Thursday, June 28, 2007

Cheney: Can Anybody Lick This Dick?

Things happened mighty fast. Let me see if I got the timeline straight.

On Sunday or Monday, Dick Cheney's office claimed it was exempt from national security disclosure requirements because as president of the Senate, the vice president of the United States is not a part of the executive branch.

Come Tuesday, House Democrats said, Okay, if you're not part of the executive branch, we'll strip funding for your office. Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois), sponsor of the legislation, noted that five years ago Cheney claimed executive privilege when asked to reveal details of energy policy meetings Cheney held with his pals in big oil.

In a typical pot and kettle moment, Cheney's office accused the Democrats of playing partisan politics.

Sometime late Tuesday or early Wednesday morning, Cheney's office came out saying, Aw, shoot, yeah, we're part of the executive branch. Never mind what we said earlier.

Then, late Wednesday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee slapped the Office of the Vice President with subpoenas for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program. Cheney's people once again squealed "partisan politics" even though the subpoenas were supported by Republicans Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and Arlen Specter.

My guess is that somewhere in the course of navigating all those rotating knives, Cheney and his folks figured it would be safer to stay under the executive umbrella. For all you hear about Cheney being the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, he really doesn't have jack for statutory privilege. The U.S. Constitution makes him president of the Senate. Period. He's not the number two commander in chief of the military, or anything else. Even his Senate job is pretty much of a joke. He only gets to vote in case of a tie, and that's the only time anybody expects him to show up. That's why the Constitution provides for a president pro-tempore of the Senate to do the actual work of running the legislative body's day-to-day business.

So if he's going to hide sins, he needs to hide them behind Mr. Bush's door. Whether Congress can huff and puff its way past that obstacle remains to be seen.

On Thursday, Mr. Bush's counsel Fred Fielding rejected congressional demands for documents relating to fired federal prosecutors. He also made it clear that former White House counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor will not respond to subpoenas requiring their testimony.

Leahy's Judiciary Committee sent subpoenas seeking documents regarding the NSA to the White House and the Justice Department as well as to Cheney's office.

Dick Cheney has more lives than Freddy Krueger. How many times before this have we thought he was on his last one? Cheney has so many defensive layers of subordinates, claims of privileges, and legal arguments he can probably ride out this subpoena business until the next Republican president pardons him. The guy has committed enough sins to run for Satan and win by a landslide, but don't expect him to ever pay a price for them in this life.

But is it worth harassing him to the maximum extent possible? You bet it is. Dick Cheney is still the high priest of the administration's neoconservative "crazies in the basement." Every moment Dick spends covering his six is a moment he doesn't focus on driving U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and every moment we can keep Cheney's hands off of U.S. policy is a good moment for America.

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.

57 comments:

  1. Damn...

    I have admired your military writing since the 1st time I read one of your articles, but Jeff, this is awesome, you have absolutely nailed it I am pretty sure they are in the process of ordering some wire taps on YOU...

    Kudos Jeff... By God, you're even better at political writing than you are at military...

    TexasFred’s

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:17 PM

    Assume for the sake of argument that Dennis Kucinich's HR333 gains traction and Cheney is impeached. What role would the military play if Bush and/or Cheney decide that this move is just more partisan politics, and try to override it?

    MeMyselfEye

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous?? Do you know the REAL definition of impeachment??

    It means to accuse, and we ALL accuse Bush and Company every day...

    Some people think impeachment means you're getting rid if the offender, but that is NOT the case, impeachment is simply a part of the process, and the process is so long in coming to fruition that it would basically be a waste of time and tax dollars to 'Impeach' Cheney or Bush at this stage of the game...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:55 PM

    Texas Fred:

    I am well aware that impeachment (accusation) occurs in the House of Representatives and that the trial would be held in the Senate.

    I disagree with your conclusion that impeachment is a waste of time. The attacks upon the Constitution by Cheney and Bush are so egregious that they must be addressed, even if this means bringing the process of "government" to a screeching halt. Otherwise it is probable that successors to the Executive Branch would either continue the abuses or use this administration's excesses as legal precedent.

    If Congress fails to impeach, then one final line of defense exists. The AGs of a majority of states could indict the offenders in order to preserve the states' rights and roles as defined by the Constitution.

    I was a low-life enlisted puke in the Navy, retiring as a Senior Chief. I do not remember any ceremony or anyone telling me that the oath I had taken to defend the Constitition is now null and void simply because my name no longer shows up on a duty roster.

    Very respectfully,
    MeMyselfEye

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous, Not trying to stir a ruckus, I just think our time would be better spent on other matters, I don't think Bush or Cheney have enough time left in power to make impeachment a worthy venture, just my opinion, and I wasn't attempting to denigrate you by asking if you knew the real definition, many don't, they think impeachment is a 'magic pill', and I was only looking for clarification of your understanding...

