It didn't take 6 years of the George W. Bush presidency for most intelligent people to realize who's calling the shots in the White House. If anyone thought that W himself was really setting White House policy and making the administration's decisions, that fallacy was made abundantly clear when it came time for George to testify to the 9/11 commission - not only did he refuse to testify under oath, but he also insisted on having Dick Cheney present with him.
Who developed the country's energy plan under the strictest secrecy? Why, Dick Cheney of course. Well... maybe it was the energy industry's lobby that developed America's energy plan under the auspices of Dick Cheney, whose history and fortune just happens to be intimately linked to the energy industry. But there's no conflict of interest there!
Enter the conflict in Iraq
The scope of this short article can't possibly cover all of Dick Cheney's lies, or even all of his lies on just Iraq. Sure... he said there was no doubt Saddam had WMD's, that we'd be greeted as liberators, that the war would pay for itself, and after 3 years of fighting that the insurgency was "in its last throes". Even the ignorant in this country and abroad have come to realize that Dick Cheney has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever. (I guess shooting his friend in the face didn't help either).
We know where he's coming from. We know where he's going to. And, there's no reason to believe ANYTHING he says. Here's a quote from a recent article entitled "White House defies Congress, public to push Iraq surge". This would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.
[Cheney] cautioned against the phased withdrawal backed by Democrats, saying Iraq would collapse into chaos and the United States would lose stature in the world.
As I just mentioned, Dick Cheney has absolutely no credibility to tell us what will or would happen in the future, given any course of action. In fact his credibility is further compromised by his complete denial to even realize what has happened in the past. News flash: Iraq IS ALREADY in chaos! Do you actually think the civil war going on there is orderly? And not only is Iraq currently in chaos, but it's Dick Cheney's foreign policy blunders which have caused it.
Here's another news flash for you... the United States HAS ALREADY lost stature in the world, and again it's Dick Cheney's foreign policy decisions which have caused that as well. And it's not just that he invaded Iraq against the recommendations of the United Nations and many other foreign heads of state. Perhaps some of that 'stature' was lost when he started withdrawing the United States from foreign treaties like the Kyoto Accord (global warming), the InterContinental Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the International Criminal Court? Perhaps some of that 'stature' was lost when his company (Halliburton) attained no-bid contracts, plundered billions of dollars, and lied about providing goods and services even as Iraqis were suffering from astronomical unemployment, and critical shortages of potable water, electricity, and other necessities.
And what about Scooter and Valerie?
The trial of Scooter Libby is not getting enough exposure in my opinion. While the mainstream airwaves are filled with talks of troop surge, war escalation, and 2008 presidential politics, this travesty of justice is going largely unnoticed.
To date, the only one who has been indicted for any wrongdoing in the leak of this undercover CIA operative (Valerie Plame) is Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. And these indictments are only for lying and obstructing the investigation, not the original crime itself.
What's going largely unnoticed however, is that the testimony has started coming out that Dick Cheney was the mastermind of this whole dirty scheme to discredit Joseph Wilson and punish him by outing his wife, which by the way, was a severe national security breach. Clearly, Libby was lying to protect his boss.
Let's not forget that Valerie Plame's mission was that of WMD reconnaissance in both Iraq & Iran. By outing her and her front company (Brewster Jennings, Inc.), the White House compromised intelligence on Iran's WMD program - something Bush continues to carry a torch against. And that doesn't even begin to assess the damage caused by the compromising of an untold number of other operatives who were associated with Valerie Plame or Brewster Jennings, Inc.
So I ask you Mr. Fitzgerald, why isn't Dick Cheney being indicted for treason? Why isn't SOMEONE being charged with the actual, treasonous crime of outing an undercover CIA agent and compromising national security?
Conclusion
So here's my message to you this week, America. Take a good, long look at the man who's really running our country and forging United States' policy. The man who has absolutely NO credibility, clearly linked to the energy industry and big business special interests, with delusions of conquest of the Middle East, is the one who committed treason in many people's opinion.
All of Dick Cheney's actions and decisions are made purely for profit & conquest, and he doesn't care how many people are killed or maimed in the process. In my book, that's the definition of evil.
http://scottshuster.blogspot.com
Scott Shuster is a progressive columnist, publishing since May of 2005. His liberal ideology is a refreshing diversion from 'politics as usual' in Washington.
