Dick Cheney's official duties

A federal judge agrees that outing covert CIA agents is part of Dick Cheney's job description:

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Of course, "speaking with the press" wasn't the problem. Revealing state secrets was.

Dick Cheney's toadies

Cheney, who has a habit of firing employees who aren't true believers, has managed to gather a collection of the finest sycophants in American government.

For example Paul Hoffman, who just knew that Dick is both a snowmobile enthusiast and has a peculiar hatred for cutthroat salmon:

Hoffman, now in another job at the Interior Department, said Cheney never told him what to do on either issue -- he didn't have to.

"His genius," Hoffman said, is that "he builds networks and puts the right people in the right places, and then trusts them to make well-informed decisions that comport with his overall vision."

Cheney also isn't too big a man to help focus the concentration of those who aren't as quick on the uptake:

Aides praise Cheney's habit of reaching down to officials who are best informed on a subject he is tackling. But the effect of his calls often leads those mid-level officials scrambling to do what they presume to be his bidding.

That's their euphemism for his inclination to get on the phone directly with people who take the law too literally, like the Interior Department official who thought she was supposed to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

That's what happened when a mortified Wooldridge finally returned the vice president's call, after receiving a tart follow-up inquiry from one of his aides. Cheney, she said, "was coming from the perspective that the farmers had to be able to farm -- that was his concern. The fact that the vice president was interested meant that everyone paid attention."

Cheney made sure that attention did not wander. He had Wooldridge brief his staff weekly and, Smith said, he also called the interior secretary directly.

Apparently, the technique is a big motivator. He gets lots of praise from those who survive his trial by fire:

[Mike] Gerson added: "It's principled. He's deeply conscious that this is a dangerous world, and he wants this president and future presidents to be able to deal with that. He feels very strongly about these things, and it's his great virtue and his weakness."

Cheney's deep principle here is that the U.S. should adopt the torture techniques developed by Stalinist Russia.

Cheney's style also saves a lot of unnecessary thinking. Here's how Rob Portman uses Cheney as a "sounding board".

"He never, ever has said to me, 'Do this.' Never. Which is interesting, because that might be the perception of how he operates," Portman said. "But it is 'What do you think of this?' Well, he's the vice president of the United States -- and obviously I'm interested in his point of view."

And finally, Edward Lazear, who extolls Dick's ability to run an efficient operation:

When Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, broached the idea of limiting the popular mortgage tax deduction, he said he quickly dropped it after Cheney told him it would never fly with Congress. "He's a big timesaver for us in that he takes off the table a lot of things he knows aren't going to go anywhere," Lazear said.

Lazear, who is otherwise known as a fierce advocate for his views, said that he may argue a point with Cheney "for 10 minutes or so" but that in the end [Lazear] is always convinced. "I can't think of a time when I have thought I was right and the vice president was wrong."

Dick Cheney: "holding the line on spending"

From the Washington Post's series on the vice president, we learn from his supporters that he is the go-to guy on economic issues, a "small-government" conservative who keeps George Bush faithful to Republican core principles.

Such stands by Cheney were not uncommon, said Bolten, the White House chief of staff. Cheney often stepped in if he sensed the administration was softening its commitment to Republican "first principles," Bolten said, and he was "a pretty vigorous voice for holding the line on spending and for holding the line on tax cuts." Longtime Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said the vice president brings a "spine quotient" to internal debates.

None of his aides actually cite any instances where Cheney lobbied for spending restraint, but if we take them at their word this is apparently the only area Cheney has failed to get his way.

Bush and Cheney have added over $3 trillion to the national debt and they aren't done yet.

Bill Kristol is an idiot

From ThinkProgress:

Kristol said the exemptions for the president and vice president were “reasonable enough.” He called it “a pain in the neck” to have “some bureaucrat” from the National Archives “come and inspect your safe to see whether you’re locking it up properly each night.”

I'm pretty sure that's what Wen Ho Lee thought too.

Dick Cheney: the unitary (vice) executive ?

From the Washington Post:

Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

Cheney's obsession with personal privacy and security is legendary. After 9/11 it was the vice president who fled to an undisclosed location, vanishing from the public eye for most of the next 2 years. And while you can easily find high resolution satellite images of the White House, the Pentagon, military bases and nuclear reactors, the historic residence of the Vice President has been absurdly pixelated.

Cheney's refusal to follow the rules governing national secrecy (which exist to ensure those secrets aren't deliberately or accidentally released), show that he believes the president is his subordinate, not the other way around.

