All this said, I agree with you that Cheney, Rumsfeld
Posted By: () on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: Granted, noone wants to see stuff like that, but...(sm) - Just the big bad
and Bush should be punished for what they did. Guards in Abu Ghraib who followed orders were put on trial and imprisoned.
Torture is never justified and brings often useless, coerced confessions and devastating revenge.
“Those subjected to physical torture usually conceive undying hatred for their torturers.” One must therefore also consider the greater likelihood that American civilians (here or especially abroad) and American troops overseas will be subject to torture (or terror) by aggrieved enemies.'
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Agree 100%. Cheney is the
one of the masterminds of this adminstration. As I said, but screwed up the post, that if they impeach Bush, they better darn well take Cheney out with him. He is far more dangerous than Bush could ever hope to be, but will Cheney be called to task for his evildoings? How in the United States of America did torture become a topic of conversation? Why has not anyone been called out on these things they have done in the guise of national security? And what really gets me is that people are WILLING to give away their freedoms and rights to be safe. So who are the cowards? Also, and I have heard no one mention this, that after 9/11, Bush said we will not cower to the terrorists, not to change our way of life, our celebrations, to go about as we were, etc. Hmmm, so instead, our rights and freedoms have been violated. Now we have unauthorized NSA spies on our phone calls, emails, whatever else they want to peer into, and now the filthy Patriot Act is up, thank Goodness, but what's next? Scary.
Evidently, Cheney doesn't agree...NODDED OFF during the drivel
Now THAT'S disrespectful!
I don't really care about Rumsfeld.
The part about Rumsfeld was actually the only part I disagreed with her about because if Rummy wasn't doing exactly what Bush wanted, Bush would have fired him a long time ago. I believe it's Bush's policies that are the problem. If he fires Rummy, he will only hire someone else that he can hide behind and let take the heat for his failed war scheme.
I loved the pig comment, too. LoL
The day Rumsfeld resigned. sm
Britney Spears divorce received millions more hits on the net than the news of Rumsfeld's resignation. And the divorce thing was days old. I think that puts into perspective where people's minds are. Rome is burning and this time, a large portion of the American population are fiddling.
Rumsfeld resigning? Anyone else hear this? sm
Replacement supposed to be Bob Gates.
Keith Olbermann responds to Rumsfeld
One of Keith's best moments, IMO.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal With Saddam Hussein
Rumsfeld is full of history (among other substances), but he neglected to share this piece of history with the American majority he criticized.
(I suggest Breaking Up Is Hard To Do as the perfect background music for this.)
Published on Thursday, December 8, 2005 by CommonDreams.org |
Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam |
by Norman Solomon |
|
Christmas came 11 days early for Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when the news broke that American forces had pulled Saddam Hussein from a spidery hole. During interviews about the capture, on CBS and ABC, the Pentagon's top man was upbeat. And he didn't have to deal with a question that Lesley Stahl or Peter Jennings could have logically chosen to ask: Secretary Rumsfeld, you met with Saddam almost exactly 20 years ago and shook his hand. What kind of guy was he?
Now, Saddam Hussein has gone on trial, but such questions remain unasked by mainstream U.S. journalists. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in Baghdad on behalf of the Reagan administration, opening up strong diplomatic and military ties that lasted through six more years of Saddam's murderous brutality.
As it happens, the initial trial of Saddam and co-defendants is focusing on grisly crimes that occurred the year before Rumsfeld gripped his hand. The first witness, Ahmad Hassan Muhammad, 38, riveted the courtroom with the scenes of torture he witnessed after his arrest in 1982, including a meat grinder with human hair and blood under it, the New York Times reported Tuesday. And: At one point, Mr. Muhammad briefly broke down in tears as he recalled how his brother was tortured with electrical shocks in front of their 77-year-old father.
The victims were Shiites -- 143 men and adolescent boys, according to the charges -- tortured and killed in the Iraqi town of Dujail after an assassination attempt against Saddam in early July of 1982. Donald Rumsfeld became the Reagan administration's Middle East special envoy 15 months later.
On Dec. 20, 1983, the Washington Post reported that Rumsfeld visited Iraq in what U.S. officials said was an attempt to bolster the already improving U.S. relations with that country. A couple of days later, the New York Times cited a senior American official who said that the United States remained ready to establish full diplomatic relations with Iraq and that it was up to the Iraqis.
