Impeach Cheney?
News: It sounds tempting—but "high crimes and misdemeanors" might be harder to prove than it seems.
July 6, 2007
|
|
Robert Greenwald, best known as the producer of Outfoxed, a video smackdown of Fox News, has released a new video arguing Cheney should be impeached. Given the reception for Greenwald's other work, this just might enliven the so far nonexistent impeachment debate in Washington.
As it stands, 14 members of Congress (Yvette Clarke, William Lacy Clay, Keith Ellison, Bob Filner, Jesse Jackson Jr., Hank Johnson, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and Albert Wynn) have signed impeachment papers introduced by Cleveland congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich initiated the proceedings on April 24, stating that
"Cheney has "purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the 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;
"that despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
"that preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress of the United States.''
Since Cheney’s actions could be viewed as expressions of opinion and matters of judgment, impeachable offenses might prove difficult to show; in addition, the actual decisions were made by Bush, not Cheney. The one area where Cheney probably did violate the constitution has to do with his 9/11 order, from the White House bunker, to military fighters to shoot down commercial airliners. He had no authority under the constitution to take such action; that authority goes from the President down a chain of command to the Secretary of Defense—a chain of command that, incidentally, was outlined and underscored in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, debated and passed when Cheney was in Congress.
Cheney has claimed that the president gave him authority to issue the order; the 9/11 commission, in its final report, skated around this question, delicately stating there was no "documentary evidence" for a call between the President and Vice President in which Bush gave the shoot down order. Congress allowed Cheney and Bush to escape testifying under oath before the commission, and since then, literally no one in authority has taken up the issue.
James Ridgeway is the Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones.
Comments:
The indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements to FBI agents.
The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same issues, among possible others.
Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”
Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative—it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.”
The American people must know this important truth: This indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Posted by:FreedomOfInformationActJuly 6, 2007 5:57:41 PMRespond ^
Progressives like to debate and discuss and strategize. "It'll never happen, so why waste time?" or "It's too hard to prove" or "We don't have the votes" or "We should censure first" or "It hurts us in '08, so let's just play it safe" or "We need to focus on other things" or "a million other excuses.
We are a bright group- and these arguments feed our healthy intellectual appetites for thougtful debate. They engage us in lively discussion of strategy. But meanwhile, nothing is settled on, and nothing gets done.
It's our MO - and frankly I'm sick of it.
This article, like many in the blog community, completely misses the point. It doesn't matter if you can get a conviction or not. It's not about 'strategy'. It's about law, and the constitution. Its about COngress standing up, and doing the right thing. We all agree Cheney deserves to be impeached. Its time to drop all the excuses and second guessing, and start backing House Resolution 333.
Impeachment is an indictment, its not a removal from office. Its precisely the tool we are supposed to use when an administration is this reckless and lawless. What are we waiting for? Could their approval rating be lower? With the environment, the economy, and Iran situation, could the stakes be higher?
If you still demand to talk strategy, impeachment improves the strength of a party, and heals the nation. It's the kind of bold action Americans crave from their leaders, and history shows it.
But regardless of that, cCongress has a moral and constitutional obligation to impeach. An unprovoked, ill-conceived and illegal war that’s leveled a nation and killed, maimed and displaced millions of innocents. Ordering torture. Holding prisoners without charge or trial. The tragic Katrina response. Spying on American citizens without warrants or probable cause. Political appointments in every government department, destroying those offices’ very ability to function. Countless abuses of power, and refusals to coperate with subpoenas. This administration is mocking us, and the Libby pardon should have permanantly ended the debates and strategizing.
We must impeach, NOW.
House Resolution 333 is gaining momentum. Call your representative and respectfully ask them to back this bill. You can do it. Take a deep breath, and join the movement. Save the debates until it's all over. Don't let the game distract us - the future of democracy depends on it.
Posted by:Frank HoffmeisterJuly 7, 2007 1:12:38 AMRespond ^
I AGREE WITH FRANK COMPLETELY. This is prgressive nit-picking, and it is irresponsible.
IMPEACHING CHENEY IS A REALITY Don't screw it up. Call your congressman or congresswoman now and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 333!
Posted by:Maria SandovalJuly 7, 2007 1:30:15 AMRespond ^
There is absolutely nothing progressive and a great deal that is regressive about letting confidence in the rule of law be categorically undermined.
Not only have Americans had to watch the President and Vice President set themselves above the constitution, they have had to watch most of their representatives fail to uphold their own oaths to support and defend the constitution.
The Constitution lays out an article 6 duty to "support the constitution".
