Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19) and two other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee - Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) - today called on the committee to begin impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney. They declared, "The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings." The three Democrats wrote an op-ed to announce their position, but none of the nation's leading newspapers would publish it - just as they refuse to include impeachment in their polls, and just as they refuse to publish their own investigations of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Why? Because the Corporate Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, as it has been since the Reagan Revolution of 1980. So this important announcement was made on a Blogcall hosted by Democrat.com, and was covered by progressive blogs - the only news media that serves the people, not the Corporations.
You can read the full op-ed at Rep. Wexler's new site - http://wexlerwantshearings.com - where you can also watch a powerful video by Wexler.
Rep. Wexler needs to collect 50,000 signatures to convince his Democratic colleagues that the American people truly support impeachment hearings.
So please sign his petition: http://wexlerwantshearings.com
Dec 15, 2007
Rep. Wexler Wants Impeachment Hearings for Cheney
Oct 26, 2007
White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike
High-ranking military experts say an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what Bush calls 'World War III.'
US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.
In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?
Read More: Grandiose Plans, East and West
Israeli Missile Strike"
1 Comment -
WritePostCollapsor();
Show Original Post
Ted said...
I doubt we would invade Iran due to manpower shortages but an air attack is possible and probably going to happen. I am not sure if Israel attacked what the rest of the Arab world would do. Israel may find themselves in a big mess but I am sure the US would come to their aid without reguard that they started it, as always.
www.pafundi.com
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4269
October 27, 2007 3:11 AM
Aug 1, 2007
Pelosi needs to step up
If she were not in the House--and not Speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi says she "would probably advocate" impeaching President Bush. Probably?
"The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country," Pelosi said I don't know what our success can be on impeaching the president."
Divide the Country Ms. Pelosi - how much more divided could we be? Personally, I think it is an outrage that Bush and Cheney are still in office.
Democratic Party leaders do not have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. And Democrats could be judged harshly for partisan gridlock, just as the American people turned on Congressional Republicans in the 90s for pursuing the impeachment of President Clinton.
The Clinton Impeachment effort was nothing more than Rove trying to settle old scores in my opinion. Using this as an example in this case is just a lousy excuse for not considering Impeacment.
I wonder how Democrats will be judged for not pursuing Impeachment of Bush and Cheney for the following reasons:
Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation. [CNN]
Jul 31, 2007
Just Good ol' boys
Cheney's views apparently conflict with Bush's here as Cheney disagrees with the Libby verdict entirely and Bush merely commuted the sentence. Either way, they are both completely supportive of Libby and Gonzales.
Cheney says that Gonzales has testified 'truthfully' before congress proving once again that Cheney is still covering his own ass as well as those of his friends. "I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," Cheney said.
Read: Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
Jul 24, 2007
The Logic of Impeachment
Even as George W. Bush thumbs his nose at constitutional checks and balances and the rule of law, Democratic leaders can't find the courage to utter the "I-word." But an unprecedented dual impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney may now be needed to protect America's legacy as a democratic Republic that upholds the twin principles that no man is above the law and everyone possesses inalienable rights. Millions of Americans are looking for some political leader who will dare step up and say, "Impeach the bastards."
Read More...
Jul 15, 2007
The Armageddon Plan
by James Mann
This is but an excerpt from an article that I just read that frankly has really scared the shit out of me!
At the risk of sounding like I have lost my mind, I think that Bush has been much to arrogant and irreverent regarding the Constitution and the law in general.
I have been wondering just what this man is thinking about.
I understand that this is his last year as President but one would think that he would have some concern regarding how kind history will be to him.
At the present time he is said to be the worst President we ever had, this is not a great legacy.
Perhaps I am paranoid, perhaps not, only time will tell.
Rumsfeld and Cheney were principal actors in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration.
Under it U.S. officials furtively carried out detailed planning exercises for keeping the federal government running during and after a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The program called for setting aside the legal rules for presidential succession in some circumstances, in favor of a secret procedure for putting in place a new "President" and his staff.
The idea was to concentrate on speed, to preserve "continuity of government," and to avoid cumbersome procedures; the speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate, and the rest of Congress would play a greatly diminished role.
This article is of particular interest to me because it helps to explain the thinking and behavior of the second Bush Administration after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Vice President Cheney urged President Bush to stay out of Washington for the rest of that day; Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his deputy Paul Wolfowitz to get out of town;
Cheney himself began to move from Washington to a series of "undisclosed locations"; and other federal officials were later sent to work outside the capital, to ensure the continuity of government in case of further attacks. All these actions had their roots in the Reagan Administration's clandestine planning exercises.
Please go and read the complete article and share your thinking on this subject with me. See if it doesn't chill you to think that we could possible be stuck with Bush for longer than any of us think.
While you're at it take a look at this Article again also:
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
Related Post: Why impeachment of Cheney and Bush is imperative
Jun 27, 2007
Doesn't Mean a Damned Thing!