    This administration has stood and slapped every voter in the face, Dem, Repub, Indy, right, left, ALL of us, Bush doesn't give a damn about you or me, or anything other than his own agenda and his immediate removal would be the best, but the time involved would, as you say, bring the government to a "screeching halt"...

    I took my oath very seriously as well Sr. Chief, and I never thought I would see a day when I thought the most dangerous enemy faced by the citizens of this nation would be an IDIOT that fancies himself a world leader...

    I just can't see where impeachment proceedings are the way to go, they are much too slow, this is a true conundrum if ever there was one, when nearly ALL Dems, most Repubs and damn near every Independent Conservative in this nation are in agreement that the CiC is a danger and potentially a traitor TO this nation, we are in a dire position, and desperate situations seem to bring on desperate measures...

    We're on the same side Sr. Chief, make no mistake about it, we just need to find some common ground on exactly WHAT to do about it...

    Semper Fi from the 'Men's Dept'.. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. And I certainly don't base my opinion on this story, I just found it, and I was actually surprised to find myself in agreement with Obama... Very surprised...

    Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:47 PM

    I say screw impeachment and use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act)to go after Bush and Cheney. Throw in the Carlyle Group for good measure.

    At least with RICO the Treasury might stand a chance of getting some of OUR monies back.

    Buzz Meeks

    ReplyDelete
  8. ozebloke2:15 AM

    Perhaps I shouldn't enter this debate - being a foreigner from Down Under (yet again dragged into stupid American fights)- but wasn't Bush's taunts encouraging insurgents to attack American troops - 'I say to them - Bring it on' - wasn't that an impeachable offence?

    Everything else is icing on the shit cake isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. ozebloke2:24 AM

    I've just realised the answer to my own question. You can't impeach Bush - that just gives you Cheney as President!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ozebloke said...
    I've just realised the answer to my own question. You can't impeach Bush - that just gives you Cheney as President!
    *************
    And to get BOTH of them gives the White House to Pelosi...

    What's worse?? To burn to death or drown??

    You're dead either way... Our only hope is to vote them ALL out and start over...

    ReplyDelete
  11. semper fubar11:05 AM

    Many crimes take a lot of time, money and effort to try in front of a jury and then convict. That doesn't mean we should stop prosecuting crimes, does it?

    The reason to impeach is to, at very least, air the evidence against the administration, and if warranted, convict the criminals and punish them approrpriately. If we don't do that, if we sweep it under the rug yet again, as we did (ultimately) in Watergate and then Iran-Contra, we are saying that we really are NOT a nation of laws. The message is, as long as you can get away with it politically, then it's OK with the American people.

    I don't accept that.

    And I don't really care what the political impact on the 2008 elections will be if we spend the next 18 months on impeachment hearings. It MUST be done. We MUST stop the lawlessness.

    If we don't, the Constitution means nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. semper fubar11:07 AM

    Oh please, TXfred. Pelosi would be "just as bad" as Bush & Cheney? That's outrageous. What crimes do you accuse her of?

    It's time to put politics aside, and save the damn constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous1:57 PM

    Thanks guys. Input such as yours in favor of airing the evidence suggests that my service may have been worthwhile.

    MeMyselfEye

    ReplyDelete
  14. Once again, a wonderful discussion. Thanks all.

    Best,

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  15. semper fubar said...
    Oh please, TXfred. Pelosi would be "just as bad" as Bush & Cheney? That's outrageous. What crimes do you accuse her of?

    It's time to put politics aside, and save the damn constitution.

    ******************
    Agreed on saving the Constitution, and to do so means they ALL go...

    Pelosi is a great choice, if you're for gun control, homosexual marriage, removal of prayer from schools and abortion at will, you know, all the libber talking points, other than that, I'm sure she's a wonderful person...

    Semper Fubar, I am more than willing to debate with you and you may be surprised to find that we're not SO far apart on our beliefs regarding Bush and Company but if you're going to QUOTE me, by God QUOTE me exactly, don't put words in MY mouth, I do that quite well myself...

    Your misquote lends NO credence to your side of this little tete' a tete', I did NOT accuse Pelosi of ANYTHING, I said:

    "And to get BOTH of them gives the White House to Pelosi...

    What's worse?? To burn to death or drown??

    You're dead either way... Our only hope is to vote them ALL out and start over..."


    Pelosi is a career politician and she's a hard core Libber, and that's not for me, if you're OK with it, I am happy for you but if you want to misquote someone, or look for erroneous accusations, or want to infer that I made accusations of illegalities, you just got on the wrong old war horse my friend!

    You'll NEVER have to worry about looking for 'hidden agenda' in my writings SemperFubar, I lay it ALL out there on the line for everyone to see...