Article 2, section 4 states "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, SHALL BE removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other hight crimes and misdemeanors."
There is nothing in the wording about it needing to be politically convenient or in the interests of a political party. The framers seem to have been a bit old fashioned about bedrock notions like that the rule of law should be respected and that solemn promises ought be kept.
Posted by:Brett PaatschJuly 7, 2007 1:47:00 AMRespond ^
Impeachment of the Vice President and the President is escential to the resporation of Democracy and the Rule of Law. Once the investigations start there is no telling where they will lead. I am sure this man will fall once the facts are known about all his shinanagins.
Posted by:Bruce PieroniJuly 9, 2007 11:36:56 AMRespond ^
I signed the impeachment email and I believe both Cheney and Bush should be impeached. I think the democrats are too chicken to take it on. They were voted into office to do something about the administration and are failing in the job. I am a voting person and if they want my vote next time they better get the ball a rolling on these things. I hate what the administration has done to this country. I am sick, sick, sick of letting Bush and Cheney get away with all this secrecy. Now is the time to do something. Don't wait till Bush can pass some more laws to protect his butt and Cheney's. It is getting like a comunist country. I think that Libby should have served his term. Do you think this would be done for the average citizen. No! This is very serious what Libby has done. HR333 must pass. Impeach Bush and Cheney!
Posted by:Alfreda RodgersJuly 9, 2007 11:43:14 AMRespond ^
Mark me as another that now agrees with Frank H.
I made many of those same excuses myself, rationalizing that we would be shut of them in '08, that the time had passed, that it would be too divisive.
But despite public opinion and reality checks, both the Shootist and the Shrub continue as if all was well.
Although the Shrub is supposedly considering yet another flip-flop due to more R's on the Hill supporting the terrorist's and wanting the terrorist's to follow the troops home.
But the Shootist will likely torpedo any such plans. Hell, he may decide that his secret powers allow him to replace Duhbya and expand the war across the globe.
To me, his announcement that he is not subject to Executive Branch rules nor Senate rules is reason enough to put him to bed.
I have heard more and more people citing the part of the Preamble about removing a government that is not responsive to the needs of the governed.
Hopefully, the voter's will have learned what happens when they only listen to sound bites and don't consider the candidates lack of prior contributions to this country.
Posted by:James LambertJuly 9, 2007 11:50:19 AMRespond ^
If impeaching Clinton over a blow-job wasn't over the top, then certainly impeaching the current crop of clowns in the oval office should be a no-brainer.
Posted by:phatkhatJuly 9, 2007 11:51:11 AMRespond ^
IN FACT , WITH MARVIN BUSH BEING IN CHARGE OF SECURITY IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND ENDING HIS CONTRACT ON 9/11 AND THE AIRFORCE GAMES ORDERED BY CHENEY ON 9/11 , THAT WERE SPECIFICLY PRACTCING FOR AND ABOUT ATTACKS ON TWIN TOWERS , TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE TO ALL AIRFORCE PERSONEL WHO WERE INCHARGE OF RESPONDING TO SUCH THREATS , AND THE FACT THAT CHENEY PUT HIM SLEF IN CHARGE OF ALL AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS PRIOR TO 9/11, SOMETHING TOTALY OUT OF THE LOOP OF NECESSITY OR NORMAL FOR V P ACTIVITIES , AND THE 9/11 COMMISSION GETTING TESTIMONY FROM A WHITE HOUSE AID WHO REPORTED DIRECTLY TO CHENEY , WHO STATED THAT CHENEY WAS MONITERING THE PROCESS OF THE PLANES ?/ MISSLES , HEADED FOR THE PENTAGON AND WAS ASKED MORE THAN A FEW TIMES , DO WE REACT TO THIS THREAT NOW , AND WAS TOLD TO " STAND DOWN " SHOWS TOTAL INCOMPENTACY , IF NOT INVOLVEMENT IN HIS ACTIONS DURING THE 9/11 ATTACKS.
ON TOP OF THAT THERE WAS NO VISIBLE FUSELAGE OR PLANE CRASH REMNANTS AT EITHER THE PENTAGON AREAS OR THE PENNSYVANIA CRASH SITE.
WHERE IN HISTORY HAS THERE EVER BEN ANY AIR LINES CRASH THAT LEFT NO FUSELAGE AT THE CRASH SITE EXCEPT MAYBE IF AN AIRLINER CRASHED INTO THE SEA AND ALL WAS SUNK ?
