Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Don't Misunderestimate Dick Cheney

By John Dean, FindLaw.com. Posted June 30, 2007.


It has long been apparent that Cheney's genius is that he lets George W. Bush get out of bed every morning actually believing he is the President. Also: shocking video of Colin Powell on Cheney's secret meetings with Bush.
Colin Powell Critiques Cheney

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by John Dean

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Vice President Dick Cheney has regularly claimed that he is above the law, but until recently he has not offered any explanation of why.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a law that Cheney believes does apply to him, whether that law be major and minor. For example, he has claimed that most of the laws passed in the aftermath of Watergate were unconstitutional, and thus implicitly inapplicable. His office oversees signing statements claiming countless new laws will not be honored except insofar as the President's extremely narrow interpretation allows. He does not believe the War Powers Act should be honored by the President. Nor, in his view, should the President be bothered with laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In fact, it appears Cheney has actively encouraged defiance of such laws by the Bush Administration.

For Cheney, the Geneva Conventions -- considered among the nation's most important treaties -- are but quaint relics that can be ignored. Thus, he publicly embraced their violation when, on an Idaho talk radio program, he said he was not troubled in the slightest by our forces using "waterboarding" -- the simulated drowning of detainees to force them to talk. There are serious questions as to whether Cheney himself has also conspired to violate the War Crimes Act, which can be a capital crime.

A man who can so easily disregard the War Powers Act, FISA, the Geneva Conventions, and the War Crimes Act is merely flicking fleas when it comes to complying with laws like the Presidential Records Act, which requires him to keep records. Yet as CNN and other news organizations have reported, Cheney ordered the destruction of the visitor logs to his residence. These, of course, are presidential records the law requires him to preserve and protect. (Indeed, neighbors of the Vice President were surprised when, in the past, a truck for a document shredding service would regularly visit the Vice President's residence at the Naval Observatory.)

Most recently, the Vice President has refused to comply with Executive Order 12958, as amended by his boss, George W. Bush. These orders were issued to implement the law adopted by Congress in 1995 to clarify the classification and protection of national security information.

Most interesting in Cheney's defiance is his absolutely absurd explanation of why the law is not applicable to him or his staff.

Cheney's explanation(s) for defying the National Security Classification orders

Henry Waxman, who may be the nation's most diligent and vigilant member of Congress, recently reported that Vice President Cheney claims he is exempt from the presidential orders requiring government-wide procedures to safeguard classified national security information because he is not an "entity within the executive branch." According to information provided to Chairman Waxman's Oversight committee, Cheney further claimed he was not an "agency" as set forth in the Executive Orders.

When Cheney was widely ridiculed by humorists, cartoonists, pundits, commentators and several members of Congress for his claim of not being an "entity within the executive branch," the Vice President's chief of staff and counsel David Addington responded by asserting that the Vice President is not subject to the order because he is not an "agency" as defined by the order. (Addington thus effectively dropped the claim that the Vice President is not an "entity.")

However, Addington does not cite any authority or language for his new claim that the Vice President is not an "agency." In fact, there is none. To the contrary, the order controlling national security classification states exactly the opposite of what Addington claims. Executive Order 12958 states that the term "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in the statutory language found at 5 U.S.C. 105, and it includes "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." An entity is any "body" or "unit" or "thing" within the executive branch, and to claim the Vice President's office is none of these is an insult to common sense. So is Addington's claim that the Office of Vice President is not an agency under the law.

Section 105 of Title 5 of the United States Code states that an "‘Executive agency' means an … independent establishment" within the executive branch. Independent establishments are defined by Section 104 as "an establishment in the executive branch … which is not an Executive department [which are listed in Section 101, and include the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, etc.], military department, Government corporation, or part thereof, or part of an independent establishment."

The Justice Department issued an opinion in 1994 that the Vice President was not an "agency" under the Freedom of Information Act. That opinion was largely based on the Supreme Court ruling, in Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, that "agency" does not cover "the President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President."

However, the agency definition in E.O. 12985 is very different from that in the Freedom of Information Act. If, as Addington claims, E.O. 12985 was intended to exempt the Vice President's office, why did it not so state? Or, why did Bush not exempt the Vice President when he amended that order in July 2005?

Cheney's claim his office is neither an entity nor agency defies logic, but it is not surprising since he continues also to claim, with absolutely no evidence to support his claim, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and that terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi set up an al Qaeda operation in Iraq.

Needless to say, Cheney's claim -- or Addington's claim, since Cheney appears to be backing away from his chief of staff and counsel on this issue -- raises the question of what the vice president is. Legally, the vice president has only the most limited of powers and authority, unless the president empowers him.