    Love me or hate me, makes no difference, but I will speak what I believe to be the truth, and will try to see all sides of an issue, even yours...

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am beginning to get a bit 'spooked' at the coincidence of these articles I am suddenly finding...

    It apprears that not only am I in line with Obama in regards to impeachment proceedings and Bush, as is evident in a comment in this thread, I am now in line with Nancy Pelosi on the same matter as well...

    Pelosi on Bush: “He’s not worth impeaching” « Scholars and Rogues

    Guys, as I said, his days are numbered, we'd be much better served keeping him in 'check' than we would trying to remove him...

    And if I am found in line with Pelosi and Obama again I am going to have to reconsider my claim of being a Conservative Libertarian...

    LMAO.. Sorry..

    ReplyDelete
  17. semper fubar4:02 PM

    TXFred --

    I'm sorry TxFred. I obviously misconstrued your meaning.

    You see, in my mind, shredding the Consititution and flagrantly violating our laws are several orders of magnitude worse than any policy differences one might have regarding abortion and gay marriage.

    So naturally, I assumed you must be making some equivalence in your statement "And to get BOTH of them gives the White House to Pelosi...What's worse?? To burn to death or drown?? You're dead either way which you made in response to a comment about impeaching Bush and Cheney.

    Surely, (I'm thinking as I read that) only someone who one believes has committed serious crimes and offenses against the Constitution could be judged just as bad an option as Bush and Cheney.

    My mistake.

    Oh well. Let's get back to ridding or country of these troublesome men in the White House, shall we? I know we must agree about that!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous4:14 PM

    and then there was Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  19. semper fubar4:15 PM

    TxFred-

    Wouldn't you be a little bit concerned that when President Hillary (just to use an example that probably scares the piss out of you) comes to office, she'll realize that there's really no price to be paid for engaging in the kind of lawlessness that Bush and Cheney have? Wouldn't you want to establish some sort of precedent for a line beyond which President Hillary can not pass?

    It might be painful, it might be horrifying, but I really think we MUST proceed with the impeachment proceedings. We must find out the truth and we must hold these people accountable for what they've done. I don't really care if the democrats get nothing else accomplished. I don't even care if it costs them the next election.

    I'm a diehard liberal (yes, I DO want all those things you listed under President Pelosi) but I sure as hell don't want ANY president, Pelosi included, to continue on doing the things Bush has set a precedent for.

    I don't really care if the democrats get nothing else accomplished. I don't even care if it costs them the next election.

    It must be stopped And there's no other way to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As I said Semper Fubar, your beliefs are your's, I am NOT trying to change you and I am fairly certain you won't change me...

    The differences between liberalism and conservatism are not the issue, what to do about BUSH is, and he is neither, he isn't a libber, I could live with it if he was, he isn't a conservative, I could live with that even more, but what Bush is, in MY opinion, is a TRAITOR to ALL Americans, of all political standings, he is a GLOBALIST and he is attempting to give this nation away as surely as we are typing these comments...

    Pelosi and Company aren't giving America away, I just differ with her method of doing things and I don't embrace the more adamant points of liberalism...

    Do I think Pelosi would be a good President?? NO, I do not, neither do I believe would be Hillary or Obama...

    Do I believe they would destroy America?? No, I DO NOT!!

    But I fear that George W. Bush IS the greatest danger this nation faces today, and I DO agree with Pelosi AND Obama, to impeach Bush is a waste of time and money and not worth the effort, before that endeavor could come to fruition his term would be OVER, so, again I ask, why waste the time OR effort?? Let the Senate and Congress keep the little doofus in check and let them render him useless, well, more so than he already is...

    ReplyDelete
  21. semper fubar4:43 PM

    Well, Txfred, despite our other obvious political differences, we do agree that Bush is a TRAITOR. You'd let him off the hook. I wouldn't. If only as a warning to the next President.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I NEVER said I would let him off the hook, I said that IMPEACHMENT is a waste of time, as did your #1 and #3 libbers, Pelosi and Obama...

    Did Pelosi and Obama say they would let him off the hook??

    No, they did not, but you're not taking issue with them, and that is hypocrisy on your part Sir!

    I honestly think you're more interested in accusing ME than anything else Fubar, I also think that this discussion is over on my part..

    ReplyDelete
  23. semper fubar6:20 PM

    Oh stop taking offense at everything TxFred. No, I disagree with Pelosi and Obama too, if they don't want to impeach these bastards and hold them accountable.

    So, if you think impeachment is a waste of time, and then you say you don't want to let them off the hook, what ARE you saying? Indict and convict them once they're out of office, or something?