VERY VERY SUSPICIOUS TO ME AND I SAY LET US GET THESE GUYS IN THERE UNDER OATH AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS THING ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH AN INDEPENDANT PROSECUTER APPOINTED BY A NON PARTISON GROUP OF CONGRESS AND SENATE ELECTORATES !
WHAT SAY YOU ?
H. SMITH
Posted by:HARISSON SMITHJuly 9, 2007 11:56:47 AMRespond ^
There is as the Federal Proscutor said "A Cloud over this Vice President's office" and it would seem that if this Vice President had absolutely nothing to do with outing a covert agent of the CIA then this White House should be telling everyone that is absolutely not true...if this Vice President did have something to do with this...then it would seem that he compromised the security of this country and that's treason.
I think we all understand that Bush takes his orders from Cheney...so shooting down commercial aircraft, outing CIA agents, pardoning his pals...all within Cheney's self appointed power. However the Constitution gives him no such power.
What is wrong with this Congress???? The Constitution gives them the power to impeach Cheney and everyday that don't is another day they choose to share the governing of this country with this traitor.
Posted by:irish46514July 9, 2007 12:18:11 PMRespond ^
Are you sure Cheney did give 'orders' to shoot down commercial airlines? We know he took command. But what were the orders? Maybe shoot down United 93 and not shoot down whatever hit the Pentagon? Hey where was Rumsfeld during all this? Why was our President NOT in command? So what happened to the one (airplane?) that supposedly hit the Pentagon? Why wasn't that shot down? There was plenty of warning. Ask the hard questions! Investigate! Don't Gatekeep!
Posted by:tom gormanJuly 9, 2007 12:23:04 PMRespond ^
Investigate the growing mountain of scientific evidence that 911 was really an 'inside job'! Check out the 911 Omissions Report and the incomplete NIST & FEMA studies versus some solid independent research(physicist Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage) concerning what in reality happened on 911. At this point, gatekeeping or playing MJ softball is cover-up.
Posted by:tom gormanJuly 9, 2007 12:35:17 PMRespond ^
To concur with what people sensibly and previously already realized, if our government has been so maleable and corruptable for over a decade now that it could move forth to impeach a far less secretive and far more coherent president than we have for experiencing something akin to sex in the backseat of dad's car, then they can certainly find the ovaries and testes to put forth a legitimate impeachment effort - for at least two, I hope.
Posted by:E BJuly 9, 2007 12:36:43 PMRespond ^
Amen Frank!!!!! I am so tired of the Dems, I plan to vote for Cindy Sheehan if she runs against Nancy Pelosi. In the word of MLK:
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Posted by:VickiJuly 9, 2007 12:55:55 PMRespond ^
I have my IMPEACH bumper sticker on my car. My IMPEAACH CHENEY hat is on order. I have contributed cash to the cause, and I am ready to march through Portland, Oregon with a sign to Impeach Cheney. Is anyone organizing an Impeach Cheney demonstration in Portland, Oregon? If not, how do I organize one, as a person who lives outside of Portland, in Hillsboro.
Posted by:Gene SmallJuly 9, 2007 1:07:41 PMRespond ^
fire him!!
Posted by:carmilla lJuly 9, 2007 1:21:33 PMRespond ^
I suggest it could be more efficient, with respect to the Senate's schedule, to mount a campaign of rock solid facts regarding his behavior, continuously publicize it and press for his resignation. He has been the most rotten apple in this administration's barrel.
Posted by:JEFF GARRISONJuly 9, 2007 1:25:13 PMRespond ^
OK. IF WE CAN'T IMPEACH THE PUPPETEER, LET'S IMPEACH THE PUPPET!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070907N.shtml
Bush Justice Is a National Disgrace
By John S. Koppel
The Denver Post
Thursday 05 July 2007
As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.
In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor "politics as usual," but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate - which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.
In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to "play ball." Enough information has already been disclosed to support the conclusion that this is exactly what happened here, at least in the case of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico (and quite possibly in several others as well). Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not "performance problems."
In his long-awaited but uninformative testimony concerning the extraordinary firings of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not allay these concerns. Indeed, he faced a no-win situation. If he testified falsely regarding his alleged lack of recollection and lack of involvement, he perjured himself and lied to both Congress and the American people. On the other hand, if he told the truth, he clearly has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job. Either way, his fitness to serve is now in doubt.
