What you missed is in your 3rd sentence: "It is my position that the Democrats would be BIG WINNERS if they understood the constitution and what the public wants."

The D's understand perfectly what the public wants. However, that is not what they want. They want to protect Bush & Cheney, and prevent any situation from developing that would expose the manifold ways they've been complicit in every one of Bush/Cheney's crimes. They do not want the spectacle of a televised impeachment hearing in which they'd supposedly be accusing Cheney of crimes, only to have it made abundantly clear that they collaborated in every one of these crimes. They do not want the spectacle of the entire US government OF BOTH PARTIES being exposed as the venal liars that they are, & thus to have the government's credibility destroyed with the whole world watching.

In fact, the Democrats would far, far rather lose the 2008 election, than open the door to any process which risks shattering the US government's credibility (& thus that of the 2-party system), thus making it clear to the entire population that their government has betrayed them.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 3:51:27 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 6:28:17 PM

  (0+)

to be physically "in attendance" at every conversation between other plotters of the crime? For the Democrats to collaborate on the war, is it necessary that they be in the room every time, say, Cheney, Bush and Blair were making plans for the war?  No, it's obviously not.  Being in the room is one thing; collaborating with the policy is something else. You're rather absurdly trying to claim that they're the same thing. 

In a whole host of ways, the Democrats collaborated on the war, despite not being in the room every time Bush spoke with someone about it.

Similarly, it's not necessary for Democrats to have been physically "in attendance" at the meetings of the Cheney Energy Task Force, in order for their party to collude with the policy discussed at those meetings.

As you point out, Judicial Watch & Sierra Club got those documents from their FOIA lawsuit in the summer of 2003. Yet, for example, no issue was made of this by the Democrats during the entire Presidential Campaign of 2004. That's a simple example of "complicity" with the policy -- something entirely distinct from being present at all discussions of the policy.

Those FOIA documents show that the oil fields had plenty to do with invading Iraq. Yet not a single Democrat (besides the marginalized Kucinich) has dared to make this point publicly. The very example you cite, in other words, demonstrates Dem Party complicity -- regardless of whether D's were physically "in the room" at certain meetings.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 7:15:47 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 9:46:14 PM

  (0+)

I have been wondering if VP Cheney has something on every Democratic Congressman/woman. However, your explanation makes more sense. Would like to hear comments on this from others.

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 5:58:42 PM

  (0+)

Remember the hearings that were undertaken only to be discarded when the Democrats hadnt the sand to hold the liars in contempt of Congress? How would one expect them to find the spine to impeach such an obvious target as our reptile eyed Vice President?

This too shall pass....it damn well better.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Nov 9, 2007 at 7:46:03 PM

  (0+)

Yesterday, after posting an article on CNN, I noted that another keyword had been added, and that was NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51;

Naturally, I took the time to read it, and while I was aware of the directive - I didn't consider that the Dems may be holding-off on impeachment for fear that Bush will declare an emergency and essentially become an instantaneous dictator, assuming control of every aspect of our governance - if you could call it that without vomiting. I immediately followed the link, posted my response to my local paper as well as my appropriate Senators, etc., but was very disappointed to note that I was only one of the few that had followed this vital and important link to express our outrage against this highly secretive Presidential Directive that even our own Congress is unable to read. 

Without a doubt or question, this is one matter that Congress must be forced to take-up NOW - and I'll reprint my comment to my local paper to give a glimpse of what I feel about this directive. This is serious beyond any scope of our imagination or comprehension, and could hold the answer as to why Congress seems to be so cowed - but to me, it's now or never - and if we don't face it head-on and damn the consequences - we risk losing everything anyway whenever Herr Bush decides to implement whatever his secret directive actually is:

Why is Congress so cowardly and cowed that they refuse to address this issue? Bush has set himself up to be a dictator and it's evident to anyone that takes the time to simply read this outrageous Presidential directive. Congress is failing the people, and the Mainstream News Media is also complicit for not warning the people - who are cowards as well. If you're afraid to impeach because Bush will cause an emergency to take control of our country, then let's get it started while we still have a chance to beat off the heal of oppression - not when it's too late to react or act accordingly. Where is the courage and fortitude of our forefathers who fought and died to create this Democratic Republic? By failing to act, to impeach these tyrants, we spit on the graves of those who valiantly fought and died for the freedom we used to enjoy, but diminish almost on a daily basis. Where has the American spirit gone? Where is the courage that once was the bellwether of this great nation? A coward dies a thousand deaths - and a man only dies once! We as a nation should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this to happen, and there is still time, but first, the News Media has to alert the people of the danger they face - and we all know that won't happen, because unfortunately - the media are the greatest cowards of all!

