Owning Two Wars -- and the Presidency

A few weeks ago in the WSJ, Peggy Noonan wrote of the moment in which a President 'owns' his Presidency. (The context was, in typical Noonan fashion, passive/aggressive partisanship: At what point does the public make Obama responsible for the economy? Her answer: right about now.)

In the last two weeks, it appears that Obama has taken ownership of the role of Commander-in-Chief. In the early morning of Thursday, October 29th, the President paid a late night visit to Dover Air Force Base as the bodies of 18 American servicemen who had died in Afghanistan were returned home.

A week ago, on Thursday, November 5th, thirteen people were killed (and almost 30 wounded) by alleged gunman Nidal M. Hasan. Although Obama's immediate response was criticized by some, his speech on Tuesday at the Fort Hood memorial service was well-received.

And finally, yesterday, he laid a wreath at Arlington for the first time as President, and then stopped by Section 60 of the Cemetery; the visit was recounted in a moving piece by a journalist who was there "off duty."

Against the backdrop of a pending decision on strategy in Afghanistan, Obama seems to have grown into the role of C-in-C this past fortnight.

And his actions over the past few weeks bring into sharper relief the outrageousness of the "dithering" statement by former VP Dick Cheney.

Which One Is It, Sir?

Dick Cheney yesterday, on President Obama's decision not to release additional photos from Abu Ghraib:

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support.

Dick Cheney, also yesterday, on whether 'enhanced interrogation' helps recruit for al Queda:

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values...As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

So the photos from Abu Ghraib would be incendiary, but the techniques themselves (which are featured in the photos) add no additional fuel to the fire?

It reminds one of another question:

KAFFEE: Then why the two orders? Colonel? Why did you--
JESSEP: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
KAFFEE: No sir. You made it clear just a moment ago that your men never take matters into their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any dangor at all, should he have, Colonel?
JESSEP: You little bastard.
ROSS: Your Honor, I have to ask for a recess to--
KAFFEE: I'd like an answer to the question, Judge.
RANDOLPH: The Court'll wait for answer.
KAFFEE: If Kendrick told his men that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why did he have to be transferred?

Angler vs. Backseat

"Angler" is Vice President Dick Cheney's current Secret Service codename. (It is also the title of Bart Gelman's new book on Cheney.)

When he was Chief-of-Staff to Gerald Ford, his codename was "Backseat." His background -- a staffer at the highest level -- has given him an unprecedented ability to manipulate the White House staffing process. And his unprecedented access to a President who disdains details (according to Gelman's account.)

"Backseat" spent his formative years learning the ways of bureaucratic Washington: major policy decisions effected well below the "principal" (cabinet) or "POTUS" (Presidential) level; controlling a meeting by controlling the agenda; inserting allies throughout government to insure timely information is being reported back; and 'reaching down' through the layers of government to see real, raw information -- direct and unfiltered. (This last modus operandi was not limited to Iraqi or al Queda intelligence.)

As "Angler", Cheney was able to taking staffing to the next level. Unlike staff -- or even Cabinet principals -- the vice president cannot be fired. Further, Cheney scheduled regular lunches with 43, without any other staff; such unfettered access is the holy grail of White House personnel.

As "Angler", Cheney also removed himself -- and his thinking -- from political calculations. Gellman shows only one example of politics playing a role in Cheney's actions, and even that -- the use of the Klamath River for irrigation -- was more by accident. Cheney's Western-sensibility, and instinctive opposition to federal governmental intervention, ended up being good local politics in Oregon. But such political ramifications were by accident -- Gellman makes it clear that the politics were often the last thing from Cheney's mind.

Perhaps it is this element of "Angler" that is most interesting and surprising. For a person a heartbeat away from the peak of political power, Vice President Cheney seemingly spends no time thinking about politics. Indeed, highly political initiatives -- like funding for faith-based programs or No Child Left Behind -- are ignored by "Angler." The ultimate political insider has been transformed into a constitutional officer who rarely, if ever, considers grubby day-to-day politics.

Condi on the Rise?

After watching Mitt Romney audition for the role of putative Vice President a few weeks ago, this weekend marked the floating of Condi Rice's name into the VP waters.

While McCain has plenty of reasons to distance himself from the Bush White House, it's interesting that with the President himself at 28%, and Cheney hitting single-digits, Condi's approval rating are at 56% in a recent Pew poll.

You never know...

More on Iran

With its Iraq strategy still in limbo, the White House is nonetheless turning its sights to Iran, the Guardian (UK) reports this morning. The shift indicates a seeming rise in power of VP Dick Cheney, whose standing has suffered in recent weeks with his claim of being a 'fourth branch' and the commutation of his aide, Scooter Libby.

