Posted by Mark Silva at 7 am CST
One of the most peculiar artifices of the White House is the "senior administration official.''
This is the official who provides all sorts of background information and insight into the White House's thinking on policies and practices for reporters, but refuses to permit his or her name to be cited.
Such as this "senior administration official,'' who spoke with reporters about Vice President Dick Cheney's intentions with his visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan this week as the vice president was flying out of Kabul on a military transport jet, according to an official White House transcript released:
"Let me just make one editorial comment here. I've seen some press reporting says, 'Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.' That's not the way I work. I don't know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn't know what I'm doing, or isn't involved in it. But the idea that I'd go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.''
Afghan President Hamid Karzai welcomed Vice President Dick Cheney at the fortified compound of the presidential palace in Kabul this week, following Cheney's overnight stay at Bagram air base, where a suicide bomber's attack on the main gate killed a U.S. soldier and many more. Photo by Silva.
Cheney landing at Kabul, in the Spirit of Strom Thurmond. Silva
Now, having done my darnedest to avoid quoting senior administration officials in this manner, and having insisted many times that they take some of their comments "on the record,'' and even having had some limited success upon occasion, this remains a frustrating situation: Facing someone important with something meaningful to talk about, but insisting on anonymity as the condition for a conversation.
Coming out of Kabul this week, Cheney did offer some on-the-record comments about the bombing at the gate of the base where he had spent the night, but not much.
This is the view from the cockpit of Cheney's military transport, as it landed at Bagram air base. Photo by Caren Bohan of Reuters, using Silva's camera.
Instead, most of the handful of "pool" reporters who spent nine days following Cheney in a circle around the world, with stops in seven countries, had a sum total of 18 minutes in which to speak with the vice president directly. Cheney did offer two lengthier interviews for ABC News, both on the record, but the on-the-record comments offered for poolers were limited to quick encounters such as a walk through a mess hall breezeway of Bagram Air Base in which Cheney proclaimed: "Breakfast was excellent.''
Then there were his on-record comments about the bombing at the base gate, which he delivered in somber, careful words as he sat, wearing a black suit and dark cordovan cowboy boots, on the edge of the desk of the luxury Airstream lounge that had been loaded into the cargo bay of the C-17, the "Spirit of Strom Thurmond,'' which carried the vice president in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The vice president boards the transport after his meeting with Karzai in Kabul. Silva.
This is the Airstream that was parked in the bay of the C-17 which carried Cheney into war zones. Inside, its gray-leather seating and paneled walls provided a comfortable shelter within the loud bay of the transport jet. Cheney spent a moment in here speaking with reporters about the base bombing. Silva
Now, for whatever time reporters were able to spend with the vice president, there was additional time offered with senior administration officials -- including one who spent the better part of an hour before the trip explaining what the vice president's goals were, and one who spent some time with reporters on the military transport flying out of Kabul.
This is one of the comments of the senior administration official flying out of Kabul:
"The reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border -- a threat to Afghanistan, clearly, in our efforts there, the Taliban, cross-border operations; a threat to Musharraf and his government. There were something like seven or eight suicide bombings in the last week or two in Pakistan. And obviously also, the threat to the homeland from the standpoint of operations and activities of al Qaeda in this part of the world -- for example, you go back to the airliner plot last fall, second generation Pakistani militants living in the U.K., but with ties back in al Qaeda areas along the Pakistan-Afghan border. So we've all got an interest, obviously, in trying to address those issues.''
The vice president got a first-hand look at the severity of the security situation in Afghanistan, when he heard the "loud boom'' of a suicide bomber at the gate of the air base where he had spent the night.
He was rushed to a bomb shelter at the base for a "brief moment,'' then returned to his room before flying out of the base a little less than two hours after the attack and then heading to Kabul.
This is one of the many bomb shelters arrayed among the barracks at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. We don't know if Cheney spent a "brief moment'' in one of these or another bunker. Silva.
The insights one gains from trips such as this have as much to do with environs observed and people met along the way as interviews with senior administration officials. The members of the Army who hosted traveling -- or was it stranded -- pool reporters for the night in the "B-Huts'' of Koele Barracks at Bagram were among the finest hosts one might find anywhere in the world. Welcoming us to the plywood hut in a row of rain-filled pathways that served as our home for the night, one officer allowed, this is quite a place.
"It's like summer camp,'' he said, "except you have to stay here a year.''