Tellingly, in his congressional testimony, D. Kyle Sampson (the junior aide to whom the attorney general delegated vast authority) expressed the view that the distinction between "performance" considerations and "political" considerations was "largely artificial." This attitude, however, is precisely the problem. The administration that Sampson served has elided the distinction between government performance and politics to an unparalleled extent (just as it has blurred the boundaries between the White House counsel's office and the attorney general's office). And it is no answer to say that U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The point that is lost on those who make this argument is that U.S. attorneys must not serve partisan purposes or advance a partisan agenda - which has nothing to do with requiring them to promote an administration's legitimate policy priorities.
As usual, the administration has attempted to minimize the significance of its malfeasance and misfeasance, reciting its now-customary "mistakes were made" mantra, accepting purely abstract responsibility without consequences for its actions, and making hollow vows to do better. However, the DOJ Inspector General's Patriot Act report (which would not even have existed if the administration had not been forced to grudgingly accept a very modest legislative reporting requirement, instead of being allowed to operate in its preferred secrecy), the White House-DOJ e-mails, and now the Libby commutation merely highlight yet again the lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty of the present executive branch leadership.
They also underscore Congress' lack of wisdom in blindly trusting the administration, largely rubber-stamping its legislative proposals, and essentially abandoning the congressional oversight function for most of the last six years. These are, after all, the same leaders who brought us the WMD fiasco, the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, warrantless domestic NSA surveillance, the Valerie Wilson leak, the arrest of Brandon Mayfield, and the Katrina response failure. The last thing they deserve is trust.
The sweeping, judicially unchecked powers granted under the Patriot Act should neither have been created in the first place nor permanently renewed thereafter, and the Act - which also contributed to the ongoing contretemps regarding the replacement of U.S. attorneys, by changing the appointment process to invite political abuse - should be substantially modified, if not scrapped outright. And real, rather than symbolic, responsibility should be assigned for the manifold abuses. The public trust has been flagrantly violated, and meaningful accountability is long overdue. Officials who have brought into disrepute both the Department of Justice and the administration of justice as a whole should finally have to answer for it - and the misdeeds at issue involve not merely garden-variety misconduct, but multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," including war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.
--------
The views presented in this essay are not representative of the Department of Justice or its employees but are instead the personal views of its author.
John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981.
Posted by:Mackie BlantonJuly 9, 2007 1:31:40 PMRespond ^
Follow the Washington Post "Angler" series documentation and begin the impeachment based on actions not opinions (as you refer to them).
As to the argument against impeachment, that congress needs to proceed to obtain needed legislation for the good of the country; what might those legislations be? and which ones would stand a chance of avoiding the veto?
So use the time to stir up impeachment if for no other reason to keep bush from daring to pack the court with judicial activists like Roberts would want.
Posted by:James BartonJuly 9, 2007 2:00:07 PMRespond ^
There is more than enough to open Impeachment Hearings; how many intimidated would-be whistle-blowers would surface to add to the stench that there's "something rotten in the White House?" And can Cheney stick to the truth under oath? It's the lying under oath that's brought others down.
Posted by:Margaret LangJuly 9, 2007 2:02:42 PMRespond ^
What remains for this administration to do before impeachment proceedings can begin?
Posted by:Doug BaierJuly 9, 2007 2:33:32 PMRespond ^
Impeachment is such a high bar that Republicans were able to impeach the last Democratic President over allegedly lying about a consensual private sexual encounter. And this was a President who was clearly elected in a properly conducted election!
It is true that these charges were never proved in the Senate, but this President was effectively crippled for much of his second term by the impeachment.
Posted by:WhatdoIKnowJuly 9, 2007 2:46:19 PMRespond ^
We need to stop supporting anyone in congress who voted for the war or voted to give the Bush Administration the right to go to war in Iraq. Criminals belong in prison not in the government of the people. The congress knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and voted to attack Iraq because they were getting contributions for those who wanted civilian contracts to rebuild Iraq and get the oil. It is really sad how low this country has fallen in just a few short years. Cheney should have to answer for his crimes just like any other criminal and so should Bush and the rest of his team.
Posted by:Ann RayJuly 9, 2007 2:53:10 PMRespond ^
I think that Cheney and Bush should both be impeached, imprisoned, and .....
Posted by:Lynn WJuly 9, 2007 3:37:02 PMRespond ^
My questions, in return, are these:
1. As everyone who can read or watch tv is aware, the president and vice president have, since originally taking office, flagrantly abused and expanded their powers, committed illegal acts, and, in general, thumbed their noses at the people, the Congress, the country and the world. Why have they not been impeached?
2. Have Bush/Cheney usurped so much power they truly ARE above the law and you CAN'T impeach them?
3. If #2 is true, and after reading Al Gore's Assault on Reason, I wouldn't doubt it, what makes you think that anything Congress does will make any difference whatsoever?
