And the dummycraps muddy the waters once more...

[kevin1]

Impeach Bush and Cheney says Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich

WASHINGTON "” Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Tuesday will announce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney ahead of a series of protests this weekend calling for the impeachment of both Cheney and President Bush.

A spokeswoman for Kucinich, the most liberal member of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate class, confirmed the congressman's plans but would not discuss why Kucinich was bringing up the impeachment articles now.

[Aught Six]

I love it!

[MountainHunter]

I hate Kucinich. But I do think Cheney should be investigated and then, if the investigation turns up anything bad, he should be impeached.

Cheney clearly (IMO) wanted us to invade Iraq so his company Halliburton could engage in war profiteering. Here"™s some evidence, circumstantial, but I think enough to warrant an investigation, All of these occurred before 9/11, and indeed, two occurred before he was even sworn in as VP of the U.S.:

1) Halliburton files its mandatory 10K document with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in December 2000, after the 2000 Presidential election is finalized and Cheney knows he will be VP of the U.S. This is a publicly available document, although the SEC"™s database of SEC filings has recently been modified to exclude searches for documents prior to 2003. I obtained the document before this change was made to the SEC database. On page 19 is a forward-looking statement as to where Halliburton thinks significant possibilities for future growth are: "œgovernmental spending and outsourcing for military and logistical support of the type that we provide."� Keep in mind that, at the time this document was filed, Halliburton had $12 billion per year in total revenues and did not even break out its total revenue from all government contracts, because it did not meet the 5% threshold required by a 10-K filing. This is a particularly perplexing selection of an area for future growth for Halliburton, since at the time it was written, Halliburton was specifically prohibited from bidding on such projects for the military, due to past malfeasance with military contracts while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. For some reason, they knew that this would no longer be a factor once Cheney was VP.

2) Cheney calls Clinton"™s defense secretary, William Cohen (a Republican, by the way) after the 2000 elections have been finalized and Cheney knows he will be VP. Usually, the incoming team of advisors contacts the outgoing administration"™s defense secretary to find out about the overall defense situation, any imminent threats, policies that may have been set in motion that they should know about, etc. According to defense secretary Cohen (a Republican), pretty much the ONLY thing Cheney wanted to know about in this briefing was Iraq. Not Iran, not North Korea, not terrorism, not Russia, not Pakistan, etc. This surprised and baffled secretary Cohen. Here"™s a quote from an April 20, 2004 interview with secretary Cohen: "œIt was indicated to me that Mr. Cheney wanted me to focus on the briefing, primarily about Iraq, and what our policy was toward Iraq, what our military analysis was, security analysis was, of Saddam Hussein at that time, and not to give a so-called around the world briefing, which is standard operating procedure for incoming presidents."� (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...20/ywt.00.html).

3) In March of 2001, Halliburton published a document called "œHalliburton Innovations 2000"�, about 6 months before 9/11. Here is the quote from page 34 (as paginated in the publication, actually page 36): "œThe group sees improving opportunities to provide additional support services to other United States agencies and to government agencies of other countries, including the United Kingdom. The demand for these services is expected to grow as governments at all levels seek to control costs and improve services by outsourcing various functions."� Keep in mind that this was singled out as an area of particular growth at a time when total government contracts for Halliburton were less than 5% of total revenues (I don"™t know how much, because Halliburton did not break out anything that was less than 5%). At the time, Halliburton was not supposed to be eligible to bid on the kinds of contracts it ended up receiving in Iraq, without having to go through the competitive bidding process. Somehow, the company knew that this would no longer be a problem once Cheney became VP.

And before any of you rush to defend Cheney as a patriot, keep in mind that he got repeated deferrals to keep form having to serve in Viet Nam. And, more importantly, while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the company set up an independent subsidiary outside of the U.S. specifically so it could engage in deals with Iran, which is illegal for an American company to do. Here is an articles on a recent revelation that Cheney"™s former company may have violated the law and may have close contacts with Iran"™s hardline government, and specifically, with a organization whose principals include "œSirus Naseri, Tehran"™s chief international negotiator on matters relating to the country"™s hotly-disputed nuclear enrichment program"”a project the Bush administration has charged is intended to develop nuclear weapons."�:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

Do you still doubt that we might have gone to war in Iraq to make profits for Cheney and his buddies?

[BenGarrett]

ORIGINAL: MountainHunter


Do you still doubt that we might have gone to war in Iraq to make profits for Cheney and his buddies?

Yes.

Nice try, though.