These are some of the B-Huts at Bagram where we spent the night. Silva.
The path to the latrine can get a little slippery. Silva.
But, for the most part, reporters following the vice president tend to rely on those senior administration officials for high-level commentary about the meaning of all this. And, try as we might to take them on the record, these senior folks like to remain in the background.
Air Force Two, the standard military setup of the Boeing 757 that Cheney normally flies, returned to Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington this morning at 3:58 am Eastern time, having left a week ago Monday at 8:33 am ET. The aircraft logged 22,827 nautical miles en route around the world -- and this isn't counting the miles logged by the Spirit of Strom Thurmond in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
We were in the air with Cheney for a sum total of about 65 hours. We spent nine days with him, saw seven countries with him and got about three minutes on the record with the vice president.
But, then, there was this senior administration official, who said:
"I would describe my sessions both in Pakistan and Afghanistan as very productive. We've had notable successes in both places. I've often said before and I believe it's still true that we've captured and killed more al Qaeda in Pakistan than anyplace else. And I think we're making progress in Afghanistan.''
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Republicans are the type that brag about things that they claim they have done. It appears to me that Chaney's silence is clear evidence that the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is going far worst than he would like it to be. If things were going well Cheny himself would be talking to the reporters. It is common knowledge that Cheney is no longer as influencial as he was and it seems that this trip around the world looking for a key to end the disaster is nothing more than a frolic of his own,
Posted by: Stanton Braverman | February 28, 2007 8:12 AM
Unfortunately, this situation will remain thru this horific final term of the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse. I would like to think that "freedom of the press" will return with the next Presidential election. However, I worry that plays from the Rove/Cheney playbook will rear their ugly head in future Administrations especially if the leader of that Administration is ill prepared to lead.
Posted by: Sean Fullan | February 28, 2007 8:23 AM
Mark Silva spends a good part of nine days cheek-to-jowl with our country's soldiers, yet can't be bothered to interview them. That says a lot about the priorities of journalists.
Posted by: bruce | February 28, 2007 8:27 AM
What a sham! If all the major media reached an agreement not to quote 'senior administration officials' unless their names could be used, I'll bet we'd find out who's telling us what. The White House has shamelessly used the media to put out its propaganda, hiding behind anonymity as if it's all some kind of hush-hush revelation when, in fact, it's a de facto press conference in which the briefer isn't identified. It would be different if the source(s) added something of genuine interest or newsworthiness, but this was just official commentary and there's no reason not to identify the sources. As long as the media go along with this silly White House game, they'll continue to play shills for whatever Bush & Cheney want us to believe, and not what we need to know.
Posted by: windrider | February 28, 2007 8:32 AM
This is a very interesting piece because of it's persistence in questioning this concept of 'answer by commitee' and this concept of 'only on the condition of anonymity'. This is obviously a much broader problem than just this one media trip and it applies almost universally in Washington politics. I believe it is a slap in the face to anyone who legitimately attempts to seek the truth about what is going on in our world today.
I would, however, make one suggestion to the author: publish the names of all "senior administration officials" who will be making these autonymous comments, before such a trip is made. At least then, the people will have some idea who is making these, sometimes very bold, statements and whether or not they are being completely propagandized or their is some truth to what they are saying.
Posted by: Richard Bourgault | February 28, 2007 8:32 AM
The official information about Cheney is that the attempt to kill him was done in Afghanistan, but other information is coming from Australia, The AdelaideNow that reports that Mr Cheney was under arrest in a military base,why your reporter never said that,later in the night, The Adelaide newspaper showed pictures between Cheney and First Minister of Australia,what is going up? Other newspaer from England, Sun Times of London is talking about military revolt against Cheney because he wants war with Iran, my concrete question is Cheney was under arrest or not in Aussie? if so, in what matter, many info is coming from Chicago,the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the Plame Affair, please inform with more detail
Posted by: Domingo Avagliano | February 28, 2007 8:35 AM
Stanton Braverman really doesn't know what he is talking about he just felt the Democratic need to shoot off his mouth about something he has heard and read before called SPIN!
Posted by: Travis Hughs | February 28, 2007 8:38 AM
The problem is the Al Qaida are in Pakistan where the US isn't killing them. How many billions of dollars in aid have gone to that country since 9/11 to help fight this war on terror & what has it accomplished?
This administration wants us to believe we're winnig the war on terror while having two wars in two countries that have few, if any, terrorists.