It would seem to me -- and I'm neither a student of the government nor inside the government -- that it has come down to an either/or situation.
a. Bush/Cheney are impeached.
b. Bush/Cheney cannot be impeached.
c. Congress is so worried about their image; collecting every conceivable vote and pleasing every conceivable voter; protecting their backsides as to be totally ineffective, that they can't/won't do what's right.
d. Congress is in "cahoots" with Bush/Cheney and we really ARE doomed.
Posted by:Michelle StaplesJuly 9, 2007 4:22:36 PMRespond ^
"When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the ares of man's concern, poetry
reminds him of the richness and diversity of his experience. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human
truths which must serve as the touchstones of our judgement. The artist faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an offensive state." John F. Kennedy
Posted by:Victoria RumJuly 9, 2007 4:48:15 PMRespond ^
That was a pretty low bar set by the Republicans in 1998. They set a precedent. And, they weren't worried about the legal basis then. Their purpose was strictly political, and sticking low it was. There are ample "grievances," and it is high time they wre put out there.
Posted by:B.G.BandlerJuly 9, 2007 5:42:23 PMRespond ^
Mr. Ridgeway . . . are you [deleted]ing kidding? Lying about Monica was grounds to try it. Surely we can have a go. Pity we can't just call a "referendunce" to vote on the matter—with the vote supervised and monitored by Jimmy Carter and whomever he heeds to assist. As nescient as the populace is, even I can't believe they'd give that creature another go.
Posted by:John BlandJuly 9, 2007 6:24:11 PMRespond ^
So far he has committed crimes against humanity and two peremptive wars. I would say these are illigal. They have both lied to get these wars underway. Not only are the wars illigal but the reasons are a complete fabrication. All of the nations around the world are astounished by the lack of response by us the people. And besides our VP has shot someone. Do you think if I went across the border into another state, and went hunting without a licience and shot a lawyer, left the state before going to the authorities I would be free? What do you think would happen to me?
How much are you going to let them get away with? I mean really I am surprised that anyone has to write a letter.
Posted by:Kathleen Stapylton-SmithJuly 9, 2007 6:24:50 PMRespond ^
i believe that impeachment is a waste of time. the most important thing is to get our troops home asap and then sweep these rupuliscans out of power in 2008. then we can begin to undo the evil they have laid upon our country.
Posted by:kevin mcnamaraJuly 9, 2007 6:25:19 PMRespond ^
IS THIS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS OR A GOVERNMENT OF MEN? [Rhetorical Question]
This is a government of men, and absolutely no respect should be given to such a government!
Posted by:Robert StevensJuly 9, 2007 6:43:12 PMRespond ^
Impeachment doesn't go far enough. We should bring war crimes charges against them in the world court and then turn them over for trial. This would help to support the authority of the court and send a message to our future leaders. They represent the people and are not to run the country like their person corporation to do with as they like. They are responsible for the death of 100's of thousands of people in Iraq. This is not a small matter. They approve laws and then excuse themselve from the law. (This is not likely to happen, but it would be a great way to make a clean start.)
Posted by:Wishful thinkingJuly 9, 2007 7:30:16 PMRespond ^
A well documented legal case against Vice President Cheney and the Secret Service has been made by Mike Ruppert in his book Crossing the Rubicon. A summary of his arguments, written by Michael Kane and entitled, "Simplifying the Case Against Dick Cheney," can be read at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
This lays out in detail, point by point, how 9/11 was allowed, if not planned, to happen. The summary doesn't go into the sloppy reactions (i.e. outing a CIA official - arguably a treasonous offense) by the administration in anger at Ambassador Wilson's claim that its claims regarding Niger was bogus, thereby questioning its case for invading Iraq. And the summary doesn't mention the Project for a New American Century, a neocon group to which Cheney, Richard Pearl, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, "Scooter" Libby, and others belong. Read its Statement of Purpose at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Among its many essays, you will find one in which it is argued that a “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” was necessary to bring about support among the American people for a new war with Iraq. These people believe in lying. The ends justify the means. Tip of the ice berg, people.
It's putrid. Who can't smell it?
Posted by:ShaneJuly 9, 2007 9:45:57 PMRespond ^
JAMES YOU SUCK! Cheney is a criminal. Now you may be right in that it might be hard to prove that he is one, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one. So much of our federal government is corrupted by money from huge corporations that I fear that we, the average citizens, will never again have a government that truly serves the people. Please read "Hostile Takeover" by David Sirota.