Mitt Romney: willing to rule the world pro bono!

Multimillionaire candidate, Mitt Romney, says he's willing to donate his government salary to charity if elected president. Being a Republican, he wouldn't actually refuse the money (thus sparing the taxpayers $400,000 a year), but he'd find a good home for it.

I'm sure Mitt wants us to see this as his desire for selfless service to the country, but in a field populated with independently wealthy candidates, it's obvious they aren't in this for the paycheck. The thrill of power alone would be enough for many, but when a corporate candidate's primary concerns are deregulation of industry, curbing consumer lawsuits, and repealing investment taxes (as well as the "death tax"), it's hard to believe he hasn't looked at the bottom line.

The sad fact is that $400,000 is chump change for these guys. They're able to make much more money simply by changing the tax code.

Case in point: Dick Cheney, who in 2005 alone is reported to have saved almost $1.1 million due to the administration's tax cuts. That's more than 5 times his government salary. And he gets similar savings every year as long as those cuts remain in place.

This is also true for the rest of the CEO cabinet:

[from The Nation, 2001]: For instance, two retired CEOs, Dick Cheney and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, would have reaped a combined $4.9-$5.2 million if the tax cut had been in effect last year, largely because of the considerable parachute payments they received by leaving Halliburton and Alcoa, respectively. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has amassed a fortune with the help of prominent Republican campaign contributors, would have added between $590,000 and $890,000 to his take-home pay--more than three and a half times his $161,200 salary as a member of the Cabinet.

Cheney claims that outing covert agents is part of his official duties

From the Washington Post:

Cheney's attorney went further, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

You're probably thinking, "What about Bill Clinton? Didn't he get sued?" Not to worry. Cheney's lawyers claim that was different, because Clinton's argument was frivolous and self-serving.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment," whether the statements were true or false?

"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."

I suppose if they'd had Wilson taken out and shot, they'd consider it part of their official duties, too.

Did you pay more in taxes than Dick Cheney did?

In light of the never-ending calls for a flat tax I thought I'd run the numbers on two of the wealthiest people in the country.

According to their income tax returns for 2006:

Dick Cheney paid $413,326 in taxes on $1,809,296 total income (22.845%).
George Bush paid $186,378 in taxes on $765,801 total income (24.337%).

Bush comes out a bit behind, despite earning significantly less than Cheney, but maybe he just needs a better accountant.

Of course that's just income tax, the only tax Republicans typically want to flatten. We also pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Medicare is a simple 1.45% of gross earnings. OASDI is 6.2% up to a maximum tax of $6045 per employed spouse. Assuming both spouses are paying into Social Security, that adds 0.664% for the Cheney's and 1.578% for the Bush's.

Income tax + Medicare + OASDI = effective federal tax rate

Cheney: 22.845 + 1.45 + 0.664 = 24.959%
Bush : 24.337 + 1.45 + 1.578 = 27.365%

I came in at about 24.6%. My guess is most of you did too.

Dick Cheney tells his critics to just shut up

Following in the footsteps of his fellow Iraq war architects Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman; Dick Cheney accuses his critics of aiding our enemies, while simultaneously demanding a blank check for $100 billion.

But unlike Kristol and Lieberman, who are only asking us to shut up for the next 6-9 months, Cheney tells us to just shut-up, period.

Leaving Basra: proof of success or failure?

Dick Cheney has praised the British decision to pull troops out of Basra, claiming that it's "an affirmation that in parts of Iraq...things are going pretty well." This has been echoed by other officials in the Bush administration, including Stephen Hadley,"So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces"

Other's dispute that assessment, noting that the British take regular mortar fire from insurgents in the South. From the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, we get this bleak assessment of the situation in Basra, and some predictions for the fallout once British forces finally leave:

The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq

[Basra] has suffered one of the worst reversals of fortune of any area in Iraq since the fall of Saddam’s regime. Once a relatively calm part of postwar Iraq, where multinational forces were able to undertake community policing at acceptable risk without helmets or body armor, Basra has since been overwhelmed by a storm of violence and disorder, becoming an area where it is impossible to undertake road moves without heavily armored vehicles. Although it was one of the more liberal and cosmopolitan areas in Iraq during the 1980s, Basra has transformed into a bastion of Islamist groups and their associated militias, afflicted with high levels of insurgent and criminal activity. From being the heart of Iraq’s oil industry, Basra is increasingly a kleptocracy used by Islamist militias to fill their war chests.

