Cheney

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.

House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings

Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney.

Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, �A Case for Hearings,� that declares, �The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.�

In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan�s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, �it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.� The three House members argue that, �Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to �unknowingly [pass] along false information.��

Adding to the sense of urgency, the members note that �recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction � this time about Iran�s nuclear capabilities.�

Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses �off the table� in this Congress.

It is notable, however, that Baldwin maintains warm relations with Pelosi and that Wexler, a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee has historically had an amiable and effective working relationship with Conyers. There is no question that Conyers, who voted to keep open the impeachment debate on November 7, has been looking for a way to explore the charges against Cheney. The move by three of his key allies on the committee may provide the chairman with the opening he seeks, although it is likely he will need to hear from more committee members before making any kind of break with Pelosi � or perhaps convincing her that holding hearings on Cheney�s high crimes and misdemeanors is different from putting a Bush impeachment move on the table.

The most important immediate development, however, is the assertion of an �ask� for supporters of impeachment. Pulled in many directions in recent months, campaigners for presidential and vice presidential accountability have focused their attention on supporting a House proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nod, to impeach Cheney. When Kucinich forced consideration of his resolution on November 7, Pelosi and her allies used procedural moves to get it sent to the Judiciary Committee for consideration. Pelosi�s hope was that the proposal would disappear into the committee�s files.

The call for hearings by Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin puts impeachment on the table, at least as far as activists are concerned, creating a pressure point that can serve as a reply when House Democrats who are critical of Bush but cautious about impeachment ask: �What do you want me to do?� The answer can now be: �Back the call for Judiciary Committee hearings on whether to impeach Cheney?�

�Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton�s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise,� write Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin.

�The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal,� the House members add. �They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70 percent of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43 percent say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.�

Arguing that hearings need not distract Congress, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin note that the focus is on Cheney for a reason: �These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President � not our commander in chief � and the resulting impact on the nation�s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings.�

They also argue, correctly, that the hearings are necessary if Congress is to restore its position in the Constitutionally-defined system of checks and balances.

�Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence � not politics � should determine the outcome,� the Judiciary Committee members explain. �Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

Why should he care? He's leaving office soon and none of his family or friends were at risk over there. He and most of his cronies all were successful in shirking military service. And he won't be around to pay the bill for this war -- our children and grandchildren are the ones who will pay in the long run if it doesn't financially ruin this country before then.

I'm sure he thought he and a few others would benefit in $$$ from this invasion, and I'm sure some folks did (like Halliburton) but instead it has backfired. Recent news shows that the war has ultimately destabilized the flow of oil and our relations with the countries that provide our oil. Plus the Iraqi pipeline has never gotten back to even pre-war levels.

May their sorry a$$e$ rot in helll! What did Bush do in the first three weeks of office - clear brush in crawford? He holds the record for the most vacations.

Well, maybe that makes sense. He does seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.

Well, maybe that makes sense. As I remember his snarling face, he did seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.

FBI Examines Computers in Cheney's Office

But I'm glad I read about it. I see George Soros, Clinton, McCain, Cheney and Rice, Colin Powell are all members. It is supposed to be totally nonpartisan and welcoming all regardless of race, religion or ideology.

(This is funny - had to take out Cheney's first name in order to post this - said I was using a bad word!!!)

White House plays chicken with a war hero

THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.

For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'

One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.

Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.

Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.

In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.

This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.

He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.

This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.

Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.