As for Kucinich, an effort to impose the vice president WHILE we are at war?!? There is no bigger way to undermine the war effort and degrade the efforts the troops are making than a move like Kucinich is making. Yet, I'm sure he'd trot out the old "I support the troops" line if asked. It'll be interesting to see which Democrats line up with him on this effort. I suspect very, very few of them will.

[Champlain Islander]

ORIGINAL: BenGarrett


It'll be interesting to see which Democrats line up with him on this effort. I suspect very, very few of them will.

I think you are right .....in the beginning. As time progresses I believe more conscientious lawmakers on both sides of the isle will be forced to deal with the truth. My question to you Ben is who do you think makes the decisions George or Richard? Which one is the real architect of the policies we have been following these past 7 years? Who will be thrown in front of the bus of public criticism?

[burniegoeasily]

I guess this is standard practice for any two termer set forth during the Clinton administrations. And we see how well those millions were spent.

[MountainHunter]

BenG: You really still doubt that we even MIGHT have gone to war to enrich Cheney and his buddies? It certainly hasn't been proven, yet. And Kucinich is definitely putting the cart before the horse,IMO. But the more I learn and the more I see Cheney saying ridiculous things to keep us in the Iraq War (he STILL says Saddam's government was in bed with al Qaeda, even though our intelligence has said for YEARS now that it was not the case), the more I wonder about the possibility.

And, yes, there are many bigger ways to undermine the war effort and degrade the efforts of the troops than investigating (not "œimposing"�, as you said) the VP. Let me list a few:

1) Not providing adequate body armor for years after we invaded, and even for years after it was publicly pointed out.

2) Not providing adequate armor on the transport vehicles for years after we invaded, and even for years after it was publicly pointed out. BTW: two years after a Congressman wrote to Cheney and Rumsfeld to tell them about this, the company that makes the armor was operating at 60% capacity and just waiting for the DoD to ask them to step up delivery. The contracts were already in place, the DoD just didn"™t see any reason to hurry up and do it.

3) Not providing enough troops to do the job in Iraq. Shinseki pointed out before the war that we would need 300,000 to 600,000 troops to successfully occupy Iraq.

4) Engaging in arrogant public international policy and actions that violate treaties the U.S. has signed (Geneva Conventions (renditions, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, the torture memo by Gonzales, etc.), U.N. Charter (invading a sovereign country without being attacked by it or obtaining U.N. approval), etc.). This undermines the U.S."™s international credibility and creates the impression that the U.S. is a rogue superpower, which reduces the support we receive from other nations, increasing the burdens on our soldiers in Iraq. It also legitimizes the use of terror in the eyes of many Muslims, which helps Al Qaeda recruit more terrorists to fight us in Iraq, and even more importantly, IMO, train more terrorists in Iraq to fight us elsewhere and to fight and destabilize other countries, especially in the broader middle east.

5) Falsifying records to make "œHollywood Heroes"� out of Tillman, Lynch, etc., which diminishes the true heroism of the other soldiers in Iraq.

6) Living in a fantasy world where the mission is accomplished (May 2003), "œthe insurgency is in its last throes"� (said by Cheney in May 2005 and reiterated by Cheney in June 2006) and things are always improving (for the last four years). This misinforms the war policy and insults the intelligence of the troops on the ground, who see what is really happening in Iraq.

While I think this war has been bizarrely mishandled since the beginning, I agree with McCain on the fact that we are in it now. Even though Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or any terrorism on U.S. soil before the war, our war of choice there has made it a focal point in the war on terror. And I think that means we need to win it, to avoid emboldening the terrorists and to keep the conflagration in Iraq from spilling over to the entire middle east (can you say $20 per gallon gasoline?). For four years now, we have essentially been recruiting and training terrorists in Iraq. We need to decisively defeat them there, so they don"™t take over Iraq"™s oil resources and spread to take over the rest of the middle east, and who knows from there. Unfortunately, I think that will mean sending another 300,000+ troops to Iraq, and the only way I see to do that is a draft, which I think is very unlikely to happen.

[burniegoeasily]

ORIGINAL: MountainHunter


Do you still doubt that we might have gone to war in Iraq to make profits for Cheney and his buddies?

I assume you are suggesting that a VP has that kind of power, plus what monetary gain did the other countries gain?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Champlain Islander]

ORIGINAL: burniegoeasily

I assume you are suggesting that a VP has that kind of power, plus what monetary gain did the other countries gain?

Ordinarily the VP doesn't have that much power but IMO Cheney was the "brains" of the ticket and called the shots.Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney were the guiding factors with Condi bringing in the minority presence. George just nodded his head like a bobble hea...no I won't say that.