Cheney is so evil even Satan looks at him and says "Man, that is one evil guy". Satan is probably wondering if Cheney intends to overthrow him. Darth Cheney has redefined the word 'evil'.
Good article.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 3:30:55 PM
This isn't Oz and I believe that those that fail to act on the evidence that Cheney did orchestrate the Plame outting are guilty of obstructing justice. It is TREASON plain and simple. If we are at WAR then a death sentence should be under consideration. If we are not at war then the Executive Branch should stop trying to use power they feel is justified in wartime. No matter Treason is Treason. Treason for pure profit is not only evil it means that his assets should be seazed.
Those that fail to fulfill the offices and oathes they took to be installed in their offices may also be guilty of TREASON. Our World needs some justice lets start with Cheney, then Bush, then the cover up surrounding 9/11. The Towers falling at freefall speed is an impossibility without the use of explosives. Reports were filed mentioning explosion yet they were squealched and never brought before the 9/11 commission. The cover up is a crime in itself.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 4:14:47 PM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Ad hominem
Editor's Message: Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify right wing garbage like this until they spoon their brains out through their ass. This cretin is banned from the site. Right wingers who wish to engage in intelligent, courteous dialogue are welcome.
ad hominem content removed.
by
wg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 11:17:47 PM
I may never know what the guy said, but I guess it sparked a little response.
Anywhay the fools don't matter anymore some kind of justice is around the corner. We just have to be somewhat patient, but keep up the pressure. We will cause even politicians to be careful who they are serving and we will hopefully get them to insure that less secrecy will be allowed. The Emperior has no clothes and the pet chip wearing the crown needs a vacation in Germany where they can bring him to justice for his War Crimes.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 1:57:29 PM
I had to point out the obvious. Name calling aside we need a Batman with articles of impeachment. Scott is absolutely right about the outing of Valarie Wilson-Plame. Forget Scooter, the big fish is the traitor to our intelligence community and our national security who exposed a deep cover C.I.A. agent. Working to uncover programs of weapons of mass destruction. The real ones, not the nonexistent ones we went to war over. Impeach, Indict, and Imprison. Cheney first, then Rove, and then Bush. Followed by their enablers, puppets, and business partners. Hmmm... That would be Utopia.
by
JohnNmissouri (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 4:17:49 PM
Isnt it fun to show how much we learned from our upbringing reading Marvel Comics? Look folks, it may be cathartic to exclaim how evil Cheney is, how much of a super villain ,etc. I cannot believe noone commented on his dead reptile eyes and dour expression, how he cannot look anyone in the eye, etc.
Are we to accept that this nation, this mighty empire, this bastion of freedom and democracy, this ten trillion a year producing state can be brought low by one such evil monster?
Do you mean to tell me that even two, Bush and Cheney combined, could do all this to our country, to Iraq?
Perhaps you would expand the total necesary to wreak such harm upon , not only our people, but our future generations as well. Include Gingrich, maybe Frist, heck throw in the entire Republican leadership these last six years if you will, is this still enough to do what has been done?
Is this country so vulnerable as to be brought so low, to be reduced to a plaything for the wealthy one percent to feast upon like some vampire bat feasting on an unsuspecting bovine? Can you say that with a straight face and clear conscience?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 5:19:41 PM
I think the answer is, "Yes" it is possible that even just one person, once elected to the Presidency, can wreak this and even more.
Don't forget, the President of the US has his finger on the nuclear button. The President of the US can destroy the entire world in just 30 minutes.
George W. Bush was elected (or got close enough to steal the election) because people forgot how important the job was. Ham and egg-er middle America thought that all they wanted was a good old boy to bring back "family values" in the wake of Monica-gate. They were willing to overlook the abilities of the person because they thought everything was good. No big national security threats, economy was good, etc. What could happen?
What could happen indeed.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 6:09:22 PM
At this point even if he decided he wanted to launch a Nuke, hopefully those under his command would recognize that he is not sane and risk their careers for the sake of millions if not billions of lives.
Congress should assert themselves and let their feelings known to the Military of this specific possibility. We have no threats at this time that warrant a launch without approval of some tight congressional committee.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 272 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 7:29:42 PM
I will not debate the nuclear button theory as that was certainly a distraction and not the thrust of my question, as you are very aware Im certain.