    ReplyDelete
  24. When a wife discovers her husband has been sexually abusing the kids she leaves - and takes the kids with her. She doesn't hang around to "save her marriage". Wise up. Your President and VP have-

    * obtained office illegally by two stolen elections.
    * lied to Congress repeatedly over Iraq, wiretaps etc.
    * dismissed Congress' laws by issuing 800 signing statements.
    * packed the courts and bureacracy with partisan appointees.
    * sought at every turn to defeat the rule of law and use it illegally against political enemies.
    * conducted activities that would meet the standards of RICO legislation.
    * authorised torture, including against American citizens, and personally advised on torture methods for some detainees.
    * removed habeas corpus and sent 17,000 mostly innocent people to foreign gulags.
    * almost certainly wiretapped every member of Congress.
    * committed war crimes by invading Iraq, failed to provide for civil order as required under international law and authorised the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
    * been responsible for the deaths of over 650,000 innocent Iraqis.
    * forced oil laws on Iraq that will steal 80% of their oil assets, all for a handful of western oil companies.
    * paid billions to crony companies like Halliburton conducting fraud against the US.
    * emptied the US Treasury and debased the US currency to impoverish the US for the next fifty years.

    Forget the politics. If you don't have the balls to insist on immediate impeachment all day, every day, then just get out of the way! It's way past the stage where these issues are open to dispute. Get these criminals out NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  25. ....oh, and did I forget? They are planning to attack Iran before leaving office, almost certainly using nuclear weapons, an action that could well lead to WW3. Get these guys out NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  26. These are the requirements that must be satisfied in order to proceed with an Impeachment in the United States...

    Maybe you know a lot more regarding constitutional law than the members of Congress and Senate, that IS a possibility, but I seriously doubt that's the case...

    If you'll review these requirements, and think for just a little bit, apply the time frame in regard to the time remaining for Bush to be in office, and then think about the speed with which our esteemed Congressional and Senatorial leaders move, I think you may see the point that I, as well as Speaker Pelosi and Obama are trying to make about it not being a worthwhile venture...

    Criminal charges against Bush and Cheney?? Oh hell yes, I am all for it, as soon as you show me exactly what LAW(s) they have broken, Title and Verse...

    As much as I am personally opposed to Bush and Cheney and their entire administration, and as much as I would love to see them BOTH gone, the last time I checked, being a piss poor president is NOT against the law...

    Charges must be backed with HARD facts and evidence, not emotions, and that includes charges of impeachment, the same as in any civil or criminal litigation, so, show me, in explicit detail, what LAW(s) of the Land has been broken and I'll be hammering MY Congressman to bring charges as well...

    Don't you think that a Democratic controlled Congress would be nailing Bush to a wall right now if there was ANY chance that he could be successfully impeached and convicted??

    ReplyDelete
  27. kenj said:

    * obtained office illegally by two stolen elections.
    * lied to Congress repeatedly over Iraq, wiretaps etc.
    * dismissed Congress' laws by issuing 800 signing statements.
    * packed the courts and bureacracy with partisan appointees.
    * sought at every turn to defeat the rule of law and use it illegally against political enemies.
    * conducted activities that would meet the standards of RICO legislation.
    * authorised torture, including against American citizens, and personally advised on torture methods for some detainees.
    * removed habeas corpus and sent 17,000 mostly innocent people to foreign gulags.
    * almost certainly wiretapped every member of Congress.
    * committed war crimes by invading Iraq, failed to provide for civil order as required under international law and authorised the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
    * been responsible for the deaths of over 650,000 innocent Iraqis.
    * forced oil laws on Iraq that will steal 80% of their oil assets, all for a handful of western oil companies.
    * paid billions to crony companies like Halliburton conducting fraud against the US.
    * emptied the US Treasury and debased the US currency to impoverish the US for the next fifty years.
    ******************
    And I ask you the EXACT same question, if ANY of this were true don't you think the Congress would be nailing Bush to a wall??

    You guys are chasing shadows... You have a Dem controlled House and Senate and Bush hasn't been charged with 'dick'...

    Ask yourselves WHY??

    Look at your Dem Congressmen and ask THEM why...

    damn...

    ReplyDelete
  28. You know I've seen some dumb comments about impeaching Bush around the net, these by far are the DUMBEST.
    WHY impeach?
    I read one reason is a deterrent for the next president?
    Explain to me how that would be a deterrent but the death penalty isn't and it doesn't work? I mean you liberals really believe in hypocrisy, YOU live it.
    The fairness doctrine? only comes up when folks disagree with law makers???? WTF.

    I am so fed up with impeachment talk, BUSH and CHENEY have done a lot of damage to our nation but they have also done good things too IMO (Few)so WHY would we spend more money and effort and time to go after LAME ducks? WHY?? Just keep them in cage until 09 then lets see if your libber CIC can correct the mess, if not STFU and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  29. semper fubar10:22 AM

    Kenj's list speaks for itself. If you don't think any of this is illegal, then we're living in different countries. Or at least I HOPE we're living in different countries.