There was no Al Qaida link in Iraq when the US went in, there's still strong remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan & most of Al Qaida are sipping tea in open cafes in Pakistan.
Out of these three countries, where do you think the man responsible, Osama Bin Laden, for 9/11 is?
Posted by: RomanB | February 28, 2007 8:53 AM
The only way to make REAL progress in a place like Afghanistan is to re-build the infrastructure, feed the hungry, and provide an incentive for the Afghans to actually want security and peace. Without the incentive of the country actually prospering, there will never be peace in Afghanistan. The Great Game goes on, as it is a place that the Imperial/Colonial powers choose to use rather than substantially improve. There is a threat from the Taliban, and alQaeda, but the real threat is our complete disregard for the hearts and minds of the people who really wanted us to succeed in the venture we initially embarked upon subsequent to 9/11.
Posted by: Thomas Cole | February 28, 2007 8:57 AM
Terrorists want to make use of any situation giving mass publicity of their strength, analysis, planning, execution and achievement. A style of alert and prep. before landing of any vvip spark enough indication enabling terrorists to be in the line of action. They flew an arrow in the dark probably knowing that they are much away from the target, but still for want of some gain. I don’t think we are supporting Afghanistan or Hamid Karzai, we are all for the truth, peace, prosperity and a terrorists free world. A most Nobel cause. What ever may happen, no back looking. More strong and collective action is needed against terrorists. They need to be combed and success is never a question mark. For such a cause success is always plus 100%.
Posted by: Prem | February 28, 2007 8:59 AM
Is this the same Mark Silva that I went to American University with in 1992(my maiden name is Levin)? If so email me back.
Posted by: Amy Seemuller | February 28, 2007 9:07 AM
Thanks for illustrating the current difficulties and challenges the press has in reporting the "truth" of what is happening in the world with our elected government. As a citizen and voter it is painfully difficult to have confidence that we know what is really going on in this world of spin, "senior administration official", strategic leaks and strategic de-classifications. George Orwell must be rolling over in his grave. The need for a vibrant and independent fourth estate has never been stronger.
Posted by: Terry Gardiner | February 28, 2007 9:12 AM
Despite being incorrect about everything else Cheney can definitely
talk up the connection between AQ and the bomb that went off during his visit the next time he has dinner with Rush. He should have just stayed home; he was responsible for the death of another American soldier.
At least he now is aware, despite having no time during the Vietnam War, what it's like to be in combat. Welcome to the real war Vice-President Cheney.
Beltway Greg.
Posted by: Beltway Greg | February 28, 2007 9:17 AM
Mark Silva spends a good part of nine days cheek-to-jowl with our country's soldiers, yet can't be bothered to interview them. That says a lot about the priorities of journalists.
Posted by: bruce | Feb 28, 2007 8:27:16 AM
Bruce:
Thank you for today's inane, off-topic, silly media criticism post. Do you have a macro for these, or do you write new stuff every time?
Here's a solution. Go ahead and volunteer for service, and then post about how great things are in Iraq or Afghanistan. That way we can all learn about all the wonderful things that Silva has been hiding from brave heroes like you and your buddy-in-cowardice, John (bad back) D.
Posted by: a blinkin | February 28, 2007 9:29 AM
"Mark Silva spends a good part of nine days cheek-to-jowl with our country's soldiers, yet can't be bothered to interview them"
Up until those soldiers are responsible for policy and planning and the political direction of this country, it's probably smarter to interview the people who ARE responsible.
Posted by: GregH | February 28, 2007 9:32 AM
Agonizingly uninformative. I like the narrative but is there a point to any of it other than they aren't being told anything? Doing anything?
Aren't they just flying Cheney around the world while the Libby jury deliberates so they can keep him out of the country?
It would be nice if he tried to do some REAL reporting rather than just repeat the crap being told. Silva does lift the curtain a little which is useful, I suppose.
Still, if you read Sy Hersh in the NYorker, there's some serious stuff going on. Did anyone try and get Cheney or this spokesman to comment on that? We're funding Sunni Al Quada terrorists as a counterweight to Hizbolla?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
Posted by: tomo | February 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Old Slippery Dick Cheney has been visiting heads of state around the Globe to rally support for his military objectives which will help some of his favorite big businesses. Old Dick is not happy with Pakistan. Old Dick may cut off Pakistan's allowance.
