The eye of Sauron sees all!

it's always seemed strange that someone who never was President and never will be President should have such a raging hard-on for increasing the power of the President.

I'm sleep-deprived this morning so I don't know if I got what I was supposed to get from the article, but it seemed to me that - gasp - even the oil companies were recommending reducing demand and increasing reliance on alternative energy sources. It seems as if that's what Cheney wanted hushed up? Incompetent fucking hack...

If only the President that Cheney does the job for wasn't such an idiot, he might have an easier time making the case for a strong executive. There is such much irony there. I don't know how White House staff can get through the day without giggling at the goofiness of it all.

Cheney has believed that the post-Watergate Congress stripped far too much power from the Republican presidency...
Fixed it for you. Don't mention it.

Here's what I don't get.

There were representatives from legitimate enviro groups that sat in on task force meetings. If API, Conoco, etc. were at the same meetings, why didn't somebody just spill the beans and leak this?

Different meetings, check the dates.

he believes that REPUBLICAN presidents need to have vast powers.

I'd wager he's not such a stickler about Dem presidents.

IOKIYAR privilege.

Oh, come on, Kevin. Deeply partisan people never really hold objective principles about the separation of powers (or its lack) above their ideology.

Do you seriously believe that Cheney will be out there supporting a powerful executive in a Democratic administration?

He's doing all this because he likes to be in control and no one has stopped him.

This is like saying that the conservatives on the Supreme Court do everything because they believe in states' rights. ---Sure, right up until the conservative agenda is better advanced through opposing states' rights.

The constitution and the separation of powers doctrine relies on some branch of government, or the fourth branch, the media, caring enough about the rule of law to enforce it.

Even among the Democrats in Congress, the rule of law has never been placed above supposedly strategic partisan thinking that protects their careers and power.

WaPo:At 10 a.m. on April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups were brought into the Old Executive Office Building for a long-anticipated meeting. Since late January, a task force headed by Vice President Cheney had been busy drawing up a new national energy policy, and the groups were getting their one chance to be heard.

Cheney was not there, but so many environmentalists were in the room that introductions took up "about half the meeting," recalled Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group said, "It was clear to us that they were just being nice to us."

Apparently April 4 was "Envirmonmental Whacko Day".

SocraticGadfly: If API, Conoco, etc. were at the same meetings, why didn't somebody just spill the beans and leak this?

Much like a brothel with a back door through which exiting clients can avoid being spotted by those coming in, Cheney's office kept these folks entirely apart.

cleek: it's always seemed strange that someone who never was President and never will be President should have such a raging hard-on for increasing the power of the President.

Add to that: never wanted to be president. If you consider that Cheney derives enormous power, income, influence and control from Bush having a stronger presidency, while simultaneously not having to face the public and media (I know, I know) as a president does, it all makes sense.

cleek: "it's always seemed strange that someone who never was President and never will be President should have such a raging hard-on for increasing the power of the President."

He had other priorities.

But seriously, it's about accountability at heart. Creating power for someone else and than amassing it for yourself probably keeps the whole thing theoretical, in a very weird way. Of course, each is now planning to make the other one take the fall after '08. Hope they have little cyanide pills in pills in their teeth.

Cheney just doesn't want us to know which fluorescent bulbs he hid his horcruxs in.

I know they weren't all there at the same time, but, I think there still had to be some information they were picking up.

Do the democrats publicize details of their caucus meetings? Of course not, and there's a good reason: policy-makers need times to kick around new ideas and explore alternatives without fear of carping by their opponents. These creative, unfetterd brain-storming sessions are essential to good government.

Or, better yet, given that theirs was the last major meeting, if Cheney wouldn't discuss the other meetings, why did enviro groups even participate? Why meet with Cheney at all?

Cheney just doesn't want us to know which fluorescent bulbs he hid his horcruxs in.

They sure as hell weren't the low-energy ones.

"publicize details"?

The president and vice-president are our employees. They are not entitled to keep policy meeting privates. Policy is how we operate. You would know that if you had the slightest respect for the notion of democracy, Al-bot. But you don't. So who gives a shit what you think, you sniveling coward.

How's your mother, by the way?

SG: Or, better yet, given that theirs was the last major meeting, if Cheney wouldn't discuss the other meetings, why did enviro groups even participate? Why meet with Cheney at all?

Lack of information that theirs was the last meeting? Strong suspicion or perhaps weary understanding that they were being brought in for symbolism only, but recognition that refusal to come wouldn't help anything and would be used against them?

