Cheney Must Be a "Big Fan of Al's"

by emptywheel

As he said in yesterday's CBS interview.

Cheney, asked in an interview with CBS radio whether Gonzales should keep his job, replied: "I do. I'm a big fan of Al's."

Because he seems to have caught Al's "Cannot Recall Flu."

On Sunday, Josh Marshall pointed out that the New York Times editorial on the potential need to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said that “Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.” As Marshall noted, before the editorial, Cheney’s involvement in the incident had never been established.

Today on CNN, in a preview of his interview with the Vice President tonight, Larry King said he asked Cheney about the allegation. “I asked the Vice President about that and the story that he was the one that asked him to go,” said King. “And he said he had no recollection.”

“He did not want to deal with specifics, which tells me, they’re looking at trouble,” King added. “If you don’t want to deal with specifics…I think you’re looking at trouble and you’re looking the other way if you’re denying it.”

I seem to recall (see, I haven't been kissing either Cheney or Gonzales!) that I floated a $700 million bet that Cheney had sent Gonzales and Card. Anyone still want to take that bet?

Comments

[bmaz]

No. I do want to see and touch your ante though.....

[santabarbarian]

Gonzales was exceedingly clear at the reent Senate hearings that he had gone to the hospital represnting the President and would not say that the President had sent him. Now we know why - Cheney sent him

[ab initio]

Every day it becomes more and more evident that what we have is a shadow presidency. If Cheney can just order WH senior staff at will then what does GWB do - has he just delegated the entire presidency to Darth? Is there an executive order that does that? Is there still any contention if he is part of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch or another 4th Branch - shadow Commander-in-Chief but accountable to no one?

We desperately need an impeachment investigation to uncover what this presidency is actually about.

[Tross]

Of course Cheney sent him. I won't touch that bet.

But what's up with the Letter of Absolution from the White House to Specter? Maybe Specter will pretend to get REALLY angry. Of course, now that it's been hyped it better be a damn good letter. Not holding my breath.

[Sojourner]

Time was, the person elected president would find some things for the VP to do to keep him out of his hair. This time, the VP apparently found something to keep the President occupied while he stole the power.

If all of this was not so serious, I could have a good time just watching it all happen...

[Jodi]

I am sorry I have to keep ruffling the feathers of all the people that seem to be getting a lot of excitement from all this, but I still have to ask:

So what?

[Mimikatz]

It was always clear form the "on the President's behalf" locution that it was Cheney. Otherwise Gonzo would have said "The Prez". "On behalf of the Prez" is how Cheney represents himself when he issues orders, at least when they are questioned.

Too many people haven't been paying attention.

And Bush? When he thought it was God telling him to invade Iraq he was mistaken. We now know it was Cheney, his "higher father."

[Frank Probst]

Nice to see Jodi back. I'd kind of missed him/her/it/them. Loved the "So what?" comment. On one level, I have to agree. Cheney's just lying through his teeth. It's not like he shot an old man in the face or anything. Oh, wait...

[Sara]

Emptypockets, What is the vegas line on your bet?

[John B.]

Not gonna play poker with you EW...you hold too many cards and are to good at reading bluffs...

[mk]

Just a good thing that jodi uses boldface -- enables me to skip right over her/his/its comment, no problem.

[pseudonymous in nc]

That CNN trailed the interview as 'Larry King: Tough Questions' was funny. But that Shooter contracted a case of the I-don't-recalls with King is even funnier.

[p.lukasiak]

From Comey's testimony before the SJC...

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/comey.transcript.pdf

SPECTER: Well, Mr. Comey, did you have discussions with anybody else [other than Gonzales and Card] in the administration who disagreed with your conclusions?
COMEY: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: Who else?
COMEY: Vice president.
SPECTER: Anybody else?
COMEY: Members of his staff.
SPECTER: Who on his staff?
COMEY: Mr. Addington disagreed with the conclusion. And I'm sure there were others who disagreed, but...
SPECTER: Well, I don't want to know who disagreed. I want to know who told you they disagreed.
COMEY: OK.
SPECTER: Addington?
COMEY: Mr. Addington. The vice president told me that he disagreed. I don't remember any other White House officials telling me they disagreed.
SPECTER: OK. So you've got Card, Gonzales, Vice President Cheney and Addington who told you they disagreed with you.

[...]

cheney is like the modern version of a gestapo leader... so what? lol.. amazing what some folks would like to see for america... these are the same folks that have been sitting on their hands, or directly supporting this illegitimate regime...

[J. Thomason]

So, Jodi, the what: other people have different concerns, critical standards, loyalties and values than you Jodi that they are willing to explore in rational informed discourse and even press at some personal risk.

Who would you be if you accepted this without the need to call attention to yourself through magical snark or even deemed to enter the discourse on the contextual terms that are established?

And mind you this is a rhetorical quesition, much like yours.

[GT3T]

EW--
Another safe bet is that it was Big Dick who advised Undersec'y of Defense Eric Edelman on how to answer Hillary Clinton's question about drawdown plans. Edelman is Cheney's man in the Pentagon, and that letter's intent and language is Cheney's. (He's used that same you're-not-patriotic line many times before.) I'd also bet neither one of them expected the letter to fly out into public view.

[Jodi]

J. Thomason,

who are you calling rhetorical? You do have a good point about "other people."

My "so what" was an invitation to you and them to explain what was so significant? What is all the carrying on about?

Have any crimes been uncovered? Has any charges been made?

Or is all of this just some kind of dull soap opera and the watchers are people stuck in a waiting room with no where to go for a few hours waiting on a doctor or a plane.

I would like a little more action.

Please!

mk I aim to please.

[J. Thomason]

What effort have you made Jodi? You act as if others are beholden to you. What do you think these posts are about in terms of confronting political evasions of the truth with good faith inferences and deep research. You have yet to enter any dialogue here with any terms other than your own dissatisfaction.

[John Lopresti]

Here is an instance of a US attorney who was listed but saved at the last minute, Brownlee reported in WaPo today. Suddenly, listening to the disclaimers that say that is situation normal for USAs, begins to look like this is the material Rove wants to cap when he testifies tomorrow. He is going to show up, affirmatively. There sure has been a lot of testimony already. Fortunately, we anticipate Rove will speak in simple declarative sentences instead of having some obfuscatory strategem at the ready. I suspect he works well with the vice president, but the m.o.s are very disparate; yesterday also, I found that report of why the Department of the interior inspector general nearly perjured herself before congress when asked about Cheney's get out the farm vote initiative in the Klamath 70,000 ten-lb salmon fishkill in 2001 at his behest; in fact, her disclaimer after the fact reminded me of one liberal lawyer's evaluation of Comey's testimony about the nite Ashcroft nearly became the re-Attorney General from the hospital; the liberal person said Comey always is careful to answer the question, ma'am; but, only the question, i.e., you want more specifics, you have to redirect the question specifically at what is omitted in the initial reply. Which evidently is what DoI's IG had said about the Klamath boondoggle; 'well, your question inquired about nothing having to do with VPCheney, so I simply omitted mentioning his involvement...'