Posted by:Dave MooreJuly 9, 2007 10:01:36 PMRespond ^
I believe there are other issues. The secert prisons,the tortue the mass firings. There are some that think that he is the one calling the shots. Of course W ought to be impeached also.
Posted by:Russell D'ArensbourgJuly 10, 2007 3:41:36 AMRespond ^
"high crimes and misdameanors" does not require a law violation. It refers to an 'abuse of power." Cheney abused his power by deceiving Congress and the American people into WAR ! Cheney, and Bush, must be both impeached and removed from office or a horrible precedent will have been set. Congress must do its duty.
Posted by:bob bovillJuly 10, 2007 4:56:09 AMRespond ^
Impeaching Bush and/or Cheney is politically impractical but crutial to reinstating the Constitution and rule of law. This administration must be made responsible to the law or no future president will feel bound to the Constitution.
Posted by:Dave VeenstraJuly 10, 2007 6:02:01 AMRespond ^
If we cannot impeach in Congress, How about inditing Bush and Cheney in the international court?
Posted by:Dave VeenstraJuly 10, 2007 6:07:00 AMRespond ^
It is imperative that both Cheney and Bush be impeached for (at least) two reasons: 1, it will demonstrate to the world that US citizens do not support criminal behavior; and 2, it will demonstrate to our government that US citizens will not support criminal behavior. To let this go is to write a blank check not only to this, but also to future administrations. I also like the idea of world court for war crimes. There has to be accountability, but unless we demand it, it ain't gonna happen and the evildoers will get off scott free with pensions and all.
Posted by:Audrey McMullenJuly 10, 2007 7:02:35 AMRespond ^
Frank is right! There's an outcry happening, it's just not getting any coverage, so the word is less likely to be spread...Revolution!!!!
Posted by:TawnyJuly 10, 2007 7:50:16 AMRespond ^
CHENEY/SATAN '08
Posted by:Ken RutherfordJuly 10, 2007 8:12:56 AMRespond ^
If the impeachment is not attempted and the issues aired, we will see the 2008 Republican ticket as Dick Cheney / George Bush '08. "Same players with the same responsibilities" and different titles. Bush's job as VP will continue to be to take long vacations and talk a lot, Cheney as Prez will do the dirty work and make the decisions. Further, this time he won't have his hand up George's back and make George's mouth move. And instead of shooting his friends in the face, he can shoot his enemies. Talk about a "Dream Team"!
Posted by:RichWJuly 10, 2007 11:20:35 AMRespond ^
Why is impeachment not an option? Because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats!
Posted by:Ted LundgrenJuly 11, 2007 7:40:01 AMRespond ^
As much as I'd love to see Cheney impeached..be real people, it will never happen. Its only wishfull thinking as people are too afraid of the government to get involved. How sad.
Posted by:RogerJuly 11, 2007 5:41:14 PMRespond ^
It sounds tempting — but I don't want a setting Vice President ruining for President in 08. The impeachment can still be held in 09 when the Dem's. will probly have a bigger majority.
Posted by:charles grayJuly 11, 2007 7:40:49 PMRespond ^
These bastards both need to be on trial for treason period.They have taken gasoline and a bic and burned our Constitution.They have taken away our quality of life by either knowing about 9-11 or planning it themselves.The crimes they have committed are endless.I am amazed that the American
people got fired up about Clinton's blow job.Our constitutional rights can be trampled and the media doesn't say boo.I guess sex really does sell.Maybe if Cheney was blowing
some body we would get some impeachment action
Posted by:Lyin in the bushesJuly 14, 2007 9:26:36 PMRespond ^
We must do everything that we can to impeach both Bush and Cheney immediately. Perhaps each one of us ought to committ to what Cindy Sheehan has committed to: we should each challenge our representatives with the promise to run against them in the next election if they don't push for impeachment. Surely we may pose no threat for the representative's political career, but we may get some press--something, anything to get people to wake up.
Posted by:Madeline MarcotteJuly 15, 2007 8:28:02 PMRespond ^
Write your Congressional representatives and Nancy Pelosi too. Tell them to do their jobs and start impeachment proceedings. Watch Bill Moyer's Journal from 7/12/07. The case is there and it's time.
Posted by:KayJuly 16, 2007 2:22:18 AMRespond ^
How to Impeach Cheney and Bush and Stop WW III
A good way to break into the mainstream media with 9-11 Truth and our plans to impeach Cheney and Bush would be a 60 second commercial played as part of a local congressional campaign with national implications (i.e. the Pelosi Sheehan race here in San Francisco.) What we would do is to go to http://www.WTC7.net and get a few of the clips of WTC Tower 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds. Then we have a voice over explaining that Tower 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane on 9-11.
