The successor presidencies of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden decried the power grabs Cheney pursued but mostly pocketed his gains for their own purposes. (In his case for unrestricted bombing in the Caribbean and Pacific, Gaiser cited Obama’s own marginalization of Congress to bomb Libya in 2011.) Trump now walks a red carpet of lawlessness, plutocracy and bloodshed woven by Cheney. An uncharismatic Nixon functionary—someone who might never have risen to power had Texas Senator John Tower not drunk himself out of a Pentagon appointment that instead went to Cheney—decisively shaped the destruction of constitutional governance in twenty-first-century America.

Cheney understood the catastrophe of 9/11 as an opportunity to accomplish and cement long-standing objectives. In the early days after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cheney’s Pentagon commissioned a study on the future course of American power from Paul Wolfowitz, an adviser who would later enjoy great influence in the Bush administration. The draft document prioritized the active prevention of a peer competitor to US power from emerging. The objective of US grand strategy would be to preserve military, economic and geopolitical preeminence indefinitely. As he would when he became vice president, Cheney relied on a corps of neoconservative intellectuals he cultivated to supply the pertinent rationales. For Cheney, the virtues of dominance were self-evident. After 9/11, they drove him to favor invading not only Afghanistan, but the unconnected country of Iraq, whose regime was an outlier in the world America bestrode. A document contained in an energy task force Cheney convened before 9/11, and that he went to extraordinary lengths to keep secret, detailed “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.“

In the months after 9/11, these Cheneyite lawyers, wielding their boss’ influence, created in the shadows an architecture of repression. Addington wrote a draft directive permitting the National Security Agency, in defiance of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to establish a warrantless digital dragnet of phone and internet metadata generated by the communications of practically every American. Flanigan, aided by Yoo, wrote the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that made the world into a battlefield at the direction of the president. They further permitted, encouraged, and protected the CIA in launching a regimen of torture-as-geopolitical-revenge, masquerading as intelligence gathering, as well as a network of secret prisons to detain the agency’s alleged-terrorist captives indefinitely. They declared that battlefield captives could be held as “unlawful enemy combatants,” deserving none of the protections of the Geneva Convention, and corralled them, without charge, into the military base at Guantánamo Bay until an end of hostilities that might never arrive. With the exception of CIA torture and much of the wholesale domestic acquisition of Americans’ metadata, these authorities and practices, in one form or another, persist to this day.

Cheney did all of this because his deepest conviction was that the presidency was an elected monarchy. Misconstruing an argument of Alexander Hamilton’s from Federalist 70, Cheney pursued what became known as the Unitary Executive Theory. It was predicated on the idea of an unencumbered presidency empowered to control every aspect of the executive branch, regardless of any affected office or agency’s intended independence from political decisions. Cheney had understood the post-Watergate reforms from Nixon’s criminal presidency as a congressional usurpation, and he intended to roll them all back. Excluding Congress from wresting any transparency from his secret Energy Task Force was, to Cheney, part of the point. After 9/11, Yoo contended that during wartime – a circumstance conceivably permanent in a War on Terror – presidential authority is all but plenary. He likes his argument a lot less now that Trump uses it to murder fishermen in the Caribbean, but, like his Bush administration colleagues, takes no responsibility for authoring the authoritarian usurpations of power that he now bemoans.

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 minutes ago

    I was a kid when Cheney was vice president. The main thing I remember him for is shooting his friend in the face on a hunting trip.

  • Foni@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituaries with great personal satisfaction.

  • Raptor_007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 hours ago

    God, can you imagine how different everything would be if Gore had won? I wish there were some way to view alternate realities.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Very hard to say, given how cowed the Dems had become under Clinton.

      The way he rolled over for Bush after a blatantly stolen election did not predict a strong presidency

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Gore did win. It was subverted by the Brooks brothers riot and the votes got “lost”.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t think it would have been better necessarily. The country was yearning for liberal establishment during the 80’s and 90’s and early 2000’s, it was a time of rising prosperity and perceived US strength in the wake of the first Gulf War. He would have been out after one term because of Republican sabotage or they would have impeached him over 9/11, and then the next president, a Republican, would have leaned harder to the right, accelerating everything. We might have gotten Trump sooner. We have to understand the slingshot effect in this country. It’s very real and I’ve lived long enough to have seen it over and over.

      He didn’t have the charisma or political capital to make effective change and influence in political theater, and at the time the idea of climate change was still very fringe and the science hadn’t fully come in yet so there was a lot of room to push back on his agendas.

      I think the fact that I’ve seen two democrat candidates lose the election while getting more votes should tell us just how deeply they have all this planned out.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Out of morbid curiosity, I’d like to see the reality where Obama ran for president, but doing and saying exactly everything Trump did to see how far he would get. I think “Grab 'em by the pussy” would have been the end of it, but I’d also like to see the reality where he made it this far, had shut down the government and bulldozed the East wing of the White House just to see what Fox News would be saying.

  • ジン@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I haven’t approved of a headline so sincerely in a long time😆

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yep. As fun as it is to see this headline, the fact is that he was complicit in war crimes and in the torture and murder of countless thousands of people, and got to live to 84 years old in fabulous wealth and comfort not giving two fucks what we all thought of him. Unless there’s some sort of cosmic retribution waiting for him in the afterlife, he fully won.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      The fact you never see these stories about progressives is all the explanation you’ll ever need for why America is doomed.

  • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Yes. So anybody who chose to not vote for Harris due to her and her campaign actively embracing and attempting to rehabilitate Cheney is 100% validated now. Right?

    • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Is it rehabilitating Cheney just to basically say “look at how bad Trump is, even Dick Cheney thinks you should not vote for him and vote for us.”?

        • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          47 minutes ago

          If you mean embrace as in campaign with him, that never happened. If you mean tout his endorsement as a way of showing just how crazy trump was, yeah that happened.

          She did campaign with Liz Cheney which was dumb but it wasn’t as a “we agree on everything and have the same platform” it was all about how she disagreed on almost everything except how bad trump is. So they campaigned. It was dumb but to say they agreed is dumb when they literally talked about how they didn’t in the handful of campaign stops they did together.

          I also don’t know what you mean by embracing his platform? Regime change? Didn’t embrace. Cutting taxes for the rich? Didn’t embrace. Pro corporations and monopolies? Didn’t embrace.

          The only argument I could see is immigration and that’s a dumb campaign decision they made to say she would sign the bipartisan agreement made in the senate that Trump killed so he could campaign on the border. She also talked about pathways to citizenship which trump didn’t.

          It was insane to campaign with Liz but she didn’t embrace her platform at all.

      • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Why do people like you always insist that anything conflicting with your worldview must be foreign and/or artificial?

        Spoiler. The specific xenophobic call you’re playing telephone with is coming from inside the house and it’s coming from fuckers like Cheney.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Why do people like you always insist that anything conflicting with your worldview must be foreign and/or artificial?

          More intended to parody the Lib response. I’ve been on the receiving end of Khive-ers blaming my poor dumb ass for their favorite candidate’s humiliating defeat a week before polls were even closed.

          • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Lol, I literally could not tell it was meant as a parody because it is identical to many, dead serious, Lib responses ive gotten in the past.