You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say this was an attempt to get Bush off the hook and put Cheney on it.These last hours represent a climactic chapter in the mysterious and mostly opaque relationship at the center of a tumultuous period in American history. It reveals how one question — whether to grant a presidential pardon to a top vice-presidential aide — strained the bonds between Bush and his deputy and closest counselor. It reveals a gap in the two men's views of crime and punishment. And in a broader way, it uncovers a fundamental difference in how the two men regarded the legacy of the Bush years. As a Cheney confidant puts it, the Vice President believed he and the President could claim the war on terrorism as his greatest legacy only if they defended at all costs the men and women who fought in the trenches. When it came to Libby, Bush felt he had done enough.
But the fight over the pardon was also a prelude to the difficult questions about justice and national security inherited by the Obama Administration: How closely should the nation examine the actions of government officials who took steps — legal or possibly illegal — to defend the nation's security during the war on terrorism? The Libby investigation, which began nearly six years ago, went to the heart of whether the Bush Administration misled the public in making its case to invade Iraq. But other Bush-era policies are still coming under legal scrutiny. Who, for example, should be held accountable in one of the darkest corners of the war on terrorism — the interrogators who may have tortured detainees? Or the men who conceived and crafted the policies that led to those secret sessions in the first place? How far back — and how high up the chain of command — should these inquiries go?
As Attorney General Eric Holder weighs whether to name a special prosecutor to probe reports of detainee abuse during the Bush era, Democratic lawmakers are trying to determine why Cheney demanded that Congress be kept in the dark about some covert CIA plans after 9/11. There is no guarantee that these and other probes won't at some point require the testimony of the former President and Vice President. While Bush has retired to Texas to write his memoirs and secure his legacy by other means, Cheney is settling in for a long siege in Washington, where he will soon be installed in a conservative think tank and where, Republicans say, he will pull levers on Capitol Hill to make his voice heard. Above all, Cheney will continue to insist that the Commander in Chief and his lieutenants had almost limitless power in the war on terrorism and deserved a measure of immunity for taking part in that fight. That's a conviction Cheney made clear to all those involved in the Libby affair — including, in his final hours in power, the President himself.
Bush and Cheney remain friends but have gone in different directions since leaving office. Bush returned to Texas, where he is raising millions for his presidential library and writing a book about his most pivotal decisions as President. Bush believes he put the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq on solid footings and will let history speak for his presidency. And Barack Obama? He "deserves my silence," Bush has said.The only pardon I see here is the Village pardoning Bush and pointing the finger at ol' Dick. Now, I wonder why that is, especially given the Liz Cheney My Dad Didn't Do It Tour. Could it be that despite the warnings to Obama that Congress won't play ball on health care if the investigations go on, that the Village is now hedging its bets on The Dickster having problems in the future?For Cheney, the fight goes on. Working from a transition office in McLean, Va., he immediately re-entered the fray. He gave a number of high-profile TV interviews in which he decried the closing of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay and defended what the Bush team called "enhanced interrogations," including waterboarding, as necessary intelligence tools to safeguard the nation. He also warned of another terrorist attack if Obama's policies were left unchecked. He assumed the role of opposition leader on May 21, challenging Obama's antiterrorism policies in a televised speech. Only minutes earlier, Obama had given an address defending his plans for detaining and trying al-Qaeda members on U.S. soil. Cheney is writing a book as well.
Former Bush aides say Cheney's behavior needlessly stoked anti-Bush sentiment, which had only just begun to subside in voters. For Cheney, however, the ongoing battles are an extension of the fight he waged for several years on behalf of Libby. Cheney, says an ally, believes that the true legacy of the Bush years is the uncompromising way he and the President waged the war on terrorism. But Cheney also believes that Bush cannot claim that as a legacy if he fails to protect the aides and officials who carried out the dirty work.
It is an increasingly lonely fight. But as Democrats edge closer to probing the Bush-era practices, perhaps including CIA interrogators, Justice Department lawyers and Cheney's closest aides, it appears his darkest fears may be coming true. Since Cheney was often the man responsible for the policies that are now under scrutiny, it is perhaps no surprise that he is leading the counterrevolt. "I think it is very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation," Cheney said on May 10. "There was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done."
This is the case Dick Cheney made for years in the Bush White House, prevailing for a long time, until he was outnumbered and outgunned. And it is one he seems prepared to make, without Bush at his side, for a long time to come.
That's a complete about face from earlier this year. Could this be the first of many Village reports advocating throwing him under the bus? I'm honestly not sure. But it will be interesting to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment