Hersh believes that Cheney still has key people in multiple agencies -- especially military and intelligence of course -- who keep him informed at a detailed level. He calls this a "stay behind", an intelligence term for moles left in-country, to conduct sabotage or other operations in the interests of an expelled force.

He suggests that the extent of this network is such that Cheney has some lingering ability to interfere with the new administration, to influence the execution of policies, and to intimidate his potential critics still in government.

He notes that Cheney is easy to caricature and underestimate, but is very smart and a formidable manipulator, "the real deal" as he put it at one point. I got the feeling that Hersh was choosing his words carefully on one level to be reasonably clear and to quite frankly alarm people, without getting too inflammatory (as he has sometimes done and later regretted). I also noticed that he did toss in the word 'sabotage.'

[The Cheney discussion is scattered through the interview, but the key stuff comes near the end; I gather from comments below it's around the 35 min mark, with some other juicy stuff near 21 or 22 minutes.]

[THIRD UPDATE: I am told that Hersh was on Countdown tonight, addressed this topic, and made it sound less sinister than he had on Fresh Air. For my take on what it all means see my Second Update at the end of this diary. I also wrote in a separate comment below (slightly edited):

It is very serious business, now matter how it is described. Of course Cheney has no 'voice' in high level policy, but he still has power to obstruct, intimidate, and ... well, we don't exactly know where it stops. As with the struggle over the US stance toward Iran, extensively discussed above, calling Cheney out for this is surely in part an effort by some to limit his influence. At a time like this -- when everyone recognizes that the next few years may be a window like the 1930s, during which the US is reshaped in ways that will last for many decades -- an intense power struggle amongst DC power players, and other 'stakeholders' in how the US government goes about it's business, is inevitable. Cheney is, so far as I can tell, still playing a central role in this contest. Amongst other things, we should recognize the existence of this beneath-the-surface conflict, as we assess, comment on, pressure, etc., the Obama administration.

]

This is exactly what I would have expected out of Cheney, but it's still frightening and upsetting to hear it laid out by someone in a position to know.

So, what do y'all think that we -- and the Obama administration -- are really facing here? An infuriating rearguard action mostly about protecting the folks from the last administration, or something potentially quite a bit more serious than that?

Watching what Cheney and his pals have done, I have wondered before in these pages about something.

-- so there's the shit that we know about: rendition, torture, cooked intelligence, mindboggling corruption and cronyism in conducting an occupation, outsourcing military functions to mercenaries, secret prisons in far-flung locations (some on board ships in international waters), assassination teams, and so on.

What about the shit we don't know?

What's up with that, anyway? What did they do with all those billions and all that power, around the world, for eight years, that still hasn't seen the light of day? How many mines did they sow under Obama's feet?

[OMG, first time on the rec list. Wish it were a happier topic. Ummm, thanks Dick. Now stop being such a dick, K?]

=======================================

First Update:

Cheney is also under discussion at TPMCafe in a post by Carol Gee:

Cheney could not stand the thought that Obama might have success as a peacemaker. So he tried to poison the new President's chances [to] deal effectively with Israel.... Not content to write a book, join a think tank, or hold forth from his home in Virginia, Cheney has been making the rounds of the cable news shows trying to sabotage President Obama's success as President. And some have suggested that the public activity could be due to his increased concern about recent revelations of what he did as Vice President, i.e., "the best defense is a good offense.".... Important details of the history of covert operations since the Reagan administration are in another in the very useful series [on firedoglake] by emptywheel (3/23/09), "Cheney's Assassination Squads and Iran-Contra Findings."

Second Update

I gotta run, but wanted to mention that on one level - as some have commented - this is a no-brainer. Of course someone as much of a connected player and policy shark as Cheney would still have ties and influence.

And it is suggested that Carter and Clinton both faced undermining efforts from within the bureaucracies; beltway business as usual. I believe it.

Nevertheless this sort of thing needs to be called out, especially with the stakes as high as they are now.

In some ways the stuff that Cheney (and company) did was just a Bigger and More Shameless version of things that were already going on -- at least at times -- in our name. New and improved, if you will. But Cheney and his cronies applied all the lessons learned in Watergate and Iran-Contra to expand executive power. And so, what the Cheney administration was able to achieve is different not just in degree but also I would argue, in kind.