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 8:30:33 AM

  (0+)

Yesterday, after posting an article on CNN, I noted that another keyword had been added, and that was NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51;

Naturally, I took the time to read it, and while I was aware of the directive - I didn't consider that the Dems may be holding-off on impeachment for fear that Bush will declare an emergency and essentially become an instantaneous dictator, assuming control of every aspect of our governance - if you could call it that without vomiting. I immediately followed the link, posted my response to my local paper as well as my appropriate Senators, etc., but was very disappointed to note that I was only one of the few that had followed this vital and important link to express our outrage against this highly secretive Presidential Directive that even our own Congress is unable to read. 

Without a doubt or question, this is one matter that Congress must be forced to take-up NOW - and I'll reprint my comment to my local paper to give a glimpse of what I feel about this directive. This is serious beyond any scope of our imagination or comprehension, and could hold the answer as to why Congress seems to be so cowed - but to me, it's now or never - and if we don't face it head-on and damn the consequences - we risk losing everything anyway whenever Herr Bush decides to implement whatever his secret directive actually is:

Why is Congress so cowardly and cowed that they refuse to address this issue? Bush has set himself up to be a dictator and it's evident to anyone that takes the time to simply read this outrageous Presidential directive. Congress is failing the people, and the Mainstream News Media is also complicit for not warning the people - who are cowards as well. If you're afraid to impeach because Bush will cause an emergency to take control of our country, then let's get it started while we still have a chance to beat off the heal of oppression - not when it's too late to react or act accordingly. Where is the courage and fortitude of our forefathers who fought and died to create this Democratic Republic? By failing to act, to impeach these tyrants, we spit on the graves of those who valiantly fought and died for the freedom we used to enjoy, but diminish almost on a daily basis. Where has the American spirit gone? Where is the courage that once was the bellwether of this great nation? A coward dies a thousand deaths - and a man only dies once! We as a nation should be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this to happen, and there is still time, but first, the News Media has to alert the people of the danger they face - and we all know that won't happen, because unfortunately - the media are the greatest cowards of all!

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 8:32:17 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Cormier:

I've been having the same exact thought. In-fact, this past week Truthseeker and radio talk show host Mike Malloy at Nova M Radio  if I could just note, was founded by Mr. Drobney, had on as a guest Dr. Justin Frank, the author of Bush on the Couch. Dr. Frank stated that it was his belief the reason the Democrats are hesitant to impeach Bush is because they're actually afraid of him and what he could do. Hence, him declaring an emergency and essentially become an instantaneous dictator, assuming control of every aspect of our governance. Quite a scary thought indeed.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:14:28 AM

  (0+)

"...Maybe the Democrats think that Bush and Cheney are such wild and crazy guys that a serious impeachment drive in Congress would provoke the two draft-dodgers to launch a military emergency, strike Iran or otherwise generate a crisis, based on their continual fulminations about the “war on terror,” that would engulf the Democrats and throw them on the defensive for 2008.

In short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don’t even try to remove it.

Such a cowardly position would make quite a precedent for future Presidents who want to illegally elbow out the other two branches of government and our Constitution..."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/13/4512/

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:42:55 PM

  (0+)

they have no intention of doing anything meaningful to end this lame ass war...

"all hat no cattle" definitely applies to Pelosi et al 

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:30:08 PM

  (0+)

... would be the unstoppable momentum the airing of the evidence would create. What Republican could vote against impeachment once the scope of Cheney's treasonous activities are made public? Let them try to continue opposing impeachment - what would be their chances of re-election? What would be Bush's chances of staying in power, or exercising dictatorial power, once his complicity in Cheney's machinations is revealed?