Cheney’s office, White House subpoenaed
Senate committee probing legality of Bush’s eavesdropping program
Since Cheney thinks that his office is not an "entity within the executive branch," and given the fact that Cheney's office tried to abolish the oversight agency involved don't get too excited about this subpoena. What does this all really mean? Not a damned thing! This probably won't be more than symbolic because the Bush/Cheney regime is the most untouchable, unaccountable, uncooperative adminstration this country has ever had to endure.
Mar 13, 2007
Who Are The Real Myth Makers?
By Robert Parry
March 13, 2007
Bush/Cheney & a Love of 'Petards' Neoconservatives love one rhetorical device above all others, flipping an opponent's words back in his face, a process called "hoisting him on his own petard." Recently, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have engaged in this practice themselves in countering Iraq War opponents. Bush mocked his "realist" critics for lacking "realism." Cheney, who has spread every Iraq War myth known to man, is now accusing critics of embracing "myths" about the Iraq War. Clever words, however, cannot fix a disastrous military policy.
In My View of It, Bush and Cheney are the real "myth makers. This "War on "Terror" has never been addressed, instead it became a war on Sadam Hussein. Simply a need to settle the score for Bush Sr. and to gain control of Oil Rights in Iraq, What ever happened to this "War on Terror?" Instead of focusing on finding and holding those accountable for 911, we have left the Talliban alone long enough for them to regroup and gain strength in Afghanistan. Tell me, what has been accomplished? Al Quaeda is an even bigger threat then before the war. We are no better off now then before we started this whole nightmare. Plus, al-Qaeda has been rebuilding its command-and-control structure.“American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan,” the New York Times reported on Feb. 19. Again, who are the real Myth Makers?
Feb 2, 2007
Bush Is Hiding the Ball on Iran
By Robert Parry
February 2, 2007
Bush is following the same course he chose in the run-up to war in Iraq: he insists that war is “a last resort” yet puts in motion the engines of war; he times the release of alarming intelligence reports for maximum political effect; he brushes aside doubts and warnings; he then presents war as unavoidable or a fait accompli.
Bush is doing the same thing as he did before, releasing intelligence reports for maximum impact politically, trying to convince us that he wants a peacable solution while moving all types of military apparatus to be in the best position for attack. The propaganda has just begun and Congress continues to twiddle it's thumbs trying to get the words just right! We already know that the War on Iraq was preplanned and I can only assume the same can be said about Iran! How much more blood needs to be shed before we figure out that this is a war about oil and not about anything more than Bush and Cheney and their revenge for the father? Come on people are we going to be fooled twice? That's My View of It!
Jan 30, 2007
The Democrats' Iraq War Dilemma
By Nat Parry
January 30, 2007
As the Senate prepares to debate a resolution against the proposed “surge” in Iraq, the Democratic Party faces something of a conundrum: will it heed the calls of its base and take concrete action to end the war, or will it simply use the opportunity to position itself in opposition to Bush’s policy in the hopes of retaking the White House in 2008?
So far, it appears that congressional Democrats are leaning toward the latter strategy.
Although the Democrats can thank a growing antiwar sentiment across the country for their victory in the Nov. 7 elections, so far the party’s leadership has balked at taking bold measures to force a withdrawal from Iraq or even to prevent an escalation of the war, and there is little indication that the party leaders intend to do so.
A proposal by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that would have required the President to seek additional congressional approval before sending 21,500 more troops into battle was quickly shot down, and instead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a non-binding resolution mildly expressing Congress’s disapproval of Bush’s plan.
Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on CNN, essentially dismissed the resolution as meaningless. “It won’t stop us,” he said, a position reiterated by George W. Bush.
Talking to reporters, the President made clear he will follow whatever course of action he chooses, regardless of whether Congress approves or not. “I’m the decision-maker,” he said, adding that he “picked the plan” that he thinks is “most likely to succeed.”
The problem is, the American people have little to no faith that his plan has any chance of succeeding.
According to a recent Newsweek poll, 68 percent of Americans oppose the "surge," and in another poll conducted just after the State of the Union Address, 64 percent said Congress is not being assertive enough in challenging the Bush administration over its conduct of the war.
While Bush says he won't govern based on polls, the issue is more complicated for Congress. The new leadership was elected by the American people largely based on the hope that the Democrats would stand up to Bush on Iraq, and many voters are counting on the Democrats to exercise their authority to bring the war to a halt.
But instead, the Democrats insist they will not cut off war funding – out of an apparent fear that the Republicans will portray the move as an anti-troop measure – and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared that impeachment is “off the table,” regardless of what may turn up in congressional investigations into administration wrongdoing.
Can you believe the arrogance of Bush and Cheney? I thought the President worked for us? Seems to me that Bush is a Tyrant and a Terrorist in his own way! The Democrats are willing to allow God knows how many Soldiers to die because they are afraid of the Republicans in the '08 Elections! My God what has gone wrong in this Country? I would think they would have a better chance of winning if they listened to the voters? That's My View of It!