The limited role the Constitution and a federal statute envision for the Vice President

The Vice President's very limited but vital roles are set forth in the Constitution. He is the next in succession to become President, should there be a vacancy or should the president suffer from mental or physical inability to serve. And he is the president of the Senate, which means he can preside over the Senate but under the Senate Rules, he cannot take part in debate, and under the Constitution, he can only vote to break a tie.

In the event of a vacancy in the office of the president, under Article II and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Vice President becomes the Acting President. Also under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the Vice President, when acting with a majority of the Cabinet, can also declare the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." If he so declares, then after so informing Congress, the Vice President becomes Acting President until the President notifies Congress that he is fine; if there is a dispute, the Congress resolves it.

The only other Constitutional duty of the Vice President is that set forth in Article I, Section 3, clause 4, which makes the Vice President the "President of the Senate, but [he/she] shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." Not since the nation's second Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, decided it was a waste of time to preside over the Senate has any Vice President done so -- other than to break ties or for ceremonial events, such as the State of the Union or the tallying of electoral college votes.

Since 1947, the Vice President has been given a number of statutory duties, when President Truman recommended, and the Congress agreed, that the Vice President should be a member of the National Security Council. This, however, is the most significant of his statutory assignments.

Thus, beyond the limited constitutional responsibilities, and the few statutory tasks, the Vice President's role comes down to whatever the President assigns him. Vice Presidents can have no role greater than the assignments given by the president -- or in the case of Dick Cheney, whatever he has been able to convince the President he can appropriately handle for him.

The source of Cheney's power: influence, not a formal grant of authority

Washington insiders have long understood that Cheney's power stems from his knowledge of the way the White House and the Office of the President operate. This is knowledge he acquired as President Ford's Chief of Staff. With Bush's consent, much of the paper flow of the White House which heads up the chain of command toward the President goes through Cheney's office. In addition, Cheney's staff reaches down into the executive bureaucracy to shape the debate before it reaches the White House.

Those with whom I have spoken have serious doubt that Bush and the White House staff really knows what Cheney is doing, why he is doing it, or how he is doing it. From the outset of this administration, Cheney has been instrumental in placing people loyal to him throughout the Executive Branch. This is not to say that Bush in not "the decider," for he is, but by shaping the debate and controlling the paper flow, Cheney decides what the decider will decide.

It has long been apparent that Cheney's genius is that he lets George W. Bush get out of bed every morning actually believing he is the President. In fact, his presidency is run by the President of the Senate, for Cheney is its true center of gravity. That fact has become more apparent with every passing year of this presidency, and anyone who thinks otherwise has truly "misunderestimated" our nominal president and his vice president.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: george bush, dick cheney constitution

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Cheney is right. And that makes Bush and him wrong.
Posted by: Rune on Jun 30, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the veracity of Cheney's claim that the order regarding the handling of classified information does not apply to him comes clearly into focus when one considers how Bush (probably at Cheney's insistance) amended the order in question to define what "agencies" are:

"Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this order:

1. the term "agencies" means:
(i) any "executive department" as defined in section 101 of title 5, United States Code, as well as the Department of Homeland Security;
(ii) any "military department" as defined in section 102 of title 5, United States Code;
(iii) any "government corporation" as defined in section 103 of title 5, United States Code; and
(iv) any "independent establishment" as defined in section 104 of title 5, United States Code, but excluding the Government Accountability Office and including the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission."


Cheney is not the head of any of these. That means his defense is reasonable. And that is a big problem.

It is a problem because it means that this order, which is supposed to ensure compliance with a very important protocol to safeguard national secrets has at least one enormous loophole written into it by Bush: it lets a party that is privvy to all of the secrets escape compliance with the protocol. As such, it corrupts the entire system because if you have a source of leaks and noncompliance (does "Valerie Plame" ring a bell?) then one can have no confidence that national secrets are being properly protected.

Bush and Cheney not only knew about this, Bush ordered it and both of them have exploited it. And that is just one more reason why they should both be facing impeachment charges today. They are issuing orders and behaving in a manner that is detrimental to interests of the country, to say nothing of living in Leona Helmsley's parallel universe in which the laws apply only to "the little people," only in this case they have taken the additional liberty of selectively enforcing some parts of the law against some people when it suits their purposes--which seem never to be good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Excuse me! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Read before you rant Posted by: Rune
drew
Posted by: drew on Jun 30, 2007 1:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if, in any other context, you observed an intelligent but excessively secretive individual who repeatedly made statements that had only a tangential relationship with reality, who had a history of interpreting the motives of others as malevolent and who was excessively legalistic that person would, at least, be considered as having a personality disorder (perhaps paranoid type) if not an outright delusional disorder. A person with those characteristics would not be mentally capable of responsibly holding an office of trust- and would even be a danger in an office with power. There are clear legal reasons for removing him from office however mental disability would also seem to be of at least a probable concern and also be a substantial reason for removal. It is not just his actions but his mental condition that should be questioned- that condition would not with stand scrutiny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: drew Posted by: willymack
» RE: The Microcosm and the Macrocosm Posted by: the islander
» RE: Dilusional Cretin Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: drew Posted by: acers
So which one is it?
Posted by: EagleMB on Jun 30, 2007 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author claims that the vice-presidency is most certainly an agency, and that the Presidential Records Act mandates that he not destroy documents.