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:33:12 PM

  (0+)

When impeachment hearings were begun against Richard Nixon, at first there wasn't a large amount of support. Then, as would happen now if the hearings would actually reach the floor and the MSM had to report upon the proceedings, the preponderance of evidence would engage the public - as most of them that get their news from the MSM are still virtually in the dark - and until America as a whole is apprised of the many crimes of the Bush administration - and Congress addresses NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 51; I fear we are in deep Sh*t. I'd rather fight a fire long before it gets to my doorstep, and to me, it seems that Congress is "hoping" that Bush won't execute the above directive;

But, you know what they say about hope; hope in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills-up first. I only wish Congress would wake-up and realize that this country wasn't founded by hope, but by the blood of patriots that stood-up for our freedom. As I said, you have to wonder where the American spirit has gone...  

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:51:57 PM

  (0+)

Impeaching VP Cheney is absolutely ludricious. Impeaching VP Cheney is just a flag in which the angry liberals rally around because they are totally impotent.

There is 1 year left in the VP's term of office. ONE YEAR. The American People will vote Democrats out of office in groves in 2008 if they commit to such a political witch hunt wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and diverting attention from real problems like AMT, schools, healthcare, and the war in Iraq. This is most do nothing congress in history that has done nothing but hold hearings to investigate worthless BS and long and involved impeachment proceedings would just be one more ugly stain on them.

Has one criminal indictment come from all this political grandstanding? One?

That is why the Republicans want Cheney impeached (he, like Clinton, will not be convicted not because he is guilty or not, but because of political reasons.) because impeaching Cheney would be one more thing Republicans can point to when they denigrate this terrible congress. If your enemies want you to do something then you had better step back and ask why.

Far-out liberal Democrats had better also sit down and do a reality check and do it fast. The Democratic Party is about to nominate someone who is one of the most devisive political figures of our times. She is an ethically challenged person that has an ethically challenged husband who happens to be a former president and rest assured this will be brought out in a campaign. If you give the opposition something as unneccesary as the impeachment of Cheney, who, BTW will be out of office anyways in ONE YEAR, for her to defend at every campaign stop you will guarantee a loss. You would be way better off writing off the past as the past because the last time I checked Bush and Cheney aren't running in 2008 and move on to what can be done to make this a better country.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:46:51 PM

  (0+)

Gosh, it's really touching to see someone who is presumably not a "far-out leftist" encouraging us not to do something self-defeating. Either that or you're showing that you at least have a sub-conscious connection with reality, and have taken the trouble of writing in hopes that the proceedings don't go forward. If the latter, I congratulate you on either not-yet devolving into a neo-con, or for having emerged from being one.

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 1:11:35 PM

  (0+)

I can understand your anger, as I lived in Kansas for almost four years; in fact, my website is dedicated to a friend and family who are/were all devout Republicans, however, when the truth and facts are presented in a subtle manner as to not invoke arguments, it's amazing how opinions can change.

Characterizing impeachment of Bush or Cheney as a "political witch-hunt"  is absurd beyond belief. There are so many crimes those two have committed, it would take more than one page to list them all, and then, many would still remain unaddressed. When a President refuses to uphold our own constitution, spits on the Rule of Law, and violates international treaties and agreements with impunity - to not impeach is a crime itself! When free speech is stifled, as noted by the students who were punished for attempting to voice their first amendment rights, we know that our freedom(s) are rapidly vanishing - and believe it or not, disagreeing and protesting is not against the law, and adding Americans to a terrorist watch-list simply because they are exercising their constitutional rights should be enough to wake-up anyone, Democrat, Republican, or Independent!

I loved Kansas, and my heart will always be there - but I did note that Republican support in many areas of Kansas is almost like a religion or cult, and no matter what these tyrants in Washington do, there are some that are so blinded with support of their party that they refuse to open their eyes and examine the facts - not rely on political rhetoric or the propaganda that emanates from Faux News on a daily basis.