The ongoing weakness of Iraqi security forces became increasingly apparent in the early months of 2005 as Basra witnessed unprecedented levels of political violence and crime. Criminal factions, both in Basra and the tribal areas north of the city, undertook high levels of carjacking, kidnapping, and oil smuggling. The January elections were marred by violent intimidation beforehand and equally brutal recriminations afterward. Basra’s politically neutral police chief Hassan al-Sade stated that he trusted no more than a quarter of his officers and that another 50 percent owed their primary loyalty to militias. Using militiamen serving in the security forces, Sadrist factions and SCIRI affiliates such as Badr and Thar Allah accelerated their intimidation of local university professors, trade unionists, and other secular figures. Most Iraqis were forced under the protective umbrella of enforced party membership, and those who attempted to make a stand were intimidated and sometimes killed.

The authors' predictions:

In the coming year, the drawdown of British forces in the deep south will likely be accompanied by an upsurge of factional violence as the long-delayed fight for local supremacy begins in earnest.

The political parties, and particularly Muqtada al-Sadr’s organization, will struggle to control a fragmenting range of local militias, most of which have become thoroughly intertwined with criminal enterprises. Such militias and their attached politicians will compete violently at the local level, but they will also periodically close ranks whenever foreign or national interlopers seek to reestablish some degree of control over the deep south or restore a modicum of personal security to the populace. In essence, the deep south has become a “kleptocracy” where well-armed political-criminal mafiosi have locked both the central government and the people out of power. As journalist Steve Negus wrote in August 2006: “The region’s political parties have done almost nothing for the common good. Those with street credibility and a militia now have the power. . . . A year ago, people were clamoring for greater autonomy from Baghdad. Some people in this anarchic port city are now calling for the central government to save them from their elected leaders.”

If and when delayed provincial elections are held, their fairness will be heavily curtailed by four years of militia control and the obliteration of secular liberal opposition.

Such an outcome contrasts sharply with Britain’s hopes for the deep south. In January 2003, Britain’s vision for postwar Iraq was “a stable, united and law abiding state within its present borders, cooperating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbors or to international security, abiding by all its international obligations and providing effective representative government to its own people.” By February 2006, the British Ministry of Defense announced less lofty conditions for withdrawal.

Instead of a stable, united, law-abiding region with a representative government and police primacy, the deep south is unstable, factionalized, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy, and subject to militia primacy. Brig. James Everard, commander of British forces in MND(SE) until November 2006, noted darkly: “Freedom of speech, freedom of expression: it just hasn’t quite worked out the way it was planned. They’re just not prepared to debate. They tend to do things at the end of a gun.” The senior British intelligence officer in Basra concurred, stating, “There are no moderate leaders here. We will not be leaving behind a Westernized democracy—and there will be a certain amount of killing once we go.” In the light of growing factional score-settling, the latter may soon appear to be an understatement.

Britain will increase the number of troops in Afghanistan

Britain intends to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, even as it pulls out troops from Iraq. Dick Cheney praised the pullout, suggesting it affirmed progress in the country. He then denounced the Democrat's plan to do the same thing, claiming that would "validate al Qaeda".

Iraq leader welcomes troops' exit

Tony Blair's plan to recall 1,600 British troops from Iraq within the next few months has been welcomed by the country's president.

Jalal Talabani's spokesman said it was a "welcome catalyst" that would force Iraqi forces to take responsibility for the country's security.

"But Basra is still, in Tony Blair's words, a difficult and dangerous place, which means that this is far short of the victory they wanted in 2003 but something, they hope, short of a total defeat."

The BBC report has an interesting chart of the number of British forces in Iraq over the last few years, with a high of more than 40,000 in early 2003, dropping to less than 20,000 that May and less than 10,000 in May 2004.

EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Says British Troop Withdrawal Is Positive Sign

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels," Cheney said.

Cheney also had harsh words for Democratic leaders, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., who says he wants to stop the surge of more U.S. troops into Iraq.

"I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat," Cheney told the soldiers.

Increase in troops to Afghanistan

The number of British troops in Afghanistan is set to rise Britain is to increase its military presence in southern Afghanistan by about 800 troops to 5,800.

But the UK's overall deployment in Afghanistan will only increase by 300 because the military is also reducing its presence in Kabul by 500 personnel.

The British troops are part of a 32,000-strong Nato force which is currently based in Afghanistan.