The checks and balances were carefully and thoughtfully installed so that each branch of our government could stall or hinder policies and course of action deemed irresponsible. Even though the GOP was in the majority for a large part of this administrations wild giveaway to the military industrial complex there is really no excuse for the deafening silence of the Democratic Party, or worse, their blatant complicity with those actions.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 8:29:28 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how certain you are of what I am
thinking, over the internet, no less.
No, I had no idea I was not completely on point with you regarding your question and the nuclear button thing, nor, I think, did the person who initially responded to my post.
If we are to delve into the Constitution, where does that take the arguments made in your recent post? Congress acts by majority vote in most cases and super majorities in a few others. The constitution doesnt take anything else into account except, perhaps, the idea of a filibuster in the senate, but we all know what Republicans threatened to do with that if Democrats chose to use it.
Thus, if we deal with pure Constitutionality, the Democrats in congress had no ability to do anything from 2001-2006 without siginificant Republican defection. I'm just guessing but I doubt that is what you are intending to say.
So, perhaps the Constitution is not the best basis on which to make your argument.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 12:14:31 PM
sickens me. I have posted argument after argument speaking to the complicities, by votes and by silences, of your beloved sham of a party. You either descend into diatribes against 'unrealistic lefties', seek to ban posts that make you uncomfortable, or just "stand by your arguments" and slink away. Being in the minority is no excuse for the betrayal of your party, you really should try to come up with a far better defense. Harry Reid once stalled the Senates business, brought it to a halt. This could have and should have been done again and again, but no.....alas.
You may keep your blindfold firmly in place, fail to note the water lapping around your ankles as your ship slowly sinks, its OK. We on the left will never tire of working to restore this democracy, never fear, even for those like you.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 10:23:32 AM
I live in reality. It dont live in a fantasy land that lets me paint those who I dont like in the worst possible light or those that I love in the best. I know what the good and bad things are about the people and groups I support.
But, I won't allow dishonest criticism of them to stand without comment. What you and others in the 'Blame Democrats for Everything" crowd (and I do mean EVERYTHING) blame Democrats for is completely unfair and dishonest.
We all know what happens when in a committee of five, three people support one position and two support another. Perhaps you and the crowd who thinks like you do have found some new mathematical theorem where two becomes more than three, I dont know. If so, I would certainly like to see the Mathematical proof of it.
I would defend anyone put in the position you put Democrats. These criticisms are unfair and inappropriate.
How about this, put you and two people like me on a committee to decide whether to assign blame to Democrats and the decision is by majority vote. I guarantee you, you will lose. I dont care what you do, you are going to lose.
When you lose, should the rest of the "Blame Democrats for Everything" crowd blame you for not being enough of a leader to win that vote and "do something"? It simply doesnt make sense.
As far as deciding not to debate further, when discussions reach a certain point and everyone has taken their best shot at putting positions forward, what is the point of continuing? Compound that with getting positions thrown at me that make no sense, like blaming a minority group in a parliament for the actions of the majority, and there is only so long I'm willing to deal with that kind of silliness. As I said, I am a realist and I deal in reality and logic. I put my logical points forward and if all I get back is obviously wrong on its face, I am not going to continue.
There are two descriptions that very well describe those in the Blame Democrats for Everything crowd. One is Negative Nationalist as described by Orwell
The other is readily recognizable to those with a strong HR or supervisory background and it is called "The Horns Effect" click here
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Sunday, February 4, 2007 at 12:22:11 PM
You equate being in the minority with a case of laryngitis, for reasons I understand full well. There is no real case to be made for your Party's cowardice, deafening silences, and complicity.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, February 5, 2007 at 11:31:52 AM
Chenny is a very evil puppet master, but mark my words for saying the Bush clan is even more evil. Chenney is like Igor always saying yes master well doing Bush's dirty evil deeds.
Judging this subject, makes me think that talking about politics and corruption, make us sound like a bunch of high school kids.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 363 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 7:55:59 PM
Chenny indeed is evil beyond ones imagination, his demeanor is mostly profit and to support Bush. Well the Bush clan does it for fascist powers and profits.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 363 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 9:48:11 PM
Mr. Schuster: Excellent article on possibly the worst elected official in the history of American politics; a liar, thief, warmonger, and hyprocrite-just to name a few. Thanks
by
BillT (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 8:37:20 PM
Valerie Plame was not covert. She "worked" for the CIA as an analyst, just like thousands of other employees at Langley. Her life as an analyst was public knowledge. Covert operatives don't usually go in and out of the building at Langley, and have their own parking spaces. Think sheeple.