On March 29, 1984, the Times reported: American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name. Washington had some goodies for Saddam's regime, the Times account noted, including agricultural-commodity credits totaling $840 million. And while no results of the talks have been announced after the Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad three months earlier, Western European diplomats assume that the United States now exchanges some intelligence on Iran with Iraq.
A few months later, on July 17, 1984, a Times article with a Baghdad dateline sketchily filled in a bit more information, saying that the U.S. government granted Iraq about $2 billion in commodity credits to buy food over the last two years. The story recalled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former Middle East special envoy, held two private meetings with the Iraqi president here, and the dispatch mentioned in passing that State Department human rights reports have been uniformly critical of the Iraqi President, contending that he ran a police state.
Full diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad were restored 11 months after Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit with Saddam. He went on to use poison gas later in the decade, actions which scarcely harmed relations with the Reagan administration.
As the most senior U.S. official to visit Iraq in six years, Rumsfeld had served as Reagan's point man for warming relations with Saddam. In 1984, the administration engineered the sale to Baghdad of 45 ostensibly civilian-use Bell 214ST helicopters. Saddam's military found them quite useful for attacking Kurdish civilians with poison gas in 1988, according to U.S. intelligence sources. In response to the gassing, journalist Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most U.S. technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
The USA's big media institutions did little to illuminate how Washington and business interests combined to strengthen and arm Saddam Hussein during many of his worst crimes. In the 1980s and afterward, the United States underwrote 24 American corporations so they could sell to Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction, which he used against Iran, at that time the prime Middle Eastern enemy of the United States, writes Ben Bagdikian, a former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, in his book The New Media Monopoly. Hussein used U.S.-supplied poison gas against Iranians and Kurds while the United States looked the other way.
Of course the crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were not just in the future when Rumsfeld came bearing gifts in 1983. Saddam's large-scale atrocities had been going on for a long time. Among them were the methodical torture and murders in Dujail that have been front-paged this week in coverage of the former dictator's trial; they occurred 17 months before Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad.
Today, inside the corporate media frame, history can be supremely relevant when it focuses on Hussein's torture and genocide. But the historic assistance of the U.S. government and American firms is largely off the subject and beside the point.
A photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand on Dec. 20, 1983, is easily available. (It takes a few seconds to find via Google.) But the picture has been notably absent from the array of historic images that U.S. media outlets are providing to viewers and readers in coverage of the Saddam Hussein trial. And journalistic mention of Rumsfeld's key role in aiding the Iraqi tyrant has been similarly absent. Apparently, in the world according to U.S. mass media, some history matters profoundly and some doesn't matter at all.
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com. |
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm
Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .
A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.
Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.
Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.
In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.
The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.
Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.
U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Germany, who killed millions of Jews wants to prosecute Rumsfeld.
That makes sense.
We already have Cheney.
Cheney has the warmth and personality of a dead fish.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
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.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
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.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cehney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
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.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Cheney
Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case
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.
CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.
A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.
I hope Cheney will also be prosecuted about the Abu Ghraib torture case when Obama decides that the TIME IS RIGHT.
Hmmm, since Cheney is
perhaps Fitzgerald could use electrodes on Scooter (a grown man with that name should be a crime in itself..LOL), Rove and Cheney himself and see how he likes information extracted in this manner.
Yes, I was joking about Cheney. sm
I agree the bill is nuts. I can get you a link to that. It actually passed.
Cheney on warpath again?
This is a long article written by Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2008.
It goes to Cheney's warmongering concerning Iran (if such be the case), the difference of opinion on Iran (Gates and Rice v Cheney), clarification on the "wipe Israel off the map" comment, Cheney's recent visit to Israel, and much more. Page 5 goes into other topics; one of special interest being torture approved from the WH basement by Bush aides and Cheney.
Excellent article that covers recent comments being made by Cheney about Iran (you may recall he and Rumsfeld did the same prior to the fantisized reasons to invade Iraq).
I bring it for edification and perhaps for discussion.