Posted by: Jack | February 28, 2007 9:43 AM
Imagine a husband who wants a resource from his wife and all he does is beat on her. Yet she doesn't budge. He, then, gets body protection, sticks and more materials to be more effective. Instead she resists to the death. Clearly, the husband has to change his "by force" policy for that of negotiation. Such a policy will bear more fruit. Cheney's trip is a continuation of the no longer viable "by force" solution. The wife may be dying but not her ideas. In Iraq and elsewhere, USA could make successful peaceful negotiations. Let's negociate.
Posted by: Roy Jimenez | February 28, 2007 9:45 AM
To Bruce:
"Mark Silva spends a good part of nine days cheek-to-jowl with our country's soldiers, yet can't be bothered to interview them"
First of, how do you know he didn't interview them? Were you with him the whole time? Perhaps he did interview them but they had nothing newsworthy to say. Mr. Silva's job, after all, is to report the news. And his specific task in this instance is to cover the Shadow President, Mr. Cheney.
Second, suppose he had gotten something newsworthy from the soldiers in Afghanistan and it was (Horrors!) ever so slightly critical of Bush/Cheney admininstration policy? I suspect you would then accuse Mr Silva of slanting the news to grind his left-wing antiwar axe.
By your reasoning Bruce, if a theater critic went to Fords theater on April 14, 1865 and reported the assassination of Abraham Lincoln you would fault him for not writing about the quality of the play being presented that night.
Posted by: steve w | February 28, 2007 9:52 AM
"One of the most peculiar artifices of the White House is the 'senior administration official.'"
I hope that the Tribune covers this artifice in greater depth, preferably in the print edition of the paper. Hopefully, the coverage would focus on the media's willingness (and at times eagerness) to provide such anonymity to government sources, on the unwillingness of journalists to burn sources if it is proven that the original source was dishonest. The Scooter Libby trial is an amazing illustration of the cozy, clubby relationships developed between journalists like Judith Miller and government sources like Scooter Libby looking to peddle a tale and spin a story.
The New York Times' public editor recently took his own reporter to task for his use of anonymous sources. See here for details:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/27/blogs_media/index.html
Posted by: Jeffrey Sterbenc | February 28, 2007 10:12 AM
Great pictures.
Posted by: Roger B. | February 28, 2007 10:15 AM
Seriously, you don't expect the news media to be any better than those about whom they are reporting if they go along with this idea of accepting anonymity. That isn't free press nor is it reporting. It is going along with the BIG LIE and who needs that. It certainly makes me now wonder if I want to read anything further from MArk Silva or any of the White House Press Corps. Maybe we should all look for independent reporters who actually report the news and what the hell is really going on in Washington and with the Administration.
Jim
Posted by: Jim | February 28, 2007 10:18 AM
This article and associated comments are rich, a whiny reporter just hanging for days to snatch a sound bite quote and run whichever wild way he can with it. The media is a mob of Chicken Little spreading hysteria. Is it any wonder politicians don't want to say anything, given the way every story is spun into a screaming headline. Silva has no idea what a slug he is, just waiting to print whatever few sentences he is fed into a 10 paragraph "article".
Yeah, we have the right to a free press. And sadly they are all equivalent to the National Enquirer. Why would I believe anything these papers print anymore. Mostly they just print whatever content they are handed with no attempt to verify.
Add to this the common reactionary Bush hatred by many of the posters. There sure are a lot of people who know how wrong everything is going. It's a lot easier to denigrate others than to do any good yourself. They and their ilk will be the most responsible when one of the US cities soon goes up in smoke.
Posted by: Lance Boyle | February 28, 2007 10:25 AM
Isn't it interesting that, even though Cheney's stopover in Afghanistan was supposed to be secret, that the local chapter of al-Qaeda knew about it and had a suicide bomber at the base's front gate within a few hours after his arrival? They must have a better intelligence network than this administration gives them credit for, and a ready supply of young men to be suicide bombers available at a moment's notice.
Posted by: BC | February 28, 2007 10:28 AM
When the suicide bombing attack happened, 'Dead-Eye Dick' Cheney (The coward who got 5 deferments to avoid going to Vietnam) probably crawled under the nearest table, quivering with fright, and had to be pulled out from under it to 'eat breakfast' with the troops.
After being mostly responsible for the needless deaths of nearly 3200 young men and women, I'm suprised the gutless coward can even look a true group of our nations best in the eye.