So lets look at the Presidential Records Act:

Section 2201(2) states that “presidential records”:

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

It seems to me that the author just has a bias against Cheney. After all, he is obviously wrong about one of his arguments.

By the way, even if the vice-presidency is not an agency (which it is not), the PRA does not seem to require him to keep a visitors log. The PRA also states (in relevant part):

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—

***

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and…


Does someone want to try to rationalize an argument on how records of people who visit the vice-presidents residence “relates to, or has an affect upon the carrying out of Constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties?”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So which one is it? Posted by: Blade
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: So you’re a hypocrite? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you’re a hypocrite? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» No, Eagle... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: No, Eagle... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: No, Eagle... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: No, Eagle... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: Isn't that a Catch 22? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So which We're being DICKED! Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: So which We're being DICKED! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: So which one is it? Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: So which one is it? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So which one is it? Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Question... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So I have to ask again? Posted by: EagleMB
where is a special prosecutor when we really could use one?
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 30, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is no one investigating Cheney for misuse of public office?

If progressives want to do something, they could organise an independent grand jury to decide whether Bush as well as Cheney ought to be indicted. Gather the evidence and present it to a large panel of citizens selected according to an unbiased template.

Congress should lead, follow or get out of the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney Moves His Office to Dubai
Posted by: cognitorex on Jun 30, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dick Cheney regularly forgoes niceties such as treaties, laws, our constitution and avoiding conflicts of interest with his oil brethren. This we know.
One example among oh so many is the multiple billion dollar no-bid contracts awarded to his last employer and present benefactor, Halliburton.
Recently, Halliburton, in what can only be described as a Cheney-esque maneuver, devoid of patriotism and morality, is moving its headquarters to foreign soil. That the chosen country Dubai, an Arab land of Sheiks and Sultans, is a physical presence in our 'oil' wars and the WWIII Islamo Fascist crusade against Islam that Cheney et al say we will be fighting for decades is a chilling example of how Cheney's non-legal non-moral mind can discard America's interests with cognitive impunity.
I would like to also point out that to some degree Halliburton knows the United States' Military's Order of Battle in the Middle East.
To supply services to our troops they have to know of and plan for the logistics of troop movements; short term and long term.
Halliburton is in essence a division of our armed forces, paid differently but no less integral than communications, the motor pool, medical services and our lives'-at-risk warriors. Halliburton was an American entity but will not be as they leave America to avoid legal scrutiny and presumably to avoid paying U.S. taxes on what you and I pay them in those contracts.
If Dick Cheney saw personal gain for himself and his 'oil' brethren he would move the Pentagon offshore. He peddles nationalism and the 'Red, White and Blue' to the well meaning but susceptible GOP faithful but when it comes to his own interests it is not Red, White and Blue, it's "screw you."
-- craig johnson / cognitorex --

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney makes the system work and keeps America safe
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 30, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is ugly, dirty and none of it sits well with your average person. But that is because the average person does not know what war is or how much danger the US faces. The US legal system and system of governance is fundamentally unworkable in a crisis. It is a system built not by logical design but by the confluence of selfish and greedy people.

When facing a severe threat like the US does today, the system just can't respond and what happens is endless bitching and back-biting. This would go on until Osama himself would be sitting in the Capital and would then scream out 'come on guys, knock it off!'.

This is where Cheney comes in. Nobody understands government and how to get things done like Cheney. Cheney is the ultimate go-to man. Without Cheney, the US would be a smouldering hole in the ground by now.

But are the snake-like legislators of Congress grateful? No. You only have to watch Rome the TV series to see how these people behave and will always behave. But if you value the Republic and the people of the Republic, you do not serve this slime, you serve the people's best interests. And the highest interest and duty of the state is to protect the citizen when under threat.

Give Cheney the respect he deserves for serving the people in a time of high threat and crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney Trouble
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 30, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case you've forgotten, during the 2000 primary season, George W. Bush (at his father's recommendation) put Poppy's former Secretary of Defence, Richard B. Cheney, at the head of a committee to find the most suitable running mate for the campaign ahead. For the sake os historical accuracy, I have concocted here the dialogue that must have taken place:

CHENEY: George! I have found your ideal running mate!
BUSH: Great! Who is it, Dick?
Cheney: You're not gonna believe it - IT'S ME!!!
BUSH: Whooa! What're the odds??