Cheney deja vu all over again nm
xx
Maybe Cheney is a closet dem
He knows many people hate him, including me. He could be trying to lose McC's election since McC spoke out against Bush and Cheney.
D@ck Cheney was the man in the wheelchair
and wow I don't think booing is appropriate, D@ck Cheney doesn't get a free pass just because he is in a wheelchair.
Had to edit because I can't use the VP's first name
and Cheney was the bestest!!!!!
@@
You must remember, Cheney ain't your VP hon.....
nm
Yes, he was Cheney's Puppet
.
...and Bush & Cheney were most definitely
N/M
Kind of like Cheney did...(sm)
Funny how he pops up all over the place now, but while in office all he could do was hide.
I am in NO way a fan of Bush or Cheney,
but at least they're not lying about what they did. If these congressmen would just come out and say that they knew what was going on and did nothing about it, sure it would make them look bad, but not as bad as lying about it does.
I guess it shouldn't surprise us, though, that there's no taking responsibility for actions in our government - that's one of the biggest problems in our country - it's always someone else's fault.
Take 'em all down, I say. Kick every last one of them out and start anew.
Furtherance of Cheney impeachment
House Judiciary Trio Calls for Impeach Cheney Hearings
by John Nichols
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.
Many Say War Not Worth It; Cheney: 'So?'
Did you see Cheney on the ABC News tonight? You should have seen his smirky grin when he told her "so." He doesn't care what the country thinks about the war.
"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success," Cheney told ABC News' Martha Raddatz.
When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"
"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.
Cheney has never been known as a "caring" person
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 $$$ from this invasion, and I'm sure some folks did (like Halliburton) but instead it has backfired. Recent news shows that the war has ultimately destabilized the flow of oil and our relations with the countries that provide our oil. Plus the Iraqi pipeline has never gotten back to even pre-war levels.
Cheney and Gonzales indicted? sm
Applauding this one. Link below.
http://www.krgv.com/2008/11/18/1001457/Guerra-Indicts
Bush/Cheney = EVILDOERS!!!
May their sorry a$$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.
That's what I said to my hubby When Bush and Cheney..
...decided that we should go to war in Iraq, even when AL Qaeda was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Decided that there were WMDs in Iraq, despite being told by an impartial panel (United Nations) that there were no such things.
We knew right then and there that this country was in deep trouble. We had an arrogant excuse of a president, who was bound and determined to follow his own agenda (or daddy's)no matter what the American people wanted.
I know how you feel, but this problem is NOTHING compared to the mess that the last administration left us in!
Cheney spent SIX TIMES MORE on...
...entertainment than Bush????
Well, maybe that makes sense. He does seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain. 
Cheney spent SIX TIMES MORE on...
...entertainment than Bush????
Well, maybe that makes sense. As I remember his snarling face, he did seem like someone who is pretty difficult to entertain.
Well, did Cheney give you a boo boo face too?
nm
Obama is Cheney's puppet??! WOW!
x
Is Cheney your president? Why are you stuck
xx
Unlike the Cheney Tool that was our
.
Halliburton=Cheney=benefiting from war/terrorism
Check it out, lots and lots and lots written about it. Draw your own conclusions.
And George Bush and Dick Cheney
FBI Examines Computers in Cheney's Office
FBI Examines Computers in Cheney's Office
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, October 6, 2005
(10-06) 23:36 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
FBI agents examined computers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and talked to former and current White House aides Thursday as they investigated an FBI intelligence analyst accused of passing classified information to Filipino officials.
Meantime, former Philippine President Joseph Estrada acknowledged receiving an internal U.S. government report on the Philippines from the analyst, Leandro Aragoncillo, but played down the importance of the information, comparing it to material aired in his country's media.
The FBI is looking at whether Aragoncillo, a former Marine, took classified information about the Philippines from the White House when he worked for Vice Presidents Al Gore and Cheney from 1999 to 2002.
The type of information has not been disclosed. Though Aragoncillo had top-secret clearance, that status would not have made him privy to highly sensitive intelligence.
Aragoncillo, a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines, was charged last month with providing classified information from his FBI posting at Fort Monmouth, N.J., to former and current Philippine officials who oppose President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Philippine Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales said the criminal complaint against Aragoncillo suggests the information could have been intended to destabilize the Philippine government.