Your ex-hero Bob Woodward has stated that it was common knowledge among EVERYBODY that Plame worked for the CIA. The "covert" part is completely made-up by wishful thinking pillow biters.
In Joe Wilson's own book, The Politics of Truth, he states that neither he nor his wife had been overseas during the past 5 years. No law is broken if the person "outed" has not been overseas in the last five years. (Does anyone look this stuff up?)
Joe Wilson implies in his op-ed piece that Cheney sent him to Niger. This is a scummy attempt to legitimize himself as an "inside' guy. He's not. He's a clown.
Also, Joe Wilson's own report states that Iraq did indeed send representatives to Niger, who's only export is Uranium. Extrapolation please.
And when did Liberals's begin losing sleep over the compromising of a CIA operative? The left HATES the CIA.
Wait, I can answer my own question. They get concerned when the CIA employee is obviously a fellow traveler.
It's amazing that you can all turn a blind eye to the fact that she strongly recommended sending someone, who she knew had a biased anti-war stance, on a fact finding mission that was designed to be a hatchet job before he ever got to Niger. That's more indictable in my opinion.
How do I know this? Because he distorted his own findings. Iraq DID go to Niger. Joe Wilson is a seat warmer who is too stupid to realize that ordinary people will have the "gift" to be able to see through him. He's like a 5 year old.
And all the people calling for the frog marching of various administration officials can care less about Sandy Berger. Hilarious.
One question. How come I haven't heard the Jersey Girls screaming for probes, commissions and investigations into what Sandy Berger was doing? Afterall, they simply want bi-partisan investigations that will lead to answers about 9/11.
Har.
by
wg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 10:45:57 PM
Your talking points are almost hilarious in their lack of veracity. I wonder whether you actually believe this garbage, most unfortunate for you, or you deliberately spread lies and distortions....
One example is that Valerie Plame ran a covert information gathering operation, NOT OUT OF CIA HQ in LANGLEY, but from a cover corporation front. I wonder what happened to those who worked with her in sensitive areas abroad when her cover was blown?
Frankly, the rest of this sophomoric, childish and hate filled screed is so overblown, so distorted and inaccurate that it condemns itself, thanks.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 8:38:57 AM
And the award for "Bush Boot Licker of the Week" goes to...
warreng, everybody!
I must say it seems you have really done your neocon homework, and are very adept at the mission: Keep the argument centered on anything but the main point, in the effort to avoid having to deal with it.
The main point in this instance, of course, being that there was no uranium deal between Iraq and Niger.
The documents purporting to reveal the deal have been proven forgeries since at least early 2002. Some of the official "signatures" on them included people who had been out of office for a decade or more.
Don't tell me to "prove it". It's just another diversion tactic designed to control the argument. Do your own homework and prove it to yourself. Unless of course you already know the truth and your're just avoiding it for political purposes. But you wouldn't do THAT, would you?
So why didn't the Bushies cop to being fooled by forgeries and launch an investigation to see who is responsible for them?
Gee, it wouldn't be because the bogus uranium claim was a cornerstone of their bogus case for war, would it?
Give it up, WG. Nobody's buying your neocon parrot crap.
by
John Perry (31 articles, 33 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 10:05:12 AM
Why is it a mess of information, because YOU say so?
Here is a hint, Warren. When you post in a forum where you know most people will disagree with you, be ready to post links to sources.
Your rant means nothing to me. You have not given any credentials indicating you are an expert on CIA operations so your odd statements regarding things like CIA parking spaces are at best, uninformed guesses.
Here is a better uninformed appeal to logic for you. If any of what you said is true, why dont Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby simply say, Yes, we did it, we talked about who Valerie Plame was to reporters and it is all OK because she wasn't a covert CIA operative and it is OK to talk about CIA employees who arent covert.
That would be the end of it if any of what you say is true.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1291 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 12:21:43 PM
When Cheney appointed himself as Bush's running mate it should have been obvious to all,as it was to me, that he was to become the defacto president. I can't imagine why it has taken so long for the pundits to recognize this. There are still those,whose voices are respected. who continue to refer to Bush as the "decider". I can only conclude that either they are simply unaware of the reality of the situation, or that they are complicit in decieving the public, and that their supposedly critical, abeit harmless, commentary is little more than a means of adding credence to their otherwise deceptive reporting. Thank you for telling it like it is.
by
Halo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 3:45:06 AM