Umm....My curiosity has gotten the best of me...,but has it occurred to you yet what a fucking idiot our commander-in-chief is? Just wondering.

More more on this subject, please read:
Richard B. Cheney 1941-2007

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Richard B. Cheney 1941-2007
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 30, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the actual link to that piece:

Richard B. Cheney 1941-2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Richard B. Cheney 1941-2007 Posted by: kelly.nickell
» Thank you, Kelly Nickell Posted by: Tom Degan
With Cheney we have become Ground Zero
Posted by: motamanx on Jun 30, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Without Cheney, the US would be a smouldering hole in the ground by now." writes someone in this list of comments.
I can't agree. Cheney silenced all in the administration who suggested caution and legality. Cheney, instead, undertook a system of lies that were supposed to frighten the American people, and did. So the bottom line than no one should forget is: Cheney, more than anyone, lied us into the Iraq War. That is a given.

Millions, worldwide, marched against this war. No one wanted it except Cheney. Now that the war has turned out so spectacularly different than from the way it was advertised, it appears the multitudes were right and Cheney/Bush were wrong. Halliburton made out all right. No one else did.

By the way, Cheney is still mentioning 9/11 as the reason we are in Iraq. Where was he on that day, anyway? Why did he have to accompany W to the 9/11 Commission, and speak OFF THE RECORD? And why was the US Air Force nowhere around on 9/11? (Cheney was at NORAD). As for the secret energy papers, Cheney has changed his story as to why no one can see them so many times the truth has been scrambled. Initially it was executive priviledge, remember? Now he so longer executive, so we can't see anything his office does....

So let me ask one question: What has Cheney done for this country that is ANY GOOD?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colin Powell a long History of . . .
Posted by: covalentbonded on Jun 30, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Major Powell "investigating" My Lai where he found nothing amiss to General Powell and Iran-Contra where he lied until he was shown Weinberger's private notes to Secretary Powell's willingness to lie to the world and to America concerning non-existent WMDs this guy is always mistaking loyalty to the Establishment and his duty to America and the Constitution. He is trying to "cut a deal with History". I will not allow him that luxury!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney must be impeached
Posted by: treehugger on Jun 30, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no way to control Dick Cheney than to impeach him. Take a look at HR 333 on www.afterdowningstreet.com and demand your representatives sign on. Dennis Kucinich has introduced Articles of Impeachment that receives new sponsors weekly. And do take Kucinich seriously! He is the hope that America needs! Dare to believe we CAN change America with integrity and true values. www.kucinich.us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got that right! Posted by: mizipi
» RE: Cheney must be impeached Posted by: lessbread
Hmmmmm
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 30, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There are serious questions as to whether Cheney himself has also conspired to violate the War Crimes Act, which can be a capital crime."

If cheney was tried by an impartial court using the Nuremberg Principles, do you think he'd fair much better than nazis?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hmmmmm Posted by: kelly.nickell
I DON'T MISUNDERESTIMATE CHENEY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 30, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the American people I overestimated. Cheney has run the show from day one. Out of sheer embarassment on the part of people who voted for them nobody said anything. One day it was too late. Fact is, Cheney has nothing to lose here. Impeachment is a good idea. At least it serves notice to future administrations. As for Repubs who followed his lead, their party is destroyed. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Underestimate This: Cheney’s Halliburton is the Fastest Growing Contractor
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 30, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney has used the office of President to personally benefit as a war profiteer extraordinaire. His stock options in Halliburton are around $8 million dollars - a 3 thousand percent increase since 2004.

And yet, the American public continues to allow this treasonous and evil-vile duo (Bu$h Cheney Inc.) to personally gain finally as war profiteers from the deaths of nearly a million innocent people. It’s despicable and unethical. As an American, I am ashamed of the silence from the majority of the American people on this extremely important issue. Silence in this extremely important issue is tantamount to complicity.

CheneyHalliburton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Should read "gain financially" Posted by: freethink7
It isn't Chaney-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jun 30, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and it isn't Bush. The REAL people in charge-that Bush and Chaney work for-we don't even know their names.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It isn't Chaney- Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Dick Cheney’s Resume
Posted by: freethink7 on Jun 30, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warmonger Dick Cheney: Vietnam Draft Dodger – loves war but hates to actually serve in one

Cheney - War Profiteer Extraordinaire: His company ‘Halliburton’ makes millions off of deaths of a million innocent people

Cheney on Economy and Deficits: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter"

Cheney on Energy Policy: "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Cheney on 9/11: Reiterates (lies) constantly that Iraq is implicated in 9/11 tragedy

Cheney on Job Creation/Employment: “If Democratic policies had been pursued over the last two-to-three years, the kind of tax increases both Kerry and Edwards are talking about, we would not have had the kind of job growth that we've had.”