It is possible that this story has been leaked by the White House to put pressure on Iran to reach some sort of accommodation that allows IAEA inspections, like North Korea over the weekend. But the story also claims that a 'well-placed source in Washington' has said:

"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

Commutation

Among the more notable items (the paucity of other commutations, the fact that the commutation was not reviewed by Justice Department officials, et al.) relating to President Bush's decision to commmute, rather than pardon, Scooter Libby last night, a quote from an unnamed 'senior White House official':

One senior administration official said Bush quickly made his decision yesterday after hearing that the U.S. Court of Appeals had refused to keep Libby out of prison while his appeal ran its course. This source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about the president's thinking, said there is "comfort" at the White House that the decision will not hurt him politically despite the Democratic outcry.

The question follows: will this decision "not hurt him politically" because of the timing (July 4th week, where much of the country is on vacation) or because with his poll numbers so low, the Venn diagram of Bush supporters and Libby supporters is almost identical.

The Vice President and Impeachment

Heretofore a topic only for Rep. Dennis Kucinch and others of like mind, the potential impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney is now starting to be discussed in conservative circles, such as here and here.

The proximate cause: Cheney's argument last week that, as President of the Senate, he is not subject to rules covering the Executive Branch. Needless to say, the defense of that proposition has not been easy.

While conservatives may want Cheney removed for ideological reasons (the creation of the "Fourth Branch" of government, his expansive reading of the Executive Branch that encroaches on protected liberties), others may point to his rock-bottom approval ratings as well.

The "I" Word

In this week's Time Magazine, Joe Klein appears to edge close to the 'impeachment' argument, on a 'national interest' line of reasoning. Key quote:

I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

The strongest argument against impeachment, of course, is Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: He is not, apparently, hinting at impeachment.

McCain v. Bush II

Not such good times for John McCain. First Sibiling Jeb Bush has been steering operatives and fundraisers to Mitt Romney's campaign since last fall. For instance, here's Bush's Lt. Governor:

"Governor Bush said, 'Before you commit, I want you to meet Mitt Romney. He is the kind of guy you will like no matter what,'" said former Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings. "The governor was very candid about the fact that he really liked this guy."

A number of former Jeb aides have apparently gone to work for Romney's campaign.

Then, today's political news includes VP Dick Cheney taking McCain's comments over the weekend about Don Rumsfeld to task:

Karl: And I wanted to ask you. You probably heard John McCain again come out and say that your friend Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the worst secretary of defense ever. What do you make of that?

Cheney:I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld.

Karl: So what's your take on where Secretary Rumsfeld fits in?

Cheney: I think Don's a great secretary [sic]. I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He and John McCain had a number of dust-ups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq -- other issues that were involved. John's entitled to his opinion. I just think he's wrong.

Karl: And I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify, Sen. McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?

Cheney: Yes, yes.

Karl: What did he say?

Cheney: Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology, which I was happy to accept.

Not exactly a warm embrace of "Straight Talk" by a man who is thought to be closest to Bush 43.

Cheney, Wilson, and the 1% Test

Andrew Sullivan writes about the Libby trial today, and VP Cheney being a key -- if so far, off stage -- player. Sullivan summarizes Cheney's involvement in the attack on Wilson as follows:

Cheney was far more focused on fighting a petty Beltway skirmish in the press over a petty issue in the recent past.

Why? There are only two plasuible explanations I can think of for the disproportionate concern. The first is pure arrogance... Any querying of his position was an affront a man of his arrogance couldn't tolerate - even if it meant risking a huge amount to squash a political bug the size of Wilson.

The alternative explanation is that Cheney was scared - so scared he took a huge risk...But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place...[There] was [a] danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war...

Sullivan's second insight is supported, in a way, by Ron Suskind's book, The One Percent Doctrine. In the book, Suskind lays out the "Cheney Doctrine":

"If there's a one percent chance [that terrorists are acting], we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response," Cheney said. He paused to assess his declaration. "It's not about analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence," he added. "It's about our response."

Suskind, p. 62. The Cheney Doctrine, which Suskind claims drove much national security policy during the period after 9/11 until today, may have played a part in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Suskind writes:

[T]he key rule - that the United States woudl treat a 'one percent chance' of a country passing WMDs to a terrorist as a 'certainty' and be forced to act - was never spoken. Such a disclosure would have provoked a widening debate over Iraq.

p.166. A one percent chance means that something is 99% likely not to occur - which triggered the need to hide or otherwise manipulate evidence to 'prove' Iraqi WMD. Which brings us back to Sullivan's point.