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 1:12:52 PM

  (0+)

Why do you assume that 1) I live in Kansas 2) I am a Republican? I did not mention either in my post. Is it because you are one of those "so blinded with support of their party that they refuse to open their eyes and examine the facts - not rely on political rhetoric or the propaganda that emanates from" Air America "on a daily basis"? Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem"?

I just try to offer alternative ways to look at things and encourage people to think about what they read and write. If they do not like what I read, they can always turn away. I certainly do not read everything that is posted here because a lot of it is utterly foolish and without any merit.

For someone to recommend that congress impeach VP Cheney is foolish in my view. The writer was suggesting that blackmailing the administration and using Capitol Police, who do probably do not even have jurisdiction in matters like these, do a fishing expedition in Cheney's safe and to even arrest him is a great idea. That is a silly and an irresponsible suggestion. I cannot believe how many people here actually think that this is a good idea and that the American People would look upon Democrats as big time winners for doing something as nonsensical as this.

The writer also suggests that congress would continue to do what it is already doing while all this is going on which is basically investigating all the misdeeds of the Bush WH. If this doesn't sound like a proposal based on total ignorance I do not know what does. I think that the main function of the Capitol Police is to physically protect congress and traffic control around the capitol building and not to do investigative police work over in the Executive Branch of the government. I have never heard or read of them investigating anyone in the Executive Branch of government and probably never will.

The writer has a short memory. The Clinton impeachment pretty much shut down congress and the White House during the investigation and trial. Defending and prosecuting a President wasn't something that happened during everyone's spare time. In my view, it would to be a total waste of time and money. It would only serve to make a few unhinged people happy for a short period of time. We all would be better off working to make this a greater country than it already is.

Keep in mind that when your opposition helps you do something and your own leadership doesn't want you to there has to be fairly good reason.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 2:25:27 PM

  (0+)

If that was an incorrect assumption, I obviously made a mistake. When I noted your "Mad Jayhawk" signature, the Jayhawks are synonymous with Kansas, and I am also an avid fan myself. To those here that aren't aware of the "Jayhawks", they are an absolute legend and are the team(s) of the University of Kansas. I owned and operated a business in Lawrence, Kansas, which is sort of an island in Kansas where progressives and liberals seem to be more popular than anywhere else in the state, and for the casual observer - Lawrence, Kansas, is akin to an oasis of progressive ideals in the midst of a state that is known for their allegiance to the Republican Party.

In the same breath, Kansas is where I learned that quite a few Republicans share many of the same ideals that many of us Liberals and Progressives stand for, albeit in a different manner. Republicans as a party doesn’t necessarily bother me in the least, as I lived among them for years, and found most of them to be wonderful people. It's the right-wing Neo-conservative Republicans that I oppose, and Kansas is also abundantly populated by those too - but to say that all Republicans are all wrong or misguided is the same as saying that all Muslims are bad - a patently false assumption.

Just out of curiosity, are you from Kansas, attended college there, or just a JayHawk fan? It's actually none of my business, and if you don't answer, that's fine - but at least we do have one thing in common - (maybe) and that's that we are both JayHawk fans, an amazing University as well as teams that constantly are some of the best in the US. When you live in Kansas and see “JayHawk” anywhere else in the US, it is reminiscent of Kansas and believe me, if you aren’t from Kansas, then it may be a little harder for you to understand why I “assumed” that’s where you were from…

William Cormier

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 3:57:26 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 4:23:00 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 4:24:24 PM

  (0+)

summarizes it in 6 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

PS - You're right about Hillary.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 1:35:32 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Mynick:

Thank you for posting that link. It is something which each and every concerned American ought to see.

The truth and facts are out there.  They merely need to be reported upon by this reticent, corporate main stream media. And as we'll witness tomorrow, during the Sunday morning talk show circuit, it'll be nothing more than the usual spin. Each and every one of these programs ought to be combined, to form but one program, which we could call  "Wheel of Mendacity." 

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 4:43:00 PM

  (0+)

The liberal use of the word "liberal" should be the clue in.