The narrator can point out that the video reveals there obviously was no fire sufficient to cause the collapse and that the smoke was coming from the buildings behind it. The narrator can also say that steel might begin to melt at 2,000 degrees but that before the fire got to 2,000 degrees it would have gotten to 900 degrees which would have popped out all the windows. But not one was melted. Not one window was out of place. Tower 7 was obviously brought down by a controlled demolition and not by a fire. This demands a Congressional inquiry and any congress person opposed to a real investigation is just part of the cover up. This could be posted on YouTube and everywhere else and used by anyone who wants to run for Congress, Senate or even President. It could be up and running on the Internet within a week. We allowed the Warren Commision to lie to us about the Kennedy assassination but we will accept no more lies.
I have an idea for a second commercial and it zeroes in on the corruption of both political parties and reveals specific reasons for impeaching Dick Cheney. This commercial would appeal to the Republican base and would expose Cheney's role in the conspiracy against the Pentagon on 9-11. We begin the second commercial with the admission by Donald Rumsfeld on 9-10-2001 to CBS News that he could not trace 2.3 trillion dollars in Department of Defense spending. On 9-11-2001 Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations , Robert Andrews -the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense - was going to the Counter Terrorism Center in the Pentagon when he saw and heard a bomb explode destroying the center and killing 40 of 41 auditors next door. These 41 military officers were attempting to trace the 2.3 trillion dollars in missing money. Please remember that this deadly explosion happened 3 1/2 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon!! This would indicate to me that the primary target was the auditors. The plane that hit the Pentagon was originally on course to hit Donald Rumsfeld's office, but did a 270 degree turn and a power dive to avoid hitting the Pentagon brass so it could take out the people examining the books.
Auditing procedures in all federal departments are nonexistent so that billions of dollars can be stolen by Wall Street approved elites who are allowed to plunder billions of dollars a week under both Republican and Democratic administrations in almost all departments even including Social Security. This explains why Republicans participated in the cover up of the Kennedy asssassination and Democrats with the exception of Max Cleland covered up the Truth of 9-11. Catherine Austin Fitts, the former managing partner at Dillon Read and the Deputy Secretary of HUD in the first Bush administration, said she once found one block in San Diego that had 10 HUD guaranteed loans on buildings that never existed.
Dick Cheney was the one who on 9-11 refused permission to the DOD to shoot down Flight 77 which is alleged to have struck the Pentagon despite Rumsfeld's admission that Flight 93 had been shot down precisely so it could not strike it's intended target in Washington D.C. It is very likely that Cheney needed a plane to hit the Pentagon to cover up the bomb that destroyed the CTC and killed 40 auditors next door. That makes Dick Cheney a party to murder and treason which are capital offenses. If there is time the narrator could point out that according to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology there was no Arab DNA on Flight 77.
As soon as one or both of these commercials hit YouTube, we can encourage an army of unemployed to go into busines for themselves selling Impeach Bush and Impeach Cheney tee-shirts. They would need a portable TV with a tape of the commercials on continuous play. Hopefully, they will stick to safe areas where the police will not beat them up. Any TV station that refuses to play our commercials will have complaints filed against them with the FCC. Candidate commercials are supposed to be allowed on the public air waves.
This is both an educational campaign and an incendiary to spark a nonviolent revolt against the Establishment. It will also protect us against any future "terrorist events" staged by our oppressors in Washington.
I would also like to revive an old idea I had for getting out the Truth about 9-11. We could have actors read eyewitness testimony of men and women who saw and heard bombs go off before the planes hit their targets. Men like Robert Andrews the former Green Beret officer is a credible witness. His testimony could be read by an actor in 60 seconds and placed on YouTube for wider circulation. Other witness testimonies could be read into 60 second video clips also to be posted on YouTube.
Be of Good Cheer. The End is Nigh.
--------------------------------
References
Catherine Austin Fitts has done a lot of work on the theft of taxpayer's money through intentionally unaudited federal government contracts. You can read more about her work here: http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_risk.htm
The best site forpeople new to the 911 Truth movement is www.WTC7.net
If you want to recommend another good place for a novice to start, then point to this site: http://www.911proof.com/
This website has eyewitness testimony from those New York firefighters who were not killed by the bomb blasts: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
The testimony of the janitor who survived the bomb blasts in the sub-basement can be found here: www.ArcticBeacon.com/12Jul-2005.html
You can read an excellent article that explains the impossiblity of the WTC collapse was anything other than a controlled demolition. Go here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Daniel Fey
Http://VowofHappiness.Blogspot.com
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Http://OpeningMind.Blogspot.com
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Posted by:Daniel FJuly 17, 2007 1:37:35 AMRespond ^
Good points.