    As to why the dems won't move on this, don't ask me. I'm as disgusted with them for not moving forward on these issues as anyone.

    Although perhaps Leahy and Conyers are edging towards it. I sure hope so.

    But in any event, even if they aren't, that doesn't mean there's no evidence that Bush & Cheney have in fact committed these crimes.

    And I just LOVE the hypocrisy of right-wing law'n'order types accusing me of hypocrisy for wanting to prosecute these guys.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "And I ask you the EXACT same question, if ANY of this were true don't you think the Congress would be nailing Bush to a wall??

    Are you kidding me?..."ANY of this were true"?...are you for real, man? Both elections were STOLEN and the details are well documented: (see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14)

    Criminal charges against Bush and Cheney?? Oh hell yes, I am all for it, as soon as you show me exactly what LAW(s) they have broken, Title and Verse...

    Bush is in breech of US Codes, Title 18, § 2441 in relation to war crimes. David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rusmfeld suggests that "President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the [Guantanamo] military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them" because "the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3 and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime." (see 1 2 3 4 )

    According to the Detroit chapter of the National Lawyers Guild:

    Misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war is a breech of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371.

    Bush illegal wiretaps in the absence of FISA authorization is in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805.

    Bush and Cheney's authorization of the torture of prisoners is in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the "supreme Law of the Land".

    "Charges must be backed with HARD facts and evidence, not emotions, and that includes charges of impeachment, the same as in any civil or criminal litigation, so, show me, in explicit detail, what LAW(s) of the Land has been broken and I'll be hammering MY Congressman to bring charges as well..."

    TexasFred, you don't know your own Constitution. If you did then you would know that you don't have to prove the commission of criminal offences in order to impeach - you only have to establish "high crimes and misdemeanors". This is a phrase which has long been held by Constitutional scholars to be the discretionary prerogative of Congress - in other words, Congress decides exactly what are "high crimes and misdemeanors". Criminal behavior, of the type I have outlined above, go way beyond those minimal standards. If you don't understand that you have full blown criminals currently running the US government then I pity you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. While we're at it, Bush is also a murderer. In his 2003 State of the Union Address he said that over 3000 "suspected" al Qaeda operatives had been killed outside the rule of any law - "they are no longer a problem for our friends and allies". "Suspects" murdered. No trials, no apology, nothing.

    Bush is prepared to murder innocent civilians quite knowingly and especially his critics. In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan Al Jazeera's Kabul office was bombed by an American 'smart bomb' in what was officially described as an accident. Journalist Ron Suskind spoke to US military sources who confirmed, however, that the bombing was deliberate, to "send a message" to the media organization. The order almost certainly came from the White House.

    In a further incident in April 2003, during the Iraq invasion, Al Jazeera's Baghdad office was hit by a US missile, killing one person and wounding another. The network's chief editor said: "Witnesses in the area saw the plane fly over twice before dropping the bombs. Our office is in a residential area and even the Pentagon knows its location." (On that same day the Baghdad office of Abu Dhabi television was also hit).

    Finally, two British officials have recently been charges under the Official Secrets Act for leaking a classified memo to the Daily Mirror where it is alleged that Pres. Bush, in an April 2004 meeting with Tony Blair, had discussed bombing the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Qatar. Blair reportedly talked him out of it. Now Qatar is a US ally and the journalists are civilians. The claim appears to have some substance since the officials have been charged and they would have been unlikely to leak a false claim in the face of such serious consequences. So there you have it...Bush planned to murder innocent civilians in a country allied to the US who were just going about their daily business. Sounds like attempted murder to me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well kenj, is YOU are SO smart, tell me, WHY isn't the Dem controlled Congress hanging him right about now??

    You are so full of this Democratic Underground/Daily Kos vitriolic rhetoric that you fail to see what the REAL Democratic PARTY, not some moonbat offshoot, the REAL party is telling you..

    If ANY of this was even remotely in the area of being substancial, ANY of it, Bush would be in jail right now, but he's not, and you're a bitter little man apparently because your wild accusations have NO foundation, at least none that any SANE prosecuter has been willing to run with and take a chance on losing his career over...

    Now, if you'll put this much effort into making your Congressmen aware of your feelings, and if you can get them motivated in the right direction, oh, wait, the Dems Speaker has already said, Pelosi on Bush: “He’s not worth impeaching”, I guess you must have missed that part when you launced into your Impeach Bush tirade...

    You guys have a problem with reality, Kucinich has his proposal out there and Congress won't touch it, it's been shelved, ask yourself WHY!!

    Leahy and Conyers are edging towards it?? And they have all this magificent 'evidence' that you're in possession of and have presented here and they won't touch it and haven't already blown Bush out of the water??