I don't necessarily disagree with your criticism of Hillary (hell, I could probably add to it) ...and it is clear that she could just as easily instigate some military tomfoolery as much as any republican. But the fact remains that VP Cheney got us into this one by cooking the books. He had a huge hand in creating the Pentagon culture that backed this disastrous misadventure. Ironically, his hand is also present in the Plame affaire (whose job it was to keep nuclear weapons out the hands of countries like Iran) and now he has a woody for Ahmadinejad -he's not been idle about pushing for a war. The recent Israeli bombings of syrian weapons sites also had american assistance at Cheney's insistence. The man is hell bent on pursuing the broadening of a theatre that's already hardly under control with the manpower available. Do you honestly think we can continue to have such serious irrational people such as Cheney at the helm.

How about criminal malfeasance?

Like the murdering of hundreds of thousands of salmon just to benefit GOP cronies running for office in the western states. War profiteering. Treason.... like what was his role in the Plame affaire? Violating the law by setting the VP's office and staff outside both the legislative and the executive branch. Deleting hundreds of thousands of emails against federal policy.

Once the door to explore the reasoning for impeachment is opened much is going to be brought to light. VP Cheney has long set himself above the law and above the definitions of the office.

Can the american people continue to tolerate such blatant arrogance at the price of our civil liberties?

You've just tried to trivialize the gravity of the crimes and reasons why impeachment should even be explored. You've tried to marginalize those that want it by using pidgeonholing them into a small tidy category such as that regurgitated by rightwing talkshow blowhards.

But you neglect the very significantly large numbers of conservatives who also want Cheney to be held to account. Quite a few that feel that Bush and Cheney have betrayed them as well. So facile snipes about the 'liberals' isn't going to cut it.

Maybe it could backfire on the democrats. But that's not the point. Should Nixon have stayed in the White House or Spiro Agnew even though we were at war? No,.... these are people that insist that americans and everyone else hold by rules that when violated results in imprisonment without legal recourse... and includes torture. This is a man that insists on the gov't's right to spy and eavesdrop on everyone but then refuses required gov't oversight on his own activities. This is a man who lies.... boldfaced as if no keeps records of the facts of his spurious claims.

    No, dude... there are too numerous valid reasons for  impeaching Cheney and at the very least -exploring the reasons for impeaching him. Maybe if the american people really took a good look at the man then it wouldn't be possible to blame it on the dems or even their 'fringe' but instead make people why we waited so long.

by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 2:17:57 PM

  (0+)

In your interesting post I did not see mention of one specific crime - a crime is where someone breaks a law - just a bunch of loose generalizations of things you do not like for one reason or another. I am sure that you could come up with a real crime that Cheney may or may not have committed.

You mentioned the Plame affair several times. Did Richard Armitage, no friend of the administration, admit to revealing that Plame worked for the CIA? Did the Special Prosecutor spend millions of dollars of OUR MONEY investigating this incident and could only come up with Libby's telling a few inconsequential lies out of all of that? And hasn't congress devoted hours to investigating and holding hearings on this matter as well? Where are their findings and list of indictments? Get the picture? Bottom line: Plame wasn't a covered CIA agent and that is why it was just a big stupid, money wasting political game. At least Wilson and his lovely wife got rich out of the deal selling books etc to all their suckas, er, supporters and believers.

Richard Armitage just told Novak that she worked for the CIA and might have had a hand in her husband being picked to go to Niger (such a minor part of the story that it was mentioned way, way down in the article Novak wrote). Rove and company did not like Wilson for obvious reasons (he is a lying jerk for one) and that is not against the law.

Please, for your own sake, do not mention your views about the Plame incident in the presence of knowledgeable people, they might laugh at you. Or if you have some evidence that Fitzgerald or Congress might have overlooked you might send it to them and copy the NYT as well. They would be interested I am sure.

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 3:04:05 PM

  (0+)

Since this is a comment area, I won't list them all here, but here is a link and a short synopsis of many of impeachable offenses that VP Cheney has been involved in:

First Charge:

Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

Second Charge:

Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

Third Charge:

Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

Fourth Charge:

Cheney led a campaign of retribution against whistleblower Joseph Wilson, including the outing of a covert CIA operative.

