in the allure of power and it's temptation to corruption.

Many above have commented that Cheney's motivation, and his neo-con compatriot's, is a believe he is doing what is best for home and hearth.

BULLSHIT.

The full scope of this administration's policies, economically, environmentally, in regards to education, the arts, science, foreign policy, outsourcing, torture policies, unilateralism, security, etc, COMPLETELY disproves the argument that these bastards have our nation's best interests at heart.

Their's is a GLOBAL PURSUIT, and it is pursued at the behest of multi-national interests, both in the political and the business sense. Until you realize as citizens that YOUR child's life means no more to these sons of a bitches in the White House than a child's life in Fallujah does, than you are completely underestimating the danger people like Cheney pose to our security. The environmental policies ALONE of this administration have the potential to kill tens of thousands of people, domestically, over the next few decades. The growing amount of people entering poverty, the dismal state of our medical assistance programs. The ideologically founded disdain these fanatics show for sound science. The list goes on and on. How anyone can construe that these people "believe they are doing what is best for our country" is beyond me. These people are fueled by the greed for power and wealth, and you can rest assured that YOUR welfare has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. They'de nuke your neighborhood in a hot flash if they thought they could gain another ten years of sitting on the throne by doing so.

Heres why the now USELESS Los Angeles Times stopped carrying Robert Scheer.....

You've got to hand it to Dick Cheney; no other modern politician has come so close to perfecting the theater of the absurd. Even as he protests his innocence of lying about matters of state, he lies about matters of state.

In two major speeches Friday and Monday, the vice president who has long insisted Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were allies, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, we would be greeted as liberators in Baghdad, and that the Iraqi insurgency is in its "last throes," again evidenced his trademark inability to speak the truth.

Continuing the administration's recent shrill defensive barrage over whose fault the Iraq mess is and with the truth chasing the lies in full public view, Cheney had the gall to smear the war's critics as "corrupt and shameless." Then, within a few sentences, he showed again why 52 percent of those recently polled by Newsweek believe Cheney deliberately "misused or manipulated" prewar intelligence.

First, he shamelessly repeated the absurd notion that a bum-rushed Congress, most of which does not have high security clearance, was privy to the same intelligence as he and his war-salesmen allies. In fact, not only was Cheney and his staff poring over the classified testimonials of an array of known liars, forgers, drunks, opportunists and desperate exiles we now know supplied White House speechwriters with their best lines, he also had access to the intelligence community's combined disclaimers, rebuttals and outright denunciations of these sources and their conveniently tawdry tales.

"Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war," wrote former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., in a devastating statement in the Washington Post on Sunday. "Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud."

Graham, then the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the declassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate was a sham. "It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed (WMD), avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version," writes Graham.

Parsed out, Cheney's recent statements amount to a defensive claim the Bush administration didn't lie so much as it was just calamitously incompetent, too eager for invasion to bother to do its due diligence.

The reality, however, is that while the Yalie president may not be the brightest star on the horizon, the owlish Cheney is nobody's dummy. What he is and has always been, is the most bald-faced of the administration's war hustlers, shamelessly peddling, for example, the cloak-and-dagger tale of a Hussein operative meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Prague long after U.S. intelligence had dismissed it.

Similarly, it was Cheney who was instrumental in getting Colin Powell to make the astonishing claims of the intelligence source code-named "Curveball" the centerpiece of the secretary of state's prewar presentation to the United Nations. Now, thanks to a definitive investigation by the Los Angeles Times published Sunday, we find out that top German intelligence sources in charge of interrogating Curveball had already declared him an unreliable source.

"We were shocked," a high level German intelligence officer told the Times. "Mein Gott! We had always told (the United States) it was not proven -- it was not hard intelligence."

But perhaps the most outrageous lie Cheney and the White House kept -- and keep -- making is that invading Iraq was a sensible part of the response to 9/11.

"In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away," noted Graham on Sunday. "Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda."

In making his continued one-man jihad against the facts, Cheney is apparently throwing Hail Mary passes to that part of the Republican base which will believe anything it is told -- having already lost the trust of the majority of Americans.

But as Rep. John Murtha said in response to the slander by a Republican congresswoman that he, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, is a coward for arguing for the quick and complete withdrawal from Iraq, 'You can't spin this. You've got to have a real solution. This is not a war of words, this is a war."

Yes, Cheney's war.

Robert Scheer is the editor of TruthDig.com. He can be reached at rscheer@truthdig.com.

Minor point: "A Man for All Seasons" is shown in my reference sources as a two-hour film. Did you actually find a three-hour version? or is that a typo?

I think it would have been better to drop the whole Walter Pincus comment. It is unseemly to write "I know something very interesting but I won't tell you." What's the point?

This post did prompt me to add the movie to my Netflix queue.

"I think it would have been better to drop the whole Walter Pincus comment. It is unseemly to write "I know something very interesting but I won't tell you." What's the point?"

Posted by LeisureGuy

Politics and tittilation seem to work hand and hand with gotcha and gonna getcha. Its something in the air in Washington, and until we discover an antidote, the chorus of "nana na na na naaaa na" will be the theme song of modern America.

Steve, if you can bend the ear of Carlson or one of the upcoming senators, you really should urge them to screen STARSHIP TROOPERS.

Are you sure Cheney's GOING AFTER the devil? I think the relationship is much more friendly than that.