    Again, ask yourself WHY!!

    You guys are pissed off at ME for telling you why, they can't PROVE it, if they could it would be a case before the courts right now...

    I think you're in the same position I'm in, you're totally pissed off at your leadership and you know that until election time rolls around, you can't do a damn thing about yours any more than I can about mine...

    I haven't altogether blasted the Dems here, I have actually agreed with Pelosi and Obama on there being no need for an impeachment hearing, apparently you don't, and I do find that fall from 'lock step' a bit funny, but any way, back off a bit, take a few deep breaths and realize this, I am in agreement WITH you guys on the fact that Bush needs to be removed from the presidency, because, in MY opinion he IS a pathetic excuse for a president, but I am not going to level these kind of accusations of illegalities against him when I personally believe that there is no HARD evidence to back those charges you so freely throw out there, because if there was ANY substance to those charges, and the now Dem controlled Congress hasn't brought their full power to bear against the president, then the Dem controlled Congress is as guilty of malfeasence as anyone...

    And if you guys can't see that, you're allowing your hatred for Bush to blind you...

    ReplyDelete
  33. kenj said " If you don't understand that you have full blown criminals currently running the US government then I pity you."
    ************************
    And if you don't realize that YOU have Dems letting them get away with it, I pity you...

    Ya need to do a bit of sweeping on your own door step as well Ken...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous12:29 PM

    That still begs the question: what is the most productive way to take back our country and restore the rule of the Constitution?

    MeMyselfEye

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous said...
    That still begs the question: what is the most productive way to take back our country and restore the rule of the Constitution?

    MeMyselfEye
    *********************
    Fully agreed, and I wish I had that answer, I wish we ALL did...

    But the solution isn't impeachment, that's a waste of time and money and will accomplish nothing...

    And I don't know what else TO do, I don't disagree that Bush is an idiot and needs to be gone but the methods being discussed just aren't going to do the nation any good and certainly won't set ANY precedent...

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is rich. The reason Texas Fred does not believe Bush has committed any war crimes is that Fred thinks there is no such thing as a war crime. We know this because just a few days ago on his own blog, Fred was advocating the extermination of every Muslim man, woman and child from the face of the earth.

    If that kind of genocide isn't a war crime, then Bush ordering the death of a few thousand Iraqis is nothing more than a good day's work.

    Now I don't know if Bush actually did such a thing or not. But even if he did and even if there were iron-clad evidence proving it, by Fred's logic there would still be no need for impeachment.

    When I tried to suggest this may not be such a good plan, Fred blew up and subsequently banned me from commenting on his blog. You can read the whole exchange here:

    http://drivingoutthesnakes.blogspot.com/2007/06/banned-in-texas.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. Patrick, I see you still have NOTHING to add to this or any other intelligent conversation, on either side... Awesome, nice to see that you are, if nothing else, consistant...

    ReplyDelete
  38. "If ANY of this was even remotely in the area of being substantial, ANY of it, Bush would be in jail right now."

    What ridiculous comments you make. A Georgetown law professor agrees with a Supreme Court judge that a Guantanamo policy initiated by Bush breeches the Geneva Convention (which is part of US law) and is thus a war crime. So I guess that's not "substantial", right?

    "you're a bitter little man apparently because your wild accusations have NO foundation.

    Bush got up in Congress and in full view of the nation admitted to authorising the murder of 3,000 terrorist "suspects" -- TF says "NO foundation".

    UK officials are just now subject to criminal charges for leaking that Bush was planning the murder of unarmed civilian journalists -- TF says "NO foundation".

    TF says"show me, in explicit detail, what LAW(s) of the Land has been broken". So I give him chapter and verse of the laws Bush has broken. -- TF says "NO foundation".

    I wonder how Texas Fred could say all this? Then I see TF's web site and it all becomes clear - Republican Denial Land. Here's how the game goes. You tell a Bush Enabler that Bush has committed crimes, they say "tell me the laws". You show them the laws and they say "show me the evidence." You show them evidence sufficient to start a grand jury inquiry or impreachment process and they say "It can't be true because the Dems are silent." You tell them that the Dems are spineless and that the American people can and should be pressing for impeachment over Bush crimes. The Bush Enablers then go back to the start again with "tell me what laws he has broken." It's a circular game that anybody can play, and it's especially useful if you can't defeat the evidence or the laws on their merit. Texas Fred appears to be an an old hand at it.

    The Republicans hounded Clinton over a lie under oath about a sexual indiscretion. Every attempt was made to drive him from office over a relatively minor matter. Meanwhile nearly 3/4 million Iraqi civilians are dead (see 1 2 3 4 ) following an invasion built upon lies - lies that under both International law and US law constitute capital offences. They hanged people at Nuremburg for exactly the crimes that Bush has carried out in Iraq! (see here.)