Cheney on Principle: "Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose.”

Cheney Israel Relationship: Cheney and Bu$h both are in bed with Israel/AIPAC and are in fact puppet presidents in U.S. for Israel. (Iraq War/M.E. wars are Israel’s wars).

Cheney on Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Distraction: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction....What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons."

Cheney on Semantics and Decorum: Cheney tells Leahy in Senate: “Go f@#k yourself!”

Cheney and Mandela: 1986 he voted against a resolution calling for U.S. recognition of African National Congress and freedom for Nelson Mandela.

Cheney on Guns and Hunting: Cheney “accidentally” shoots companion in face/torso in while hunting quail.

Cheney and ‘Trading With the Enemy’: Cheney’s Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iraq, Lybia, and all over M.E.

Cheney and Education: Consistently voted against critical early childhood programs such as Head Start. Cheney also voted against subsidizing lunches for destitute children.

Cheney and Environment: Consistently votes against clean air/clean water.

Cheney and Housing: Consistently votes against fair housing.

Cheney and Equal Rights Amendment: Voted against the E.R.A.

Cheney and Civil Rights: Consistently votes against anything relating to the furtherance of civil rights and civil liberties.

Cheney and Aids: Votes consistently against Federal funding for Aids.

- Feel free to add anything else that comes to mind re: Cheney

All above are google-able/research-able.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dick Cheney’s Resume Posted by: Gisele
If you want Impeachment
Posted by: taureandevi on Jun 30, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Presidential Candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is acting upon the cries to Impeach Cheney with h.res.333. If you are looking for a President with moral values, a President unafraid of standing up to injustice, a President who actively, intelligently and progressively acts towards peace and conflict resolution, and a President with the resolve to stand up against corporate conglomerates.
Consider Kucinich.

For more of my Modern Musings

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If you want Impeachment Posted by: allUneedislove
America's REAL Commander-in-Chief
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 30, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assume for a moment that George W. is what many detractors believe -- a presidential puppet with invisible strings pulled by someone on his White House staff. If so, who could the Oval Office Svengali be?

ANSWER: Shrub's side-talking sidekick, of course, not Karl Rove as many pundits claim.

Look at Dick Cheney's background. Like Rove, he was a Vietnam War draft dodger but with loftier ambitions. Rather than a political guru, the future Veep wanted to be the man in charge, a leader.

Cheney had that chance by taking college ROTC at the University of Wyoming and becoming a commissioned Reserve officer, but there were two strikes against him.

First, he looked like a total nerd with his big head (literally) and pudgy body. Perfect road kill material for drill sergeants at ROTC summer camp.

The second strike against Cheney was his lack of bravery. What better way to avoid risky military duty and get ahead in life following graduation then by becoming a politician? And so he did -- in Washington, D.C. -- after five draft deferments, flunking out of college once and getting two DUIs on his driving record. Ideal credentials for a Beltway insider.

Cheney''s rise to power in Washington was both remarkable and intentional as his official White House biography shows. In 1969, while other men his age defended freedom in Southeast Asia, he ran for cover in the Nixon administration.

When Gerald Ford assumed the presidency in 1974, Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of Ford's term.

In 1977, Cheney was elected as Wyoming's congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. His home state re-elected him five times. He also acted as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987 and was elected House Minority Whip in 1988.

Cheney later served as Secretary of Defense in the Bush 41 administration. The White House biography makes no mention of him running Halliburton where he obtained Defense Department business worth billions to the diversified oil company from the "single-source" no-bid contract system he created while DOD Secretary.

Also ignored by the official White House bio was his role on George W.s presidential campaign team during the 2000 GOP convention. Assigned the task of selecting candidate Bush's running mate, Richard the Chicken-Hearted picked himself, completing his self-propelled rise to power as America's REAL commander-in-chief.

A dream come true for him and a nightmare to 30,000 U.S military personnel killed and wounded in the Cheney/PNAC-promoted occupation of Iraq.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran and the editor of FreedomCentralUSA.com, a nonprofit investigative website dedicated to the destruction of neoconservatism using truth and the Internet as WMDs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeach Cheney? NONSENSE!
Posted by: Astroboy on Jun 30, 2007 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ASSASSINATE!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hold on thar! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Hold on thar! Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Hold on thar! Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: Hold on thar! Posted by: peacefullaim
» Focus on lawful means, Astroboy Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Impeach Cheney? NONSENSE! Posted by: willymack
» RE: Not enough Posted by: scmp
» RE: Yes. Posted by: aurora2484
Cheney is filling his pants with money...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 30, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One: under Bush, government contracting handouts have increased by over 300%.

Two: In 2003, Cheney said: "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years."