Posted by: Bill G | February 28, 2007 10:32 AM
They and their ilk will be the most responsible when one of the US cities soon goes up in smoke.
Posted by: Lance Boyle | Feb 28, 2007 10:25:22 AM
Lance, aren't George and Dick keeping us safe? I thought that we were fighting them there so they couldn't fight us here?
Posted by: tony | February 28, 2007 10:44 AM
An interesting little feature piece, the kind for which a blog like this is ideal.
If news outlets were truly interested in getting more than bland quotes from "senior administration officials", then they would do that for which a blog is decidedly not suited. They would do serious investigative reporting.
The Tribune Company is not in the least interested in such reporting. The kind of trips Silva made here are much more cost-effective for them. As they've demonstrated with all of their cuts in recent years, the Tribune feels that investigative journalism is simply too expensive. And it is expensive -- it eats up enormous amounts of time and resources.
When you're in the business for profit rather than to provide public information, then this is the result. It's cute. It just isn't especially newsworthy.
Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet | February 28, 2007 11:12 AM
CHENEY was the anonymous "senior white house official".
Mark Silva is a jewel! It is indeed a delight to read the usual caveat that a statement had to be attributed to the anonymous "senior white house official" and then see that Silva presented the statement as a direct quote in the first person, permitting the reader to easily deduce that the speaker was Cheney himself. Perhaps more reporters will do the same, when anonymity is required for no good reason.
Posted by: dfix | February 28, 2007 12:01 PM
CHENEY was the anonymous "senior white house official".
Mark Silva is a jewel! It is indeed a delight to read the usual caveat that a statement had to be attributed to the anonymous "senior white house official" and then see that Silva presented the statement as a direct quote in the first person, permitting the reader to easily deduce that the speaker was Cheney himself. Perhaps more reporters will do the same, when anonymity is required for no good reason.
Posted by: dfix | February 28, 2007 12:07 PM
OMG did ya'll take note that His Highness Royal
Majesty & High War Priest Of The George W Bush
Administration,Draft Dodger Delusional Dick Cheney
even thinks he has to travel complete with a big
old portable palace,custom Airstream trailer?
So why didn't the reporters ask about what kind
of silk sheets His Majesty Lord Of War Cheney
sleeps on and such other related trivia,for us?
OMG the next thing His Majesty Cheney will be
insisting on being accompanied by the US Marine
Corp Band and at least a full US Army Armored
Division for his Royal Hindarse Protection no less!
Oh well must been another slow news day at the
old Chicago Tribune that they had to waste so
much real newspace on such trivia non story stuff!
So how about the Tribune investigate all the
real good reasons to Impeach both War Criminals
George W Bush and Delusional Dick Cheney that
is if the Chicago Tribune is even capable of
such high talent reporting these days! I bet this
one never gets printed in The Swamp either!
Posted by: Ralph | February 28, 2007 12:23 PM
I, as a citizen of the USA, am truly concerned about the "freedom of the press" that a truly open society should have. In the beginning of the situatuion with Iraq, where was the press? Why weren't "tough questions" asked by the White House press corps? War is a very serious undertaking for any country. Reporters are a very important part of our society. Reporting is suppose to be objective, not to "back up" or be part of the most serious "disinformation" by any administration that is to lead its citizens in a free world. Has it come to where a "reporter" must start destroying their notes--Look at the "leak" of a CIA operatives name. Was the press used to manipulate public opinion to back-up a decision to go to war? How are the lives of any operative who has been trained and knows what should be reported with truth? What about the danger that others must endure who helped find out the "truth". I am aghast at what is happening in our society.
Posted by: Amelia Daunis | February 28, 2007 12:28 PM
Hey Mark,
I hope you packed "all" of your stuff.
Veep Dick Vader is trying to avoid the Scooter trail fallout at all costs.
Next stop....Negotiations with....Hawaii??
Posted by: John E. | February 28, 2007 12:29 PM
Dear Bruce and other friends,
On this question of interviewing soldiers. I did.
I didn't mention in any of my reporting the sailor who caught my attention during a rally aboard the USS Kitty Hawk at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan and said, "Hey, will you please get the real story out. The story is the Navy treats us like convicts."
I also didn't mention the driver of the van who picked us up at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan as we landed with the vice president who said to a fellow soldier in the van, "So, you think this is the year we catch bin Laden?''