Al, since we've had six years of horrible government (that would be the Unifiedly Horrible Executive theory, right?) it obviously hasn't produced good government. (Not that your parallel stands up anyway.)

The reason he did not release the information at first is that he thought the press would hold him accountable. That there would be consequences.

6 years on; it is clear that the American press will not do so. So, why not release them?

cleek,
Mr. Cheney is principled, it is not for him alone, although that may be part of the equation. Cheney, like all those who tend toward authoritarianism, believes in the necessity of an autocratic executive. They regard a strong executive as the only force that can provide security in a dangerous world. Parliaments are too confounded by politics to rise to the challenge. Because of this orientation they also see the Rights of Man as something less than fundamental. They are indeed not given by God or Nature, as Thomas Jefferson would have it, but bestowed by those that hold power. If it were 1776 he would have sided with the king of England and not the shockingly democratic nation that rebelled against an autocratic power that was blind to rights. No doubt Mr. Franklin would have recognized his proclivities immediately and seen in them the rather bad state of American government. He would not be surprised.

I know they weren't all there at the same time, but, I think there still had to be some information they were picking up.

Yep, plenty of insights: 1) Do they always have guests wash coffee cups before getting coffee? Glad they're not using stryofoam, 2) Shouldn't the interns directing this meeting be taking notes?, 3) Why is the "policy specialist" we're handing our proposed legislation to wearing a janitor's uniform?

Kenji: "The president and vice-president are our employees. They are not entitled to keep policy meeting privates. Policy is how we operate."

Well, yes, except for the fact that it's not policy when it's concocted with business interests. It's called collusion.

Ideology aside, how much truth is (or was in 2000) there to the proposition that "the post-Watergate Congress stripped far too much power from the presidency and that someone needed to restore it?"

It seems to me that the post-Watergate presidents were sufficiently powerful to accomplish a great deal, and I have a hard time as thinking of either Clinton or Regan as hobbled, but I'd be interested in the thoughts of someone with a better sense of what the pre-Watergate presidency was like.

Richard Cheney would have been impeached and imprisoned a long time ago if he were a Democrat. Imagine a Democratic VP who had as recently as two years before running for office, headed up a large consulting firm that subsequently got billions (with a "b") of dollars in no-bid contracts, while still holding stock options in this firm. Clearly a huge conflict of interest! Keep in mind that Bill Clinton was a passive investor in a real estate development company 14 years before he became president and this turned into a multi-year and multi-million dollar fishing expedition.

Let me frame this issue very clearly for everyone involved: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are criminals. They have the longest criminal records of any men to serve as President and Vice President. Both have been arrested multiple times. They both have very questionable, if not downright, illegal business dealings in their past that should have been investigated thoroughly but were not. Both have problems with substance abuse. Both have shown highly questionable judgment in their personal and professional lives. Any one of these shortcomings would have disqualified them from high office, if they were a Democrat, instead of a Republican. However, due to mainstream media complicity, almost none of this is public knowledge.

The only real question is: Why do the Democrats continue to allow them to get away with criminal behavior in their roles as the Chief Executive Officers of this country?????

Since we don't have the actual minutes of that meeting, or the emails, or what goes on inside Cheney's twisted and evil little mind, this is all idle speculation. Too many people seem to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "nobody would be that evil, to take advantage of the power entrusted to them as VP, would they?"

Until we get him on the waterboarding table, we'll never really know.

"I also don't think there's any question that he genuinely believes this as a matter of principle."

Bullshit. As soon as the White House is in the hands of a Democrat, Cheney will be first in line screaming about the run-away executive and calling for Congress to do its constitutional duty and investigate.

You didn't see Cheney filing an amicus brief on Clinton's behalf in Jones, did you?

That is the sort of thing he would have done if he had given a rat's ass about the Constitutional principle.

But he doesn't. The only principle he cares about is keeping the White House Republican, and keeping Republicans above the law.

To think Cheney's actions are based on "what he believes as a matter of principle" is sort of comical.

The man has no beliefs or principles. His actions are the actions of a sociopath. He likes to assert power to intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, crush anyone just for the hell of it. He will destroy documents, evidence, reputations just for the pure pleasure of it and and some diseased desire to control.

I'm too sleep deprived this am to go look it up, but read Al Gore's recounting of this in his new book. He contends that this group discussed securing Iraq's oil and that the connection to the war is why Darth Cheney is hiding all of this.