Three: Cheney still has financial ties to Halliburton. See Marc Perkel on Halliburton ownership. For that matter, he has financial ties to a large number of other corporations through Vanguard. See Where Cheney Keeps His Money, MSN Money.

This is the patter for the Bush Administration. Take Donald Rumsfeld - thanks to the Asian flu 'crisis' and the billions given to Tamiflu purchases (owned by Gilead, where Rummy was CEO before 2000), his holdings in Gilead went from $5 million to $25 million.

It's just robbery by corrupt government officials who think they are above the law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Afghani heroin history... Posted by: thoughtcriminal
These guys are just common criminals with power
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 30, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An ongoing criminal conspiracy. They have resurrected Fred Fielding, who unsuccessfully argued that the first imperial president, tricky dicky, was above the law.

Having learned nothing from that experience (but having escaped jail that time) Cheney and his sockpuppet are trying it again.

Things weren't supposed to turn out this way, you see. Diebold was supposed to insure Republican electoral victory in perpetuity and the Justice Department was supposed to effectively immunize Republican officeholders while criminalizing the act of being a Democrat.

Now they have to count on the puppet show at the Supreme Court and the diehards in the Senate to keep em out of jail.

Back to the ol' drawing board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for Dick Cheney
Posted by: sprawlkiller on Jun 30, 2007 2:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When someone in high elected office shows the nation how vulnerable our Constitution is, we should be thankful for the wakeup call. Like many ruthless dictators, evil kings, and monster generals, Dick Cheney is the leading practitioner of the ends-justify-the-means mentality, where only his vision of the desired ends counts. And if this means disregarding and disobeying the Constitution, torturing prisoners, killing thousands of American soldiers, disrespecting Congress, destroying our environment, embracing the invasion of illegal immigrants, increasing out national debt, and disregarding the will of the vast majority of Americans, so be it. Serving corporate interests rather than serving the people is Cheney’s brand of patriotism.

Cheney’s self-righteous ego is bigger than George W. Bush’s, and what makes Cheney more striking is that he is enormously smarter and more competent than Bush, his token boss. He is so dangerous and frightening that no impeachment of Bush effort ever stood a chance. Not as long as “President Cheney” enters your consciousness. Cheney became Bush’s shield.

When reality hits the fan we use the-lessons-learned approach to stay sane. With his finger-in-the-eye disdain for what anybody else (or history) thinks of him, Cheney offers a far better lesson learned benefit than the stumbles and fumbles of Bush-the-smirker. Bush is a joke. Cheney is a monster.

Take Cheney’s current view that he is a part of the legislative branch, not the executive, so he does not have to comply with an Executive Order on reporting use of secret materials. It is wildly inconsistent with his prior claims of executive privilege. But Cheney has no use for logical consistency. Only what Cheney wants matters. (The only law that Cheney regularly obeys is gravity.)

When we witness the brazen acts of Cheney and Bush we should envision these types of constitutional amendments.

An amendment could explicitly state that the Vice President is a member of the Executive Branch, and the Office of the Vice President must comply with Executive Orders. And perhaps we should consider a statement of the criteria that the President can invoke for firing the Vice President with the consent of Congress.

read full article at http://www.opednews.com/

articles/opedne_joel_s___070628_thanks_for_dick_chen.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. Pelosi is told in Congress to put Impeachment back on the table
Posted by: aurora2484 on Jun 30, 2007 3:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congressman McDermott Says: Impeach Cheney Now
June 29, 2007 (EIRNS)--Three days after Lyndon LaRouche warned Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment back on the table, ten-term Congressman James McDermott (D-Wash.)called for Vice President Dick Cheney to "resign or face impeachment." Speaking on the House floor June 28 he began, "Madam Speaker, it is time for a new exit strategy, one that removes the Vice President of the United States from office, voluntarily, if he chooses, but by impeachment if he stonewalls."

McDermott proceeded to detail Cheney's arrogance which asserts he is "above the law" and the fact that he has repeatedly driven our nation into "dire situations in Iraq, Iran" and within the country "as he tramples on the Constitution like it was a doormat." It is only by "fear" that this administration has ruled, he asserted. "Why debate, when you can dictate? Why follow the law, when you can act like you are above the law?" The Congressman then states that his constituents know he's "struggled mightily" for months on this matter and has now concluded, "America would best be served by bringing forth articles of impeachment against the Vice President." He provides the context in which our Founders established the vehicle of impeachment should it be necessary. Cheney, he says, "holds himself accountable to no one," ordering destruction of records, imposing his own agenda to "spy on Americans" and create a "gulag at Guantanamo." To augment his argument McDermott submitted into the Record the June 27 op-ed by law professor Bruce Fein, "Impeach Cheney."

