this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
288 points (99.0% liked)

politics

26257 readers
3090 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Foni@lemmy.zip 4 points 40 minutes ago

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

[–] Raptor_007@lemmy.world 14 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

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.world 7 points 1 hour 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 2 points 33 minutes ago

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

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes 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.

[–] Dialectical_Specialist@quokk.au 11 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 21 points 4 hours ago

Good fucking riddance.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago

Committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity and never spent a day behind bars.

[–] frankiehollywood@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 hours ago

Ding dong the witch is dead….

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

When Patrick Leahy accused the former Halliburton CEO of rigging gigantic no-bid contracts for the company in Iraq, Cheney responded, “Fuck yourself.” He later called the exchange “the best thing I ever did.”

[–] Jolly_Platypus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Rest in piss.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

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 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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."?

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

When you embrace him and his family and platform them on your campaign trail?

Yes.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Bleep Bloop, Trump Worse.

Shut Up Russian Bot

Bleep Bloop

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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 1 points 7 minutes 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.