I thought when a vice president became an EX vice president

He was out of power. Apparently not.

A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama's policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record. Some worried they would draw the ire of Cheney's circle if they did....

Wow. All that warrantless wiretapping of Congress still gives Cheney power. Blackmail is quite handy even after you've had to give up your own private hit squad.

....one of the things that's most annoying about the most recent instance of Politico's Mike Allen taking dictation from former Vice President Dick Cheney is that Cheney is in no way attempting to influence counterterror policy or make the nation more secure. That can't be done by following his advice, which is to use the word "war" more often.

Rather, what Cheney is clearly trying to do is influence the politics, so any reporter worth his salt should be able to simply listen to Cheney and accurately report that the former vice president has been reduced to demagoguery. It's really just stupid to pretend that there's some great policy debate unfolding between the current White House and the previous White House.

dem⋅a⋅gogue

  /ˈdɛməˌgɒg, -ˌgɔg/ [dem-uh-gog, -gawg]
–noun
1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object)
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object)
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.

So... old warmongers don't just fade away, they spew lies, bile and contempt from their secret secure super duper undisclosed locations.

Remember this article posted in June '09:

Cheney probably thought he wasn't being that obvious:
But I'm sure he has his 'I-told-you-so' speech already written and locked in one of his man-sized safes...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA director Leon Panetta says it's almost as if former vice president Dick Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States to prove he is right in criticizing President Barack Obama for abandoning the "harsh interrogation" of terrorism suspects.

"I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue," Panetta said in an interview published in The New Yorker magazine's June 22 issue.

"It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Poor torture-loving guy.... It must be so hard to have been president and then be reduced to snarling from the forests of Wyoming...

After all that blathering face time with the nation

Has Cheney finally gone to ground as the fingers begin to point to him?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The CIA withheld information about a secret counter-terrorism program from Congress for eight years on orders from former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, the New York Times said on Saturday.

Citing two unidentified sources, the newspaper said Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta disclosed Cheney's involvement in closed briefings to congressional intelligence committees late last month.

Panetta, who was named to head the agency earlier this year by President Barack Obama, ended the program, which remains secret, when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, the Times said.

Intelligence and congressional officials told the newspaper the agency began the program after the September 11 attacks and said it never became operational and did not involve CIA interrogation programs or domestic intelligence activities.

The newspaper said its efforts to reach Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

That's the excuse the CIA is going to stand by? Cheney made us do it? ...



... all righty then... works for me!

Is this more proof of the Shock Doctrine?

So... what disasters do they know are coming that they don't want us to prepare for?

Nicole Belle of Crooks and Liars:

There has been no shortage of books chronicling the dystopia that is the Bush Administration. And in this job, I’ve read quite a few of them. None of them have made as powerful an impact as Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. I promise you, it will change how you look at government policy and responses. It also finally sealed forever, for me at least, the coffin of the utter bollocks of Friedman economics. Listen to me carefully, you free market fanatics: FRIEDMAN. POLICIES. DO. NOT. WORK. PERIOD. His version of ‘free market economics’ STIFLES democracy. They create an oligarchy that is the opposite of democracy.

Don’t believe me? Author Naomi Klein gives compelling examples in history proving that “Disaster Capitalism” has been the foundation of government’s actions and how none of it has been done for the benefit of the populace.

So... does anyone want to conjecture why the Bush administration wants to do this?:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Homeland Security Department has given $23 billion to states and local communities to fight terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, but one document says the administration is not convinced that the money has been well spent and thinks the nation's highest-risk cities have largely satisfied their security needs.

The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half—$1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

The Homeland Security department and the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is in charge of the administration's spending plans, would not provide details about the funding cuts because nothing has been finalized. "It would be premature to speculate on any details that will or will not be a part of the next fiscal year budget," OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan said, because negotiations between the White House and the Cabinet departments over the budget are not finished.

"There's been staunch support of our department, and you'll see it again this February" when Bush's 2009 budget emerges, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke predicted.

The proposal to drastically cut Homeland Security grants is at odds with some of the administration's own policies. For example, the White House recently promised continued funding for state and regional intelligence "fusion centers"—information-sharing centers the administration deems critical to preventing another terrorist attack. Cutting the grants would limit money available for the centers.

The White House's plan to eliminate the port, transit and other grants, which are popular with state and local officials, would not go into effect until Sept. 30, 2008. Congress is unlikely to support the cuts and will ultimately decide the fate of the programs and the funding levels when it hashes out the department's 2009 budget next year. The White House routinely seeks to cut the budget requests of federal departments, but the cuts proposed for 2009 Homeland Security grants are far deeper than the norm. Congress has yet to approve the department's 2008 plan.

"This budget proposal is dead on arrival," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif. "This administration runs around the country scaring people and then when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they say 'sorry, the bank is closed.'"

Isn't this the second time at least Bush has screwed up a British undercover operation for temporary political gain?

The Independent: US interference 'allowed terror gang to escape':
"A team of suspected terrorists involved in an alleged UK plot to blow up trans-atlantic airliners escaped capture because of interference by the United States, The Independent has been told by counter-terrorism sources."

Crooks and Liars has more.