P.S. I wasn't mocking you either.....it was a "just sayin."
i say respectfully, no one cares except partisans and historians
america is focused like laser on health care, which is dying on the operating table
cheney and george w what's-his-name don't signify
FWIW, I don't think Bush was a pawn; I think that, as every president, he realized that he couldn't possibly know and do everything, so he needed advisors and administrators, and ended up getting people like Mike "Heck of a job" Brown.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
the source for the plame leak was revealed to be richard armitage who told it to his friend bob novak (who has disappeared completely from public view, i pray he is well)
the plame/joe wilson story died determinately, decisively, when armitage was outed precisely because both he and novak are the exact opposites of neo cons
they are genghis cons, traditional isolationist conservatives
both outward and ardent opponents of w's war
the entire motivation underlying wilson was blown apart
novak was curious---who the heck is this guy who wrote the ny times op ed making all these grandiose claims concerning his proximity to the veep?
it was what it was
Honestly, I would think that this article has more than likely slanted every piece of evidence is has used for the claims it makes. Did Cheney feel that Bush moved away from him in the second term? I can see that possibility, as Cheney was not as visible in the second term, however I greatly doubt that he would bash Bush for such a strategy, as much of the country was beginning to criticize Cheney's seemingly powerful sway over the president. I was not a fan of many of Bush's policies, but I do not knock him for them. He and his side have their convictions and intentions for what they feel is best for the country, and Democrats have theirs. So, I would not call Bush a flunky or weak to Cheney. I would however, say that surely Bush trusted Cheney's opinions and had to keep Cheney more in the background during the second term to avoid more PR damage.
Cheney was much more swept up with the Neo-Con movement than anything, and I did not see Bush as having that great of a world outlook, he was always much more focused in regards to his domestic agenda. As it plays out now, I think Cheney will go down in history as the villain, which may explain why he is still in the D.C. area fighting mad about his reputation. Funny thing is, it is Cheney fighting Bush, or aides of each camp. I think as Cheney continues to ratchet up more former Bush aides are going to go on or off the record with even more tantalizing tales painting Cheney in a much more negative light. Last spring we had the faux headline that there was Cheney vs. Obama debate about national security. I say faux, because it was really Cheney vs. Bush post 2006.
i think this is just advance pr.......he wants to sell a book, but that book won't have anything ground breaking in it.
Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.
Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed?
I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.