But it is the investigation of the executive that we need.
We all think Cheney is the central actor and controller.
Maybe he isn't;
but somebody is.
Posted by:Larry DooresJuly 18, 2007 4:49:32 PMRespond ^
I believe Bush is just a puppet for Cheney.The reality is that Bush is far from intelligent, and can not present a coherent speech.Cheney is behind all the atrocities imposed on this Republic. Therefore, Cheney is the person who should be impeached first, then Bush and Gonzales. However, each are equally culpable for the violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution, as well as violations of the Geneva Convention. Each should be prosecuted and required to pay massive fines for the loss of tax funds payed by the American tax payers. Then sent to the Hague to be prosecuted as war criminals. Enough of the unitary government, it is time the people take back their Government. AIl the Republicans who fail to vote to bring the troops home, close Guantanamo, and abide by the law should each be held accountable. Each Republican Congressman or Senator, who fail to provide the safeguards to each American citizen, should be voted out of office.
Posted by:Vicki LawsonJuly 20, 2007 8:15:14 AMRespond ^
To my mind they both should be put in front of a tribunal for crimes against humanity. Why are they different then any other world leaders?
Posted by:Robert DrakeJuly 28, 2007 10:00:31 AMRespond ^
Impeachment is too good for them they should be prosecuted
Posted by:Robert DrakeJuly 28, 2007 10:01:23 AMRespond ^
Impeach Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. The sooner the better. There are so many valid reasons to do so. We are shirking our consitutional duties if we do not impeach these criminals.
This administration is a gigantic abcess filled with the pus of corruption and it needs to be lanced, now. All the pus will come pouring out if the right part is attacked.
Posted by:ProgressiveAugust 5, 2007 10:33:17 PMRespond ^
Where are the breeding?
Posted by:Julius Caesar CruzAugust 10, 2007 10:41:42 PMRespond ^
Mr Cheney must face consequences for the benefit of the citizens of the US and OUR Constitution.( Pretty straight-forward..pretty simple.)
Posted by:Sean UnmuthAugust 18, 2007 7:22:36 PMRespond ^
the presidential seal is stamped in my forehead, like an expensive pair of shoes... the president is raving, his lecturn's thrown down..
Posted by:sean unmuthOctober 3, 2007 8:03:15 PMRespond ^
THIS IS DEDICATED TO GOP LOOSERS WHO LICK IT IN MENS ROOM, LOVE THEIR BURKA WEARING FRIENDS & WHO ALSO LOVE COMMUNISM. F DEMS TOO. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
WHO TOLD AIR FORCE TO STAND DOWN ON 9-11? WHO RELEASED THE 5 ISREALIE AGENTS THAT THE NEW JERSEY POLICE ARRESTED FOR BLOWING UP TWIN TOWERS? WHO ORDERED THE BOMB SNIFFING DOGS OUT OF TWIN TOWERS 1 WEEK BEFORE 9-11?
WHO ORDERED TERROR DRILL BY FEMA 2 DAYS BEFORE 9-11 IN MANHATTAN?
WHO KILLED PAT TILLMAN & DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE? WHY DOES THIS GOVERNMENT ARREST INNOCENT AMERICANS, TASER THEM & KILL THEM FOR DISSENT OR LOOKING INTO THE EVIDENCE OF 9-11? MY NAME IS ON THIS IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT, DON’T CRITICIZE ME JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS. REMEMBER YOU WILL FALL HARD. I NOTICED A VERY FEW NASTY CRITICS, APPARENTLY THEY DO NOT LIKE FREE SPEECH. ONE PIECE OF ADVICE, I AIN’T MICHAEL MOORE, I AM FROM DETROIT & LIKE MY BOYHOOD IDOL JIMMY HOFFA I GOT TWO FISTS & ATTITUDE TO MATCH, SO UNLESS YOU GOT 9 FRIENDS PACKING & PRE-ARRANGED FUNERAL, DON’T WASTE THE GAS, CAUSE I WON’T BREAK A SWEAT. OH YEAH DON’T FORGET YOUR BABY SEALS FROM BLACKWATER. LETS PARTY, PERSONALLY I LOVE VIOLENCE, BUT I DON’T PICK ON WEAK..
Posted by:carl bollingerNovember 7, 2007 11:45:32 AMRespond ^