The Washington state Democrat concluded "I believe the evidence is overwhelming and the articles of impeachment against the Vice President should be drawn up... Tonight it is time to say the impeachment option is on the table."

www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/
070629mcdermott_impeach.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. "Intent of Vice Pres = to silence all dissent"
Posted by: aurora2484 on Jun 30, 2007 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Matthew Cardinale:
McDermott: "As my constituents in the State of Washington's Seventh Congressional District know, I have struggled mightily with this matter for a long time. In grave matters facing our Nation, I believe conscience and a deep respect for our system of government should guide our actions and words," McDermott said.

"The intent of this Administration and this Vice President has been to silence all dissent, and it always happens the same way; relentless attacks until people ask themselves, do I want to subject myself to that kind of hell if I speak out? Fear is what kept this Administration in office in 2004, and fear is the only public discourse this Administration understands and practices. Why debate, when you can dictate? Why follow the law, when you can act like you are above the law?" McDermott said.

"The Founders intended impeachment to be used when those running the government forgot that they worked for the people, and the Founders intended impeachment to be used when those running the government acted as though they were above the law,” McDermott said.

"When you look at the record, you have to conclude the Vice President has placed himself above the law. He holds himself accountable only to special interests, who meet with him in secret with no record kept of who was there, what was discussed or what promises the Vice President made," McDermott said.

H Res 333 had been referred to the US House Judiciary Committee. Now, it has been referred to a Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by US Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Complete article at:
www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0184.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: . Impeachment questions Posted by: aurora2484
cheney's legacy
Posted by: willymack on Jun 30, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Evil One will go down in history along with other great Americans such as Benedict Arnold, John Wayne Gacy Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Rosenbergs. I only hope he draws his last breath in prison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Digg it!
Posted by: pennagal on Jun 30, 2007 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Digg it! Digg it now! Click on the Digg It icon and help to raise it's profile. People need to read this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush II is the Front Man for Cheney
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 30, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney has become the ideal "go-to" man for executive branch dirty work. Presumably, very few, if any, laws really apply to him, and he can therefore work with impunity. Not only that, Cheney's close ties with the private sector, particularly Halliburton, will ensure that America's "real leaders" have their agendas front and foremost. These "real leaders," essentially view the President as a figurehead, sort of a modern day "Queen of England." Full of pomp and circumstance, but devoid of much real power. The agenda of the "real leaders," i.e., the wealthy elite, the corporations, the neocons, are whom Cheny serves and he is a part of this establishment. As for poor Bush II, look, the guy cannot even say a straight sentence and we all know about his past (and possibly current) problems with alcohol. Cheney's presence ensures that the Bush II front man can entertain the pubic masses, meanwhile he (Cheney) can carry out America's agenda for her "real leaders."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Executive priviledges
Posted by: A. Burr on Jun 30, 2007 11:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Cheney is not an entity, an agency, then he doesn't have execuive priviledge anymore. If that is the case he should be immediately arrested, tried in a court of law, and bused to a federal jail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yo eagle...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jul 1, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since you're the local expert on law, the exact role of the veep, and a defender of the conservative cloak of darkness cast over my evil liberal eyes, I need some help.

I want to know what you think about what Cheney may or may not have done to help Haliburton/Dresser industries in terms of Tort Reform, Asbestos Litigation exposure and how hundreds of thousands that may die from exposure over the next twenty years from something whose dangers were known as far back as the thirties, yet ignored, are going to feel or not about their future, or lack thereof.

Seeing as how it was a "private matter" to salvage the exposed backside of Haliburton, and probably never took place - because Cheney severed all of his ties to Haliburton in 1999-2000, do we, the ones that may be fighting mesothelioma, whose only known cause is asbestos:

a. Be happy because Haliburton has managed to collect all they need to settle claims well into the future.

b. Be happy because Haliburton has ammassed the kind of war chest needed to trample any and all litigation that may still take place.

c. Be happy because SCOTUS now has the conservative horsepower to revisit cases like Amchem Products v. Windsor, or Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp in such a way that we can close the door on litigation for good.

d: Be happy because they're all Dicks secrets and we really don't want to know.

c. Be happy because it never really happened, it was all just a liberal conspiracy.

Notice, I'm letting you be happy in any of your answers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheney and Gonzalez' strength
Posted by: sercle on Jul 1, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney and Gonzalez' ability to do what they want probably derives from their knowledge of the truth about George W. Bush's military "service" -- it's called blackmail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just wanted to point out...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jul 1, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the term "water-boarding" is a propaganda word meant to give it an air of being some sport... I suppose.

During the Inquisition, it was just called dunking. And it's been called that ever since... but not by Dick Cheney or the US media or most anyone anymore. See? Propaganda works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The worst criminal to hold a public office ever...
Posted by: scmp on Jul 1, 2007 12:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney is a traitor and a criminal pretty much by any principle and in an ideal world he would hung by the neck until dead, preferably by a tree on the White House lawn.