Fifth Charge:

Cheney led efforts to torture.

 

Sixth Charge:

Cheney played a key role in setting up illegal spying programs.

Seventh Charge:

Cheney led manipulation of pre-war intelligence.

Eighth Charge:

Cheney created the secret Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of open-government laws.

Ninth Charge:

Cheney's lawyer, David Addington, advocated the "Unitary Executive Theory" which is used by the White House to defy laws duly enacted by Congress and thereby justify dictatorial action.

Tenth Charge:

Cheney directed massive no-bid contracts to his company, Halliburton, and profitted from the same illegal war he defrauded the American public to launch.

Eleventh Charge:

Cheney increased the danger of climate change.

Twelfth Charge:

Cheney Suppressed Evidence in California Energy Crisis

For a vey good brakdown and evidence supporting these charges against VP Dick Cheney, please visit:  

 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/cheney2

Regards,

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (153 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 422 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 4:12:20 PM

  (0+)

Lol,... you really take yourself that seriously.... or is it the point that you want us to?

Well, I'm well aware of the Armitage story.

But I can parry hearsay with hearsay with the best of them.

Fitzgerald did say that the vice president had expressed interest into Wilson's Niger visit and that Cathie Martin who was the vice president's press secretary called the CIA and got the information about Plame and relayed it to Libby and Cheney. Cheney then issued directives to those around him to discredit Wilson using Wilson's wife. This was confirmed by Cathie Martin herself to Michael Issikoff. What difference does it make if Armitage blew the cover first or Libby as they were both acting as agents of Cheney?

And how are you an expert on Plame's covert status?

Is this based upon the assumption that the President or vice president can declassify anyone's status they want to anytime they want for whatever ever purposes they want? If so, then I'd have to say that you do so to disingenuous ends.

Indictable crimes?

Cheney being a serial leaker classified material in violation of executive orders has to count for something.

Faked intelligence used as reasons for war (a fake letter used to claim that Hussein wanted uranium yellow cakes)

Whatever, I don't think it matters much to you what anyone says ....but you'll pardon if I don't believe that you have the definitive word on the Plame case.

by chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 159 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 7:44:31 PM

  (0+)

Should crimes be punished or should we just wait for the criminal to go away? This position is absurd and stems from your political allegiance and not your powers of reason.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 5:41:01 PM

  (0+)

Well now we know why you use the "mad" in your blogger name.
What a foolish response to a legitimate proposal. You talk as if the impeachment would operate in a vacuum. No, it would throw light on a number of illegal, unethical and immoral activities of this administration. The ending of the Iraq war would be the center of MSM headlines as lies and more lies were brought to light during the impeachment process. The ability of the president to continue thwarting important legislation would be curtailed because he would be on the defensive having given the VP carte blanche to do the things he did. The whole neocon edifice would come crashing down. For that reason alone it would be of value to impeach.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1761 comments [112 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 8:32:10 PM

  (0+)

Trying to solve the problems that the War Profiteers, Cheney and Bush, are causing, before stopping them by impeachment, is like trying to fix a broken water pipe by sopping up the water with paper towels. You will always be falling behind and get nowhere until you turn the water OFF... which is what the Constitutionally mandated Impeachment does.
I sent that message to John Conyers... John.Conyers@mail.house.gov to encourage him to do the right thing, as he has in the past with the Downing Street memos, and the report on the Ohio Election Fraud. There are a few Representatives and Senators with integrity and courage. We need to encourage them and let them know that we have their backs.

by Rob Magee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 1:58:07 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 10, 2007 at 7:30:22 PM

  (0+)

THINK THE D'S HAVE IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS, OCTOBER 9 2001 WHEN TOM DASCHLE D AND PATRICK LEAHY D RECIVED WORNING LETTERS FULL OF WEAPONS GRADE ANTHRAX, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THE PATRIOT ACT WILL BE PASSED ON TIME. THEIR NOT AFRAID TO BE EXPOSED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR ARE FEARED FOR THEIR LIVES AND OF THEIR FAMILY'S. BUSH AND CHENEY THROUGH OUT THE REUL BOOK ALONG WITH OUR CONSTITUTION. THESE CFR, TC FREEMASON GLOBALIST HAVE ALMOST GOT THE BRASS RING, AND NOTING AND NOBODY IS GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF THEIR AGENDA. THERE IS NO TABLE LEFT TO PUT IMPEACHMENT ON.