    Remember US Codes, Title 18, § 2441 Texas Fred. It's worth quoting in full:

    "(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death."

    Bush - war criminal, murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 1. I am NOT a Republican, never have been.

    2. As I said, IF any of this, I mean ANY of it IS substanciated, answer my one question, WHY isn't Bush in jail?

    3. WHY isn't YOUR Dem controlled Congress doing anything about it IF it's all such hard facts as YOU claim??

    4. I haven't 'enabled' a damn thing Ken, I want to see him gone too, did you miss that part?? Are you really THAT blind?? Obviously you MUST be...

    You are full of it Ken, and all you have is a serious case of HATE working for you pal, otherwise, again, just tell me WHY your Dems in Congress aren't doing their job, you have this marvelous CASE built, you have all but laid it in the lap of Congress, a DEM controlled Congress I might add, and I'd think that much hard fact would work for some eager Congresscritter that's ready to make himself a hell of a reputation, but you keep skirting THAT particular issue Ken, the one where the DEMS in CONTROL aren't doing a thing... Why is that Ken??

    All this fantastic work to build a SOLID case and no one does 'dick'??

    What's the deal Ken, are you like a monkey in a cage?? You think if ya fling enough poop, some of it might stick??

    Well that's not the way it works man, and you're basically ryunning out of anything to say other than "Bush is a MASS murderer and a war criminal", so, if he is, have him locked up dude, or shut the hell up, because all you have is HOT AIR and a bad case of BLIND HATE...

    And btw, why does the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath bother you so much?? You do realize, there are NO degrees of perjury don't you??

    Like I said Ken, you're working off a bad case of hate, and that's not a good position to argue from, your vitriol is showing....

    And just so you know that ALL is not lost, IF Bush were brought up on those charges and convicted, I'd buy you a beer or 2 and we'd celebrate, I didn't say he DIDN'T do all of it, I said it's not enough for the DEM congress to act on, and apparently it's not, so direct that HATE where it really needs to go, your legislators, and ask THEM whyit's not happening, don't blame me man, I'm just telling you like it is, NOT like YOU want it to be, or like I want it to be for that matter...

    ReplyDelete
  40. And one other thing Ken, find me a post on MY blog where I 'enabled' Bush, at least 90% of my blog has been BLASTING Bush over Iraq, now, you've thrown the gauntlet down and I am calling your bluff, show everyone where I 'enabled' Bush or your accusation makes YOU a liar...

    Your ball, and it's in your court pal...

    ReplyDelete
  41. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "I gave you a Republic, if you can keep it." Apparently we can't.

    The Constitution has been downgraded to the status of minor law or a contract. Everything is negotiable or relative, and most people, outside of blogland, don't care. They really don't. Stupidy. Apathy. Greed. I don't know. I don't care. What's in it for me? That's your average American right now.

    Is that too cynical? Maybe. But I don't see any mainstream outrage, even among politicians. They've all done the math, "what's in it for me?" I don't think politicians on either side really care about the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  42. TF:"I am NOT a Republican, never have been." -- ya coulda fooled me, pal. You may as well be.

    Re Clinton -- "You do realize, there are NO degrees of perjury don't you?? "

    "You do realize, there are NO degrees of murder don't you?? "

    "What's the deal Ken, are you like a monkey in a cage?? You think if ya fling enough poop, some of it might stick?? -- US Codes, Title 18, § 2441 is not poop, TF, it's cold hard law. Look it up.

    I can't tell you exactly why US democracy and the Democrats are failing. Corruption, moral blindness, an adherence to PR over principle? What does it matter! You want to be ruled by a murderer and war criminal who lies to you on a daily basis? And you are happy to accept that for the next 18 months? Fine. Go ahead.

    Understand something, TexasFred...I'm not really writing for you. Your case was lost long ago. I write for the other readers who come here and who may be fooled by your inflamed rhetoric into believing impeachment to be legally or politically unsustainable. You're absolutely wrong on both counts. The biggest mistake you have made is to think that I'm writing to convince you. I'm not. Your arguments are superficial and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Patrick I had a look at that stuff you mentioned at TexasFred's about dealing with jihadists. My responses were refused, so I posted them over here. I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ken, why is someone from Oz so concerned with perceived violations of the U.S. Constitution??

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh, Ken, I'm STILL waiting on those posts showing everyone where I 'enabled' Bush... Just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete
  46. I have family members who are American citizens and US friends. I travel to the US regularly. The question you should be asking yourself, Texas Fred, is how a foreigner can know more about the politics and law of your country than you do? And how they can be more committed to defending the great things about your nation that you appear to so easily give away? Defend your country against enemies "foreign and domestic".

    re "Bush enablers"....anyone who spouts the nonsense that Bush's actions (as I listed above) have not been shown to be illegal is a "Bush enabler". All Bush asks for is that people not call him on his crimes. He thrives on any kind of ideological "wiggle room" to acrry on with what he's doing.