Michael Ray Aquino, a former top Philippine police official who acted as Aragoncillo's alleged go-between, was indicted by a Newark, N.J., federal grand jury Thursday on charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Aragoncillo, 46, of Woodbury, N.J., and Aquino, 39, living in Queens, N.Y., have been jailed since their arrests last month.
Federal prosecutors in Newark did not seek an indictment against Aragoncillo because he is negotiating a plea, court records show.
Aquino lawyer Mark A. Berman said his client rejected a plea deal.
There's a fundamental difference between Aragoncillo and Aquino, Berman said. Aquino is not an FBI agent and had no reason to know that the information the government laid out in the indictment was classified.
While the criminal complaint is limited to Aragoncillo's time at Fort Monmouth the investigation has widened to include his stint, while a Marine, in the vice president's office. Agents examined computers and interviewed current and former vice presidential aides Thursday, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
FBI spokesman Rich Kolko would not confirm details of the investigation, but he said, In the course of a logical investigation, the FBI will research the subject's entire career for whenever he had access to classified or sensitive information to see whether any illegal or improper activity took place.
Meantime, Estrada said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press in the Philippines that he received documents from Aragoncillo but that he did not think they contained classified information.
He was just describing how America sees the Philippines, Estrada said. I don't think that is classified. It pertains to graft and corruption, the first gentleman (Arroyo's husband).
Estrada said he met Aragoncillo during his state visit to Washington in 2000 and received about six reports from him.
He compared what Aragoncillo did with reports diplomats send back home. I don't think that's espionage, he said.
He's a kind person, the former president said of Aragoncillo. He's a good family man. He has two children.
Estrada said Aragoncillo communicated with him by mail and also spoke with him on his birthday, but he didn't say when. Estrada was toppled in massive street protests in 2001 on charges of corruption and is under house arrests while on trial.
A Philippine opposition senator has acknowledged receiving information from Aquino. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former national police chief under whom Aquino served, said he and many others received information passed by Aquino, but he played down the value of the reports, describing them as shallow information.
White House and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the investigation.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a former federal prosecutor who handled an FBI spy case, said the Aragoncillo case raises questions about easy access to classified materials and how long the naturalized U.S. citizen was able to pass on sensitive information before he was stopped.
If the complaint is accurate, there is a wealth of evidence which makes it all the more surprising he went undiscovered as long as he did, because it was not a very sophisticated operation, Schiff said.
Aragoncillo was hired to work at Fort Monmouth in July 2004 and began sending classified information and documents in January, often via e-mail, according to an FBI complaint made public last month. The documents' contents have not been made public.
From May to Aug. 15 of this year, he printed or downloaded 101 classified documents relating to the Philippines, of which 37 were classified secret, according to the criminal complaint.
He sent some of the material to Aquino, the complaint said.
Aragoncillo's public defender, Chester M. Keller, declined to say if his client was cooperating with investigators. It's just too sensitive right now, Keller said.
___
Associated Press reporter Jim Gomez in Manila and Jeffrey Gold in Newark, N.J., contributed to this report.
Cheney Fields Tough Questions
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005
Hmmm, so I guess now we've progressed to the *FINAL* last throes ???
Associated Press
Update 1: Cheney Fields Tough Questions From Troops
12.18.2005, 03:18 PM
Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.
Cheney rode the wave of last week's parliamentary elections during a 10-hour surprise visit to Iraq that aimed to highlight progress at a time when Americans question the mission. Military commanders and top government officials offered glowing reports, but the rank-and-file troops Cheney met did not seem to share their enthusiasm.
From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains, said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. We're looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain - how Iraq's looking.
Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.
I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq, the vice president said. We're getting the job done. It's hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don't pay that much attention to the news.
Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. We believe all that's possible, he said.
Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year.
About 160,000 troops are in Iraq. The administration has said that troop levels are expected to return to a baseline of 138,000 after the elections, but critics of the war have called for a significant drawdown.
More than 2,100 troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
The round-table with the vice president came after hundreds of troops had gathered in an aircraft hangar to hear from a mystery guest. When Cheney emerged at the podium, he drew laughs when he deadpanned, I'm not Jessica Simpson.