RAS

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Nov 11, 2007 at 5:02:33 AM

  (0+)

How true your words are! I am voting for Karl Marx. Yeah, I know he*s dead, but he can still get more done than the spineless DemSS! x Jayne

by Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Sunday, Nov 11, 2007 at 3:19:05 PM

  (0+)

Comment-OpEdNews-11/11/07

Perhaps another argument to bestir the Demicans (or are they Republicrats?) to get off their butts:

Big Oil is stiffing them; they're selling out their country for a mess of pottage. Check out this URL:

 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01

Big Oil gives Democrats about 1/5th or less than it gives to Republicans, but the Dems still feed at Big Oil's trough, regardless. 

In other words, the Democrats are selling out way too cheap, not getting anywhere near what their Republican counterparts are getting. Just as we don't value the Democrats any longer (or I don't, at least, speaking for my focus group of one), the Democrats don't value their votes very highly, either.

(You would think that the Dems could put a legislative move on to make the FCC provide a handful of public service channels for FREE campaign advertising, to take away the biggest cost item from campaigns. Of course, it would level the playing field, and the Washington game is "Stay In Office--whatever it takes," and a "level playing field" is definitely NOT a move in that game.)

I haven't looked for a site that's tracking the ROPI (return on political investment) on these "contributions," but it's not what a "good" ROI of, say 20% or 15% would be for a "normal" business. Rather, it's more like 1,755%, etc.--two ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE+ a "normal, business ROI." (There was a Newsweek Mag article on this topic a year or so ago--maybe longer.)

Basically, BOTH parties are selling out waaaaay too cheap. They should threaten to enact a "windfall profits tax" to, dare I say it, terrorize the corporations into forking over more of the take.

On the other side of the equation, every corporate shareholder worth his or her salt should DEMAND that their corp. management invest MORE of their money in politicians, because the return is so high--and sooo easy.

Why? Because there's no need for R&D labs, factories, energy--heck, no need for employees if they get reeealy creative (like Halliburton has been, getting money for empty trucks, the skim off every soldier's dinner-plate (not meals; dinner plates--which the GIs sometimes double for the extra strength and insulation from hot servings), the price of which is $28-something.

Yes, they have to buy the food, but the Army defends the convoys Halliburton uses to ship the food from depot to bases (they don't hire their own guards or armor their own trucks) and their TCNs (third-country nationals--who don't speak English, of course--see "The War Tapes," I think it is--made by 5 or 6 National Guardsmen from New Hampshire with video-cams during their year (16 months or so, I think--it's "an Army year"--the Pentagon uses a different calendar, much as they use a different accounting system, which is why tours of duty are longer, and there's $2.3 TRILLION unaccounted for. Some folks say that the auditing effort to track those missing funds was housed in the part of the Pentagon hit on Sept. 11, 01. Depends on which conspiracy theory you believe--the "official" one, or some other one).

By the way, in that NH National Guard story, there's a clip and a comment about a Halliburton truck driven by a "TCN"--the cab is half smashed in on the passenger's side, all the windows, windshield included, are missing, and, if I recall aright, the driver's leg has been hit with shrapnel (they've stopped because an IED went off and it wasn't followed by the usual ambush fusillade of small arms, mortar and RPG fire) and the Guardsmen are having trouble finding out what's wrong because the driver doesn't speak English (of course).

Congress would do us a service (are you listening, Henry Waxman?) by making public these contracts--are the TCN's getting paid even a minimum (US) wage? $7.25 an hour might seem huge to a starving Pakistani or Hindu or Columbian. As 'tis often said, the profiteering's in the details.

over 'n' out.

by Rick Blair (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, Nov 11, 2007 at 4:34:47 PM

  (0+)