    There's also a war in Iraq claiming 650,000 dead civilians. And - in case it has escaped your notice - Bush is now ramping up al Qaeda/Iran links to start the war there. That's all lies too.

    I noticed you've already talked up the CNN article about Iraq (they're quoting Frederick Kagan, for God's sake!). You suggest leadership failure is at the root of the problem. You're wrong, it's mission goals. The CNN story was remarkable for what they left out, but that's another story.

    I am disappointed that you chose not to accept my two posts here. They contained fairly useful background material that your readers would have enjoyed and learned a lot from.

    Look, I'm not a guy used to making things personal, so you if you want to start all over on a friendly basis we can do that. But if you want to name call go ahead, I couldn't care less. And whether the realpolitik supports impeachment or not the facts are something else altogether. The US is currently run by people who have breeched major US laws and for which there is ample proof. These guys are far more dangerous and damaging than you allow.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I suspect the reason Democrats are not moving to impeach Bush and/or Cheney is that they fear the same hostile reaction most of the public had to the Clinton impeachment. In this I think they are wrong; Clinton had a booming economy, very high approval ratings, and was not prosecuting an unpopular war. (Yes, there was the Balkans affair but we weren't losing troops on the ground like we are in Iraq.)

    TF's main argument seems to be that Bush is gone in 18 months anyway, so why bother with an impeachment. I have two responses to that.

    First, a lot of soldiers (and others) can die in 18 months. We should save whatever lives we can. Second, a serious threat of impeachment might be enough to make Bush change course on the war. Nothing else seems to convince him.

    If nothing else, it would serve as a warning to the next president that he/she should not make the same mistakes Bush has.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bruce Fein was deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and is a widely respected, conservative legal scholar. He is by no means a liberal or a Democrat, but in this column he advocates the impeachment of Dick Cheney and lists specific charges.

    Most of the Cheney misconduct that Fein mentions applies equally, if not more so, to the President. As far as I know Fein is not calling for Bush to be impeached, however. Maybe what he wants is for Cheney to take the bullet and thereby save the GOP and Bush's legacy.

    Incidentally, I posted the above on TF's blog, in the post where he says he wants to hear from the other side. He deleted it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Patrick said...
    "Incidentally, I posted the above on TF's blog, in the post where he says he wants to hear from the other side. He deleted it."
    ***************
    Patrick?? WHY do you insist on spreading LIES??

    You told everyone I banned you, and then you tell people that you posted a comment in my blog, so, obviosly you're not banned....

    You tell people I deleted this comment of yours, the one posted just above, and I just checked and sure enough, it's there, on my blog, posted on July 1st, 2007 at 4:09 pm ...

    Why are you so intent on slandering me?? Do you enjoy being proven a LIAR??

    Are you sure you know how to use the features on a WordPress Blog?? If this is a misunderstanding, great, I'll try to overlook it, but DO NOT continue this lame attack, you aren't banned and your comment IS showing...

    Jeff, I am not trying to start anything in your blog, but I am really getting tired of this ASSHAT coming in here with his false accusations...

    ReplyDelete
  50. TF, the comment in question was visible right after I posted it. An hour later I looked again and it was gone. I refreshed the page several times and it was still gone. I noted on this thread that you had deleted my comment, and soon it miraculously re-appeared on your blog and you resumed the name-calling.

    I'm not sure what else I should have done, but it is possible I made a mistake and you did not delete this particular comment. Mea culpa, if so.

    Having said that, you've admitted deleting my comments before, so I don't think it was far-fetched to think you had done it again. That is sure what it looked like.

    Now, how about a response to the points I raised?

    ReplyDelete
  51. The case for impeachment gets a further good discussion over here.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Impeachment reasons are also well discussed here. Are you a Democrat supporter AGAINST impeachment? Then Matt, Tom and Michael would like to send you their regards. And Garry, Charlie, Kevin and Jim admire your stand. Joel Kaplan would like to thank you personally. We should all have such friends.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous6:28 AM

    Kevin Sheedy said..

    This is my first visit to your site. Howdy Y'all. Great discussion and plenty of passion. The scales have fallen from my eyes on the impeachment of Bush. kenj's links were most helpful. Thank you everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thanks for the links, kenj. Very interesting.

    Anybody see Leaky Leahy on Meet The Press yesterday? He sounds determined to push the subpoenas all the way.

    TF seems to have dropped out of the discussion. Not surprising, since here he can't just delete any intelligent opposing views.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

    to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..
    seslisohbet
    seslichat
    sesli sohbet
    sesli chat
    sesli

    ReplyDelete