Nor have I written about the son of a good friend of mine who is a tremendously successful captain in the Marines, has served tours of Iraq, and has written home and to friends with heart-rending passion for his belief in the mission he is fulfilling in the military.
The truth is, no drive-by encounter with a military base like the ones I have made in the past week -- Yokosuka, Guam, Bagram -- offers any real insight to the psyche of the U.S. soldier today. Words of disgruntlement from a sailor do not bad military morale make. Words of cynicism from a driver do not mean the forces have lost faith. Words of pride from a Marine do not mean everyone's on board the mission.
It takes some serious reporting in the field to assess the mindset of the military. We have people who devote full time, and hazardous time at that, to the pursuit of war reporting. They are to be honored for their work.
I will not pretend, as a reporter covering the trip of a vice president through a war zone and spending all of one night in a barracks to report what U.S. forces think about the mission underway in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
I will tell you this: Having had a firsthand look at the barracks of Bagram, I do have a better understanding of the resentment that many felt when Don Rumsfeld said we go to war with the army we've got. The members of the Army and Air Force deployed to that base deserve better.
-- Mark Silva
Posted by: Mark Silva | February 28, 2007 12:37 PM
Finally! I read through all these inane comments laughing at the fact that nobody caught on to what was glaringly obvious, that Dick Cheney was the "senior official," until dfix proved that at least one reader actually understands English. This is pathetic. But it just proves what I have always believed, that readers who are always so quick to offer strong opinions about journalists and politicians are too thick to have an opinion worth considering. The rest of you need to read the piece again and then go look up the meaning of “I.”
Posted by: Glenn Danforth | February 28, 2007 12:45 PM
Bruce got a response to his statement(i.e. comment that has nothing to do with the subject matter, purely designed to change the subject or lessen the blow of ANYTHING negative being said about his idols). Let's see what he uses to change the subject next. I'm sure he will notice a mis-spelling, and then note that the writer does not trip all over himself to apologize for it. Shooting the messenger is the most obvious of all neo-con tactics.
Posted by: John | February 28, 2007 12:52 PM
As my hero "Fox Mulder" once said.
"The Truth Is Out There"
.....and the "patriot" who knows the "truth" got 5 deferments during Nam.
Anyone who had Scully as a sidekick is my hero.
Posted by: John E. | February 28, 2007 1:13 PM
Domingo can be added to the Loony Left crowd. Cheney under arrest in Australia? Wow, you Loony folk really have gone off the deep end, haven't you?
Posted by: John D | February 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Remember long ago, when Bush's Dick Cheney announced that the Office of Mis-Information (OMI)would close because of universal disapproval? That in itself was classic mis-information. The anonymous senior White House official works for the OMI and may, of course, be Dick himself.
The only remedy for the loose canons in the VP office is for Congress to reduce funding for the VP's office, to desk, chair and maybe telephone, plus a key to the un-disclosed security bunker.
Posted by: Randal | February 28, 2007 1:23 PM
Great pictures, great pool reporting, great trip! Bravo, Mark.
Posted by: Jules | February 28, 2007 1:54 PM
Re: Bruce,
The VP is arguably a more imporant source of info about the war than a single troop.
More importantly, even if a troop was questioned, they are under strict orders not to discuss much anyway. For example, vets at Walter Reed have been silenced about conditions there.
Posted by: Cory | February 28, 2007 2:27 PM
Cheney is a bloated egomaniac; the Administrations' "Jabba the Veep" to Bush's "C1PO". Based on performance, why this individual continues to command any respect is beyond me. Strangely, despite the comments of the "Rubber Stamp" Party and their flag-waving, the latest stories about poor quality of care at the V.A. is the tip of the iceberg, with HUGE future costs expected to cover the wounded coming home. In wars past, the ratio of wounded to survivors was far different, and providing for the Iraq vets will become a major expense not accounted for, nor provided for in the budget. If you want to honor those serving, provide for their care once they come home wounded, and their families.
Posted by: pb | February 28, 2007 2:33 PM
This is why it's less fruitful to interview troops:
Army troops told to keep mum about conditions in Walter Reed
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/
Posted by: Cory | February 28, 2007 3:29 PM
WOW! First we had the Corrupt Imperial Republican
Presidency of Richard Milhous Nixon and Vice
President Spiro Agnew,and so now we even have
the Imperial Vice Presidency of Draft Dodger
Dick Cheney! So does Cheney's Luxury RV have his
Vice Presidential Seal plastered all over it?