But to add insult to injury, we all know that he will get away with everything he did against this country and against the world and some people will still consider him a hero.

This criminal would have attenuating circumstances if the crimes he committed were just the result of some strange vision of a better world, but this son of a bitch is driven only by his desire of money and power. And he is not over yet; he will take us to war with Iran. The devil does have a face after all...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is misunderestimate a word?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jul 1, 2007 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About King George and Prince Dick
Posted by: jim_altman on Jul 1, 2007 5:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I decided to reread the Declaration of Independence in honor of Wednesday and found the following excerpts strangely contemporary:

"The history of the present King [George] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

I couldn't have said it any better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is this vile reptile still in office?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 1, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Impeach Bush? Why bother? Impeach Cheney! After that, baby Bush will dry up like a pansy in August.

Seriously, Cheney is the single most dangerous man to our democracy (what's left of it) in the history of this country. All the bile that has been directed at Bush, deserved as it is, SHOULD have been directed at Cheney, for he and he alone is the actual dictat . . er. . .president of this country –– and evil incarnate.

Our sheepish capitulation to the nearly complete destruction of our democracy by him and the other "Devil's Advocates" of the Bush cabal, after the lessons of the Nazi scourge of WWII, will be recorded as one of the most shameful chapters in American history –– if, by then, there still IS an American history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When?????
Posted by: MAC2586 on Jul 2, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just find it amazing, reading the anger in comments regarding any story involving Dick Cheney, that there hasn't been swifter and more positive actions to remove this man from office. Is nobody listening to the American people in Washington? The sooner this monster is completely removed from having anything to do with this country the better.

It's as if he makes absolutely no excuses or pretenses for anything he does and is probably laughing his ass off at how stupid (he thinks) the American people are. How do we ramp up the urgency level in Washington? Are there not some measures that can be taken to limit his immediate involvement with matters in this country????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: .The people can bring charges Posted by: aurora2484
Re:"should the president suffer from mental or physical inability to serve"
Posted by: pzzp on Jul 3, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since this is true, it may be the reason Cheney is at the helm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Are You Getting Your Information?
Posted by: dlf on Jul 4, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I have stated any number of times Powell is guilty of wanting to believe what the administration was telling him. He spent days going over the intelligence and frankly didn't want to make the argument. The reason George Tenent was present at the UN is because Powell insisted he come. Powell felt if Tenent was willing to stand up for the intelligence he was being factual. Powell and his Under Secretary Armitage were the only people in the circle who thought war with Iraq was wrong. Why people who post their personal opinions, without any evidence to support it, is beyond me. The fact that Powell also believed he could restrain the administration from making a grave error is often MIA when people discuss him. Yes, he made some decisions that in hindsight he has apologized for, that also seems to be MIA when the ax-grinders post. If one is interested in better understanding his decisions I again urge you to READ PLAN of ATTACK. In fact if one is interested in the run up to the war, the unaccounted for millions, and who knew what, this book is a must READ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeach them!!
Posted by: Dartagnan on Jul 6, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get this one going!! Sign on!
Petition to Impeach! (Active petition on The Petition Site . com)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buzzrds circling...
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jul 7, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buzzard, I’m going to call you that because using some of your reasoning that parades as logic, isn’t.

Dickster is obviously a lot smarter than even you think, because he has you defending his actions.

So, buzzard it is; circling the carcass of the New Conservative movement in a way that has even the most daft of us (me?) wondering just what the hell was conservative about the last ten years of conservative progress in reversing a long history of progress one EO at a time, one new government entity at a time.

Buzzard, I have long believed conservative reasoning was the logical NO to the logical YES of liberal reasoning, and that somewhere in the mix we would arrive at a maybe this will work.

Then along comes a bunch of NO people telling me that the only answer is NO.

Sorry buzzard, when a guy tells me the truck I’m buying is red, when it looks to me like it’s white, I’ve got to start asking myself why he thinks it’s red, or why he wants me to think it’s red.

Buzzard, I’m not a mental giant, but I can tell a color by looking at it, and I can even tie my shoes, so when a veep goes walk-about, my natural response is to ask why.

It is my assumption, that this group of shit-stains (turds one and all) have already vetted their actions through the arm-chair law team here at AlterNet and Partners LLC.

Thus the sections, subsections, redirections, falsifications, reinterpretations, misdirections, alterations, obfuscations, appropriations, summations, and commutations has had the desired effect: The self proclaimed irrefutable buzzard circling the carcass, has again led me to the place where the tires squashed the kill.

Did the kill just not see it coming, or did the driver swerve to influence the outcome?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement