Here is a former vice-president, who enjoyed unprecedented power for eight long, long years. No veep ever wielded power like he did in the long history of American government. In the months after 9/11, he swept all Congressional resistance away, exerted total executive power, wielded a military and paramilitary apparatus far mightier than all its rivals combined and mightier than any power in history, tapped any phone he wanted, claimed the right to torture any suspect he wanted (and followed through with thousands, from Bagram to Abu Ghraib) and was able to print and borrow money with impunity to finance all of it without a worry in the world. But even after all that, he cannot tolerate a few months of someone else, duly elected, having a chance to govern the country with a decent interval of grace.There's obviously part of me that wants to see a guy like Dick Cheney brought to justice. But there's another part that sees a justice in his post-VP life. Cheney was once asked about public opinion and polls. Cheney responded that he didn't care. He was lying. I haven't meant a single human being who didn't care what other people thought of him. I don't think Cheney's a sociopath--I think he's a megalomaniac.
Moreover, Dick Cheney is/was a politician--a hard job, at any level, for someone who doesn't care about polls to occupy. He is now one of the most hated political figures in Washington. His personal poll numbers are shockingly low--only 19 percent of all Americans, and only 50 percent of Republicans view him favorably. Think about that. Even among his own party, Cheney--hardcore conservative--isn't exactly a unifying figure.
Were one to accept Cheney's notion that he really doesn't care about polls, perhaps this wouldn't matter. In fact, since the nadir of the Bush-era, Cheney has repeatedly tried to re-inject himself into the public dialogue. The last thing John McCain, running in a general election, needed was a Cheney endorsement. And yet there it was unprompted. And since Obama's entered into the White House, the ex-VP has been going to the public via the press. People who don't care, don't spend their days making their case to the very people who they don't care about.
Something deeper is at work--a need to matter, a need to be understood, a need to cleansed, a need for the people to know that he did it all for them. He's not going to get that. Barack Obama barely acknowledges the guy. And every time Cheney steps in front of camera to wash his laundry, it seems like the opposite happens.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
The man is unhinged from morality in a serious manner.
Or to paraphrase Shakespeare:
"Methinks thou doth press conference too much."
Yes, I know it's not actually a press conference, but this scans better than "interview" or anything else I could come up with in five minutes.
I like it. But it's I do, thou dost, he/she/it doth. Just saying.
True, although it's hard to think in C# and iambic pentameter at the same time.
You can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Cheney wants his thank you.
Sorry for the lousy HTML.
The difference between Colonel Jessep and Cheney is that Jessup at least acknowledged that Santiago's death was tragic. I get the impression that Cheney thinks torture is a good thing and not in the least distasteful.
Anyone else surprised at how graceful Bush looks on his exit from power compared with the most of the rest of the right wing (officials and commentators)?
He's at least smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
The other key difference--Cheney was a chickenhawk who deferred his way out of the kind of service he took extreme liberties with as Vice President.
What strikes me most curious about all this Cheney sighting is the number of times during the Bush administration he appeared to disappear for lengthy periods. I especially remember the months immediately after 9/11 in which scouring the daily papers one would have a very difficult finding even a single item about him.
Another image I have of him was from a day I was working out at the gym in front of a raft of teevees, and Scott Ritter was being interviewed on CNN about the finding at the time that reports that there had been no WMDs in Iraq had been certified. On Fox News right on the adjacent screen, there was Cheney ranting about the chemical labs in trailers.
But what I find most important about him when people start thinking about the GOP and its demise is that, like Rumsfield, Cheney had been there for decades, and if one looked at their records with some scrutiny their records with Bush were not the least surprising. When Bush first got elected, the San Francisco Mime Troupe did one of their satirical reviews in which Cheney as militaristic, imperialistic mastermind behind the scene pulling W.'s puppet strings was the focus of the review.
I think it is salutary, however, Cheney has found it necessary to defend his record on torture; give him rope and more than enough of it. It's a youtube world, and justice will be served.
I have come to conclusion that Cheney can't help himself.
Co-sign with CitizenE...he'd vanish for months at a time during the 8 years he was ACTUALLY Vice-President.
I shall not lie.
I want his ass in jail. And if these publicity stunts help put him there..keep 'em coming.
Even among his own party, Cheney--hardcore conservative--isn't exactly a unifying figure.
Shhh. Don't tell them that, they might stop giving him air time. Imagine if Nixon had kept grabbing the mic and telling everyone how wronged he was after Watergate.
I'm pretty sure that if I had instigated 1/1000th as much theft and murder as Cheney has, my punishment would be rather more severe than a resounding "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out". I sincerely hope that Cheney's punishment is more severe than that, too.
Andrew keeps calling for prosecution of Cheney. My question is: For what? What criminal offense could he be convicted of? As Vice-President he had no command authority. He could advise, but not order.
Yeah, he's scum, but where's the criminal offense?
You're right that the office of the VP has no inherent authority, but that's no defense for him. Cheney had Presidential authority delegated to him. Cheney didn't just advise, he participated in setting policy.
The IRS doesn't have any inherent authority over anyone, but congress has delegated their authority to levy taxes to them. Cheney isn't any more immune from prosecution than you or I are from paying taxes.
what's the over-under on cheney blowing his brains out in a barn in wyoming sometime in 2011?
A priest (Episcopal) I know once said, "What other people think of you is none of your business." Not sure I agree totally, but it would be liberating to live by that. Along with the Golden Rule, which everyone should aspire to practice.
It's Cheney's conscience biting at him. He says - and maybe even thinks he believes - that what he did was right and necessary. But if he really believed it, and I mean really believed it, that knowledge would be enough. If his role really were the guy who makes the awful decisions so the rest of us don't have to, then anybody could say anything about him, and he'd know he'd been vindicated. He wouldn't have to say anything, since the whole point of the exercise was to keep the war out of people's living rooms. He would have silently faded into oblivion. I would still think his policies were monstrous, but at least they'd have been honestly monstrous. Kind of like in the Big Lebowski: "Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
But what I'm seeing instead is a guy who's deeply in denial about what he really believes is true. Every time something challenges him, he lashes out. I think he has to convince everybody else because he doesn't believe it himself, when it really comes down to it. It's the only explanation I'm seeing that makes sense.
Nice Lebowski reference, Tel.
Did you happen to see the 10 year review of it at slate probably about a year ago now? It changed the way I look at neo-conservatism, and the Big Lebowski, forever.
Cheney at this point is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
As you said Cheney does care very much what other people think and just like everyone who has ever taken an extreme position on anything, he wants other people to tell him that he was right. He is a villain but he doesn't want to be, he wants to be the "man who took a stand when everyone else was too afraid to do anything."
Instead he's Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life."
The Bush Legacy is an ugly one and getting uglier while the Obama Administration is shaping up to be a golden age of democratic politics. The only joy I get from thinking about him is imagining his suffering as Obama succeeds so completely and the Cheney reign is slowly outed as the criminal incompetant mess that it actually was.
Schadenfreude FTW
The whole affair with Mr. Cheney reminds me of an aging actress asking the world to pay attention to her because she used to be somebody.
I don't know about the internal motivations of our former vice president but I would venture a guess that he misses being the center of attention at least as much as he may want to feel vindicated.
He's working so much harder to make the previous administration's policies appear as if they were the correct ones that there must be something there. The simple explanation might be concern for his/their legacy especially as a thorough airing of those policies seems more likely. Perhaps he's making his side's case early and loud.
The deeper explanation is that he's still drinking the KoolAide. Maybe he feels deeply cheated that America doesn't love him after all he did for us, keeping us safe. Very distorted, yes, but not impossible. He's convinced himself that he is the victim. Remember that in the last days of the 3d Reich, Hitler was convinced that the German people had proven themselves unworthy of his vision.
The more Cheney (and the more rope), the better.
He wants to make it Cheney & Limbaugh vs. Obama & Powell in the court of public opinion? Bring it on.
This is very well-put, TNC. I think you hit the nail on the head.
Cheney tries to play the part of the gruff old warrior who is looking out for everyone, but he's really just spinning rationalization after rationalization to defend his morally unhinged and totally ineffective efforts that resemble war crimes we've prosecuted others for. And he feels the need to defend it because he wants everyone out in America to believe what he did was right and to thank him for it. He needs to see himself as this infallible figure, and he wants validation from everyone around him that he actually is one. It's this strong refusal to ever assign blame to himself… He'll bend over backwards and lie and contradict himself to defend his actions as exactly the right thing to do at the time, and I think he feels a strong need to constantly believe that. Hallmarks of deep, deep insecurity.
With regards to punishment for his abuses, I don't think you'd ever get an American prosecutor to prosecute a Vice President for his advice to the President. There probably aren't any real laws regarding that. This is the difference between Cheney and Hideki Tojo: when you're conquered, the other side can invent whatever rules they want. When your country remains powerful, you can invent your own rules, and no one is better at inventing his own rules than Cheney is.
If the only justice we'll get is watching him rail futilely against everyone else in the country as history turns its judgment against him and he is powerless to do anything about it… that'll be worth something.