I made this sound like Gore is pushing a conspiracy theory, but Gore offers a specific set of evidence and makes a specific claim about these meetings. Please check it out.

My favorite comment this week was that they want to step in on a situation/policy (sorry, can't remember the specifics) because they didn't trust future presidents to handle the matter properly.

They do think they're in there permanently, don't they?

Georgette Orwell >"...They do think they're in there permanently, don't they?"

Well, they ARE planning to be so

Remember that on the basis of evidence on the public record it is Pumphead Dick Cheney (which should be a hint to those paying attention)

"...With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace

Because of Cheney's affiliation with Halliburton, I strongly believe that if he accepts any money from Halliburton, or accepts a position from them in the future, that constitutes war profiteering. Weren't WWII war profiteers at least jailed? but since this involves the executive branch, he should be executed.

The only real question is: Why do the Democrats continue to allow them to get away with criminal behavior in their roles as the Chief Executive Officers of this country?????

I agree. hat's been my question for ages.

" . . . he genuinely believes this as a matter of principle."

That may depend on what's meant by "believe." When Cheney first came to the White House in '74, Dems had enjoyed almost unbroken control of Congress for more than forty years, and there was no sign that this would change in the foreseeable future. In that same period, however, Repubs had managed to elect and re-elect Eisenhower and Nixon. Reasonable conclusion (as of '74): Repubs will have little power except through the Executive, where they will usually be opposed by a Dem or half-Dem Congress; so, if you're a Republican, why shouldn't you "believe" in tilting the scales as much as possible toward the White House?

Things have changed a bit since the Ford years, but even in the GOP-leaning Reagan-to-GWB era, Dems have held the House more than half the time, and the entire Congress a third of the time. GWB was the only Repub president since early Eisenhower to enjoy a Congress controlled by his own party. The prudent Repub will still favor the Executive, and in his peculiar way, Cheney is nothing if not prudent.

Have we learned nothing over the last 6+ years? The attendee list was a smokescreen. Make it known that you will not release the attendee list, and people will clamor for it, and forget that what they really wanted to see were the notes from the meetings. This has been their modus operandi for 6 years, and we still haven't figured it out? We deserve what we get.

What McLoseBrain said.

Look at THIS (if you get to) don't look at (or think about) THAT.

Stage magicians and card cheats use the same method.

Cheney defended the privacy of these meeting through executive previlige and then claims he's not a member of the executive branch.

How can anybody take this guy seriously ?

A principled "conservative" is one that will do anything to succeed, which is just the opposite of what it means to people who value ethical systems as a guide to civil life. Dick Cheney and his fellow travelers are Machiavellians to the core and believe they should do whatever it takes to hold power and reach their goals. One can be an autocrat or a monarchist and reject Machiavelli, indeed his advice to princes has been denounced by conservatives from the Catholic Church to the neocon's own Leo Strauss. Cheney happens to be an authoritarian AND a practical follower of Machiavelli's secular view on power, how to maintain it and how to build a great state. One does not have to be an intimate of Mr. Cheney to understand his politics and what political tradition he belongs to. He is not in the tradition of Locke and Thomas Jefferson, or even Alexander Hamilton for that matter. He is more like an anti-George Washington. It is safe to say that Nixon and his juniors define a unique era in American history. It is one that must be undermined stem and branch if America is to have an accountable democracy of free men and women.

What utter nonsense about Richard Nixon and the post Watergate reforms. Cheney would be the same even if he never heard the word Watergate or knew Richard Nixon. His Congressional record is replete with instances where he supported dictatorships and reactionary regimes. He believes in one man rule and secrecy and that’s just a fact.

Gee Kevin, we knew Cheney meet with energy people - indeed no mystery there. But we don't know what they discuss - and we still don't know why they had maps dividing Iraqi oilfields up - and all prior to 9/11?

businesses and corporations don't get a vote even though they can be considered legal persons.

people vote. the government is for the people, by the people.

so what's up with the secret meetings with business and hiding this from the people?

these are also the people who resent the power of government....

Ever since he was Gerald Ford's chief of staff Cheney has believed that the post-Watergate Congress stripped far too much power from the presidency and that someone needed to restore it.

Someone please use Photoshop or some other device and superimpose Cheney's self-righteous head onto a pic of those ridiculously Lubitschean white "palace guard" uniforms worn briefly around the White House early in the Nixon regime.