Shouts of hooah! from the audience interrupted Cheney a few times, but mostly the service members listened intently. When he delivered the applause line, We're in this fight to win. These colors don't run, the only sound was a lone whistle.
The skepticism that Cheney faced reflects opinions back home, where most Americans say they do not approve of President Bush's handling of the war. It was unique coming from a military audience, which typically receives administration officials more enthusiastically.
Cheney became the highest-ranking administration official to visit the country since Bush's trip on Thanksgiving Day 2003. It was his first visit to Iraq since March 1991, when he was defense secretary for President George H.W. Bush.
The tour came on the same day that President Bush was giving a prime-time Oval Office address on Iraq. Cheney's aides said the timing was a coincidence, yet the two events combined in a public-relations blitz aimed at capitalizing on the elections to rebuild support for the unpopular war.
The daylong tour of Iraq was so shrouded in secrecy that even Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani were kept in the dark. The prime minister said he was surprised when he showed up for what he thought was a meeting with the U.S. ambassador and saw Cheney.
Talabani, his finger still stained purple as proof that he had voted three days earlier, was clearly delighted. He thanked Cheney profusely for coming and called him one of the heroes of liberating Iraq.
Cheney had an hourlong briefing on the election from Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, top U.S. commander Gen. George Casey and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He emerged saying he was encouraged by preliminary results showing high turnout about Sunni Muslims, who make up the backbone of the insurgency.
His next visit was to Taji Air Base, where he saw tanks that Iraqis had rebuilt and watched while they practiced a vehicle sweep at a security checkpoint.
U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns.
The Syrian border is back under Iraq control now, U.S. Lt. Gen. Marty Dempsey told the vice president, pointing to a map of Iraqi troop locations. When people say, 'When will Iraq take control of its own security?' the answer truly is it already has.
Cheney lunched on lamb kebobs, hummus and rice with raisins along with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers who helped secure polling sites. Then he headed to his third and final stop in Iraq at al-Asad.
Cheney flew over Baghdad in a pack of eight fast-moving Blackhawk helicopters, following the airport road that has been the site of so many insurgent attacks and passing the courthouse where Saddam Hussein is being tried.
The unannounced stops in Iraq came at the beginning of a five-day tour aimed at strengthening support for the war on terror. Stops include Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Cheney's staff kept the Iraq portion secret from reporters, waiting to reveal the plans when Air Force Two was preparing to refuel in the United Kingdom. Once on the ground, the entourage transferred from his conspicuous white and blue 757 to an unmarked C-17 cargo plane that would fly overnight to Baghdad International Airport.
Who the heck wants Cheney for prez? YIKES!
Articles of impeachment filed on Cheney sm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the former mayor of Cleveland who is seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination for president for the second time, introduced articles to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney Tuesday, basing his decision on Cheney's initial push to send the United States into war with Iraq.
The vice president is beating the same drums of war against Iran that he beat against Iraq under false pretenses, and he's doing it all over again, against Iran, Kucinich said. And I say that it's time to stand up to that. Our country couldn't afford this last war. We can't afford to go into another one. And somebody has to challenge the conduct of this Vice President.
See: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
Cheney and Condi Rice are both members.
Plus GWB has spoken at their meetings in the past.
Your theory would appear to be some sort of conspiracy thing.
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!!!)
A good question for Bush/Cheney
Why hasn't bin Laden been captured/killed? Why was his family secretly flown out of the country without being detained for questioning? Someone needs to call Bush/Cheney to account but I doubt it will happen. Too many crooks on board.
Bush and Cheney are criminals no cheerio about it sm
Bush looked ashamed today at the inauguration. Cheney was in a wheelchair, laying low.
They'd never make fun of killing W....cuz then we would be stuck with CHENEY!!!!!
NM
The OP said that Cheney said Obama could not keep us safe and could he now say "I told you so"
To me, that sounds like they are laying blame at Obama's feet for the flu. If I misread, then I apologize, but that is the way it came to me.
You caught me, so that would make you Dickwad Cheney.
xx
Heads up Bush and Cheney lovers...(sm)
from what I understand, the govt will be releasing more of the redacted portions of the torture memos on Friday. Soon to be followed by more info. Hold onto your hats.
|