And so, how much jet fuel cost us taxpayers to
haul that "Cheney Republican White Elephant In
The C-17" as well? Oh Lord how this once great
country has gone down hill so fast in the past
six years of the George W Bsuh & Dick Cheney
Administration Of Egomanics and Warmongering
Pathological Liars,when you also even have a
Looney Toons President who has The Presidential
Seal on his idiot mountain bike,so when and where
will all this ego trip excesses and abuses of
and waste of taxpayer funds cease now then?
This country needs to Impeach both President
George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and
even Impeach that phony Republican in Democrat
clothing Speaker Nancy Pelosi before Pelosi decides her luxury USAF 757 is not plush enough
for her needs and wants the Space Shuttle to do
her non-stop trips to San Francisco from
Washington DC!
Posted by: Sandy | February 28, 2007 4:59 PM
I am sickened, revolted and angrier then ever at Bush and his administration after viewing the special on TV last night hosted by Bob Woodward showing the severely wounded and brain damaged wounded soldiers. The devastating injuries that Bush has caused innocent soldiers by sending them to fight a needless war in Iraq is beyond comprehension. More unforgiveable is the sub-standard care the injured soldiers are receiving after returning home, sometimes almost dead, especially those living in rural areas. Bush contends that he is doing the best he can to support our troops. He goes on and on about our soldiers being entitled to the best care during and after the time they have been put in harms way. Meanwhile, Woodwards graphically moving documentary showed anything but great care for our traumitized and wounded heroes. It showed severe deficiencies in medical attention and state of the art care for many. More shame on our brainless President for only caring about unnecessarily sacrificing more troops to "stay the course" in a war we cannot win. Bush stinks as a President. He is not intelligent enough to lead even a boy scout troop. He is the same spoiled brat who has never been a success at anything. He still keeps insisting that we stay in Iraq for his personal reasons that almost no one agrees with. He is addicted to proving something thru this war and like any addict he will not stop until he is cut off. I wish he had to go there himself and fight door to door. Then we would see the real Bush as he ran away as fast as he could to the divine protection he has always enjoyed. Meanwhile, Democrat chickens, cut off his funding immediately. Give him enough to get the troops home. PERIOD. We can deal with the rest later. Us being there will not stop the enemies from coming here. Any leader anywhere out there got any guts? Show us and you will be the next President.
Posted by: David S. | February 28, 2007 5:37 PM
Silva, don't you get sick of being punk'd by these Bush Crime Family members? "I'll only talk about myself in the first person if you don't ID me as the VP." It's rubbing your nose in it, mate! What if he had said "I'll only speak to you if can spit in your face with every other sentence."
I appreciated the pix more than anything else. Nice, but sad, to see what U.S. troops are enduring.
As for the Australia rumours, what a load! On another forum, there was canard about a gunfight at the Sydney airport in which three people were killed. Who makes this crap up? Australia has a freer press than the U.S. and if it happened, it would be all over the world.
Posted by: Bukko in Australia | February 28, 2007 5:49 PM
It might seem ridiculous that Cheney refuses to be quoted as himself, but I'm at least impressed that he recognizes that no one believes a word he says nowadays. And it worked -- most papers that quote him will be obliged to print it under "senior administration official", which makes him harder to criticize.
Too bad Cheney couldn't have used some of those brain cells over the last six or seven years. His vice presidency has been an unmitigated disaster.
Posted by: Dave | February 28, 2007 6:58 PM
No wonder the country's so screwed up. The press does the bidding of the power elite. You and every other reporter who shills for the VP and the rest of the criminals in the administration ought to be fired. Or better yet, sent to Iraq for a 12 month hitch in the Bush surge.
Posted by: reality-based educator | February 28, 2007 7:17 PM
Here is how I see Dick Cheney and George Bush and their team. Once upon a time, we expected them to be professionals charged with dealing with the well-being of America, and by extension, the well-being of the whole mankind-sustaining planet. But, hey, Dick Cheney is a quack, George Bush is a quack, and these two have surrounded themselves with like-minded quacks. The treatments they have administered and the actions they have taken inflict more and more harm, and the societies under their so called 'care' just keep getting sicker rather than healthier, whether those societies are American, American military, Iraqi, or Afghani.
If terrorism is the 'cancer' in the world, this quack ideology has actually caused it to spread and grow rapidly, damaging other systems as it spreads.