I strongly disagree. You give Cheney too much credit by stating that he isn't a sociopath. I still remember reading about top Bush Administration officials watching the incoming scenes from NYC on 9/11; when the first tower came down Cheney didn't even blink. Stonefaced, when everyone else was gasping in horror.
(I wish I could remember the exact article this came from, but to the best of my recollection it was in a long Cheney profile piece, possibly in the Washington Post Magazine. 2004-2005ish.)
Sociopaths come in all varieties, from hoodlums who are committing arson, having sex, and torturing small animals from a young age -- to well-adjusted, intelligent people with no criminal history up until they murder their pregnant wife so they can start a new life (Scott Peterson).
The common factors are: inability to feel guilt or remorse, well-disguised malignant narcissism, and a deftness in using words or demeanor to deceive and manipulate others (aka "the mask of sanity"). Most sociopaths - "Uncle Joe" Stalin being a classic example - are exceptional at projecting an aura of reasonableness and low-key charm and good humor, and being very discreet and circuitous in their predatory actions.
Normal human beings have a psychological need to be understood and emotionally connect with others. Even the most ruthless, callous criminals (like the fictional Paulie Walnuts) feel a need to express their emotional inner lives in some form or another. Sociopaths have, essentially, no emotional inner life, so even a deathbed confession is likely to be a fabrication. Their shallow joys come mostly from exerting control over the contemptible human beings around them.
Cheney fooled me at first because his demeanor was serious and thoughtful. Great delivery, and dispassionately stated arguments. The contrast between him and John Edwards in the 2004 VP debate was acute.
I don't buy that he has any psychological desire to explain himself to the public, not after 8 years of being nearly silent, and working in the shadows to get things done. He is definitively NOT a normal politician -- his 10-yr stint in Congress gave him not a hint of sentimentality toward the legislative branch. He seems as non-needy of approval as Bill Clinton was/is needy, as unilateral as Clinton was triangulating. No, in my estimation this is strictly utilitarian, a rearguard defense of his criminal acts. His seeming lack of discretion in the recent flurry of interviews I believe results from the itch of not having the levers of the state at his fingertips. Reappearing on the national scene is one of the few ways he can re-exert control.
I grant the possiblity that he does have ideals, that he does (wrongly) believe that an unimpeded executive branch and a bellicose foreign policy is good for the long-term stability of America. But I don't buy it. He's too controlled, too reasonable, too much of a baritone-voiced Saruman to be an ideologue. He is simply about opportunism and enjoying near-despotic powers within the confines of our government. Recall, for example, his claim of executive AND legislative privilege for the purposes of secrecy. He is not proud of what he has done, simply indifferent.
Dick Cheney is a toxic asset. Bush, Cheney and Rumsveld did not take Al Queda seriously until 9/11. 9/11 happened on their watch. They did not keep us safe or make us safer. Upon invading Iraq they made us less safe by taking away Iran's enemy and creating chaos in the middle east. They should be ridiculed for what they did not do before 9/11, as well as what they did after 9/11. These guys were incompetent all along the way. Al Queda was at war with the US long before 9/11. We only entered that war after 9/11. They knew little about the inner workings of these countries, their cultures, their societies, Sunni, Shia, Kurd, all of it. And even after 9/11 they still did not respect the people. They still thought we were better. 9/11 was low tech and creative and exposed the vulnerability of the US. They did not protect us. No one seems to be talking about this -- that is, how little attention they paid to Al Queda until 9/11. Look what Al Queda had to do to get our attention. It's like the Cheney media assaults have left us frozen like deer in the headlights. Snap out of it! Cheney is covering his ass. 9/11 happened on his watch. Bush remains clueless. He abdicated to Cheney for at least 4 years. Bush's lack of curiosity and limited world knowledge and inexperience was appalling. If Cheney is so scared for the country then why is he not helping behind the scenes? And they further risked the country by taking us into Iraq and giving Iran an opening and taking attention away from Afpak, where the real problem is. Why does anyone listen to him? He said we were going to be "greeted as liberators." Why do people still give him credibility? He is complete bluster. Clearly, Bush was not running the country for at least the first 4 years. We really had a co-presidency. Bush was totally steamrolled. We all were. And now the media is again frozen, not doing its job, just like it did not serve us well in the run up to Iraq.
His primary motivation is probably as you say, but - call me a cynic - let's not discount the motivation of trying to shift the public debate so as to avoid criminal prosecution. win in the court of public opinion to get himself an exception from the law. via blatant bald-faced lying which won't work.