If you were a quack pretending to be an doctor and your patient was showing signs of collapse, what would you do? Why, you'd probably speak through unnamed sources as much as possible, and do all in your power to keep the unpleasant facts from the public. But, if you had to make public statements as a 'pretend doctor', you'd hang on to your control of the news, all the while taunting that, anyway, other doctors don't have a 'plan' for your damaged patient.
Posted by: Donna | February 28, 2007 8:52 PM
Related to rumores, I said rumors, about Australia and possible unrest in the army, see the opinion of the Sun Times of London
"SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq.
However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned"
Is not the left or right, or Democratic or Republican point of view, is the possibility of war,another one that will be done on taxpayer money.Also Iran supplies oil to China,we want more problems with China or Russia? We need leading role not using army but using negotiations
Posted by: Domingo Avagliano | February 28, 2007 9:12 PM
Mark,
Thanks. Great pictures as they, too, tell the story. Because of my reading of Dan Frooklin in the Washington Post, I have you as one of my Favorites. You might want to catch a good autobiographical article on the Vice President in Rolling Stone that gave me a better understanding of Mr. Cheney's thinking.
Rolling Stone - The Curse of Dick Cheney
gary
Posted by: gary cleveland | March 1, 2007 5:19 AM
reality based,
you're anything but!
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | March 1, 2007 6:57 AM
Sooooo funny its stupid! Senior admininistration official..what a joke. Senior jerk more like.
Posted by: mikel | March 1, 2007 7:20 AM
Why is America continuing to put up with this criminal administration that has suborned our country's values and made us hated around the world? Why do we think we have to stand two more years of constant war, torture, spying, rape and pillaging of innocent countries who have done nothing to us so that our so-called leaders can control the planet's oil? This is not what America is about. Every one of us came here because we didn't like the way things were in other countries, and now all the injustices our ancestors fled from are happening here. Our Congress appears to be helpless to confront this out-of-control president and his cabal. Our people complain and grumble angrily, but nothing is done. Must we take to the streets to overthrow this dictator who is leading us and the world into Armageddon!? Or could we please just impeach Bush/Cheney, frog-march them out of the White House and put them in jail where they belong! Time to act, America.
Posted by: Susan McCabe | March 1, 2007 2:34 PM
Why is America continuing to put up with this criminal administration that has suborned our country's values and made us hated around the world? Why do we think we have to stand two more years of constant war, torture, spying, rape and pillaging of innocent countries who have done nothing to us so that our so-called leaders can control the planet's oil? This is not what America is about. Every one of us came here because we didn't like the way things were in other countries, and now all the injustices our ancestors fled from are happening here. Our Congress appears to be helpless to confront this out-of-control president and his cabal. Our people complain and grumble angrily, but nothing is done. Must we take to the streets to overthrow this dictator who is leading us and the world into Armageddon!? Or could we please just impeach Bush/Cheney, frog-march them out of the White House and put them in jail where they belong! Time to act, America.
Posted by: Susan McCabe | Mar 1, 2007 2:34:56 PM
Hey! A new blogger Susan, wellcome to the club Sue. After reading your long winded post I've come to the conclusion your in need of medical attention, or a prolonged stay in France. I for one enjoy the oil Mr. Bush got for me, in fact i have it piped into my refinery in the backyard. I haven't bought gas in over three years. I also feel horrible that France, and Spain, and Germany don't like us anymore. I'll never buy another bottle of wine from those ungrateful countries. They're probably mad because they have to take care of those 65,000 soldiers who are buried there. Anyway, see you at the impeachment hearings, oh do you want to pick up Cindy Sheehan or should I ?
Posted by: Don B | March 1, 2007 7:26 PM
Don B: Add Australia to the list of countries whose wine you won't be buying. Aussies look at America as you would a formerly favourite uncle who turned out to be a kiddie fiddler. Oz has troops in Iraq over the objection of the masses -- how very American!
And skip Italian Barolos and Super-Tuscans. They've got the sense to get out of a lost cause.
Don't be buying anything from the Napa or Sonoma Valleys in California, either. All these places are populated by people who are revolted by the Bush Crime Family. They're burying more local soldiers there every week.
I'd say any place with enough culture and international outlook to be a decent wine region also has enough sense to oppose U.S. policy. So you'd best stick with Mogen David 20:20 -- do they still call it "Mad Dog"? Seems about right for ya, mate!
Posted by: Bukko in Australia | March 2, 2007 1:11 AM