Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts

Free Stickers WATERBOARD CHENEY !

Free 3 x 7 sticker with self-addressed, stamped envelope

Just think what we, the people might discover if we were to do a little enhanced interrogation on Mr Cheney ! Maybe we would finally find out the truth about 9-11, how for the first time in the history of the world, fire brought down not one, but three steel framed buildings! Maybe we would find out how much of the rush to war was driven by greed, oil and foreign interests. We might even learn about the CIA asassination squads supposedly run by Cheney himself...the possibilities are endless. And hey, it isnt torture...it is simply asking a few questions under difficult conditions. Who can whine about that? These stickers are made in America by patriotic Americans that love this country and want to see it return to the principles it was founded on. For your free sticker, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to

Cheney Sticker Offer 19754 McKillop Rd NE Scotts Mills, Oregon 97375

Donations are thankfully accepted, but not required!

Any donations will go back into more stickers.

Share:

Seek Truth, But Prosecute Liars


By DAVE LINDORFF

The similar calls by Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and House Judiciary Chair Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are potentially a terrible idea, but one that could turn out to be an excellent one, if handled correctly.

It would be a terrible idea if a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was just another 9-11-type body. That commission turned out to be worse than nothing, given that it was manipulated by the Bush administration to be toothless and that it ended up covering up more than it uncovered. Aside from the behind the scenes manipulation, the biggest problem with the 9-11 commission, though, was that is was not linked to any attempt to prosecute official wrongdoing.

A congressionally-established Truth and Reconciliation commission to examine Bush-era crimes like torture, lying to Congress, FISA violations, etc., would likely also end up doing more harm than good if it were just set up to call witnesses, issue a report and go home.

What is needed is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is linked to a plan for aggressively prosecuting wrongdoing. The idea, modelled on the commission set up by the popularly elected government under Nelson Mandela after the end of South Africa's white apartheid police state rule, would be to hold hearings designed to get to the bottom of the many crimes that were committed against the Constitution, the people of the United States, and the people of the world, and to air them fully so that they would not happen again.

But for that to really work, there would have to be aggressive investigators and jurists appointed to the commission, it would have to be given unlimited subpoena power and an open-ended congressional investigative mandate with access to all state secrets, and finally, it would have to have the legal authority to grant immunity from prosecution to those who, under oath, volunteered to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to that body.

Linked to this, there would have to be a commitment on the part of the Justice Department, or ideally to an independent special prosecutor, to pursue those who either refused to testify before such a commission, or who were found to have lied to it.

I am not troubled by the idea that possible criminals, up to and including former President Bush and Vice President Cheney, might, as a result of their testimony before the commission, be allowed to live out their lives free from prosecution. If such men were to testify truthfully about what they had done, the effect on the American public would be so profound that it would be a powerful deterrent to any future leaders doing the same kind of thing, and those who were exposed would live lives of shame and be condemned by history. That's good enough for me. I don't need to see them locked up behind bars, or sentenced to death for murder. It's not vengeance that we should be seeking, it is the prevention of another such episode of presidential lawlessness.

That said, the threat of prosecution is crucial to ensure that all administration officials come before such a commission if called, and that they testify honestly. Only by doing so could they avoid the risk of actual prosecution. Note that since this would not be a trial, there would be no "Fifth Amendment" waiver against self-incriminating testimony--a big advantage. If a witness were called and refused to appear, that witness should automatically be subject to investigation by a federal prosecutor. If a witness, as a result of documentary evidence, or the testimony of other witnesses, were found to have lied to the commission, he or she would also be subject to investigation and prosecution.

The beauty of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that it can truly be presented as an effort to root out a problem and solve it, without there having to be a sense of retribution and political division. Any political contentiousness would be the result of witnesses' refusal to participate, or to come clean, not of the effort to elicit the truth.

The other advantage of the commission approach to dealing with the wrongdoing and unconstitutional actions and usurpations of power by the executive branch over the past eight years is that it would encourage many lower-level administration officials who may have participated in criminal behavior or conspiracies to come forward and clear themselves by telling the truth, making the job of prosecuting higher-ups much easier.

So I say a cautious yes to Leahy's and Conyers' initiative, but only with the proviso that any commission they propose be linked to a plan to prosecute liars and those who refuse to testify if called.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Share:

Cheney, Gonzales Indicted In South Texas County


Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on state charges involving federal prisons in a South Texas county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles under the outgoing prosecutor.

The indictment returned Monday has not yet been signed by the presiding judge, and no action can be taken until that happens.The seven indictments made public in Willacy County on Tuesday included one naming state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. and some targeting public officials connected to District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra's own legal battles.

Regarding the indictments targeting the public officials, Guerra said, "the grand jury is the one that made those decisions, not me."

Guerra himself was under indictment for more than a year and half until a judge dismissed the indictments last month. Guerra's tenure ends this year after nearly two decades in office. He lost convincingly in a Democratic primary in March.

Guerra said the prison-related charges against Cheney and Gonzales are a national issue and experts from across the country testified to the grand jury.

Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on Tuesday, saying that the vice president had not yet received a copy of the indictment.

The indictment accuses Gonzales of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately-run prisons.

Gonzales' attorney, George Terwilliger III, said in a written statement, "This is obviously a bogus charge on its face, as any good prosecutor can recognize." He said he hoped Texas authorities would take steps to stop "this abuse of the criminal justice system."

Another indictment released Tuesday accuses Lucio of profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies. Guerra announced his intention to investigate Lucio's prison consulting early last year.

Lucio's attorney, Michael Cowen, released a scathing statement accusing Guerra of settling political scores in his final weeks in office.

"Senator Lucio is completely innocent and has done nothing wrong," Cowen said, adding that he would file a motion to quash the indictment this week.

Willacy County has become a prison hub with county, state and federal lockups. Guerra has gone after the prison-politician nexus before, extracting guilty pleas from three former Willacy and Webb county commissioners after investigating bribery related to federal prison contacts.

Last month, a Willacy County grand jury indicted The GEO Group, a Florida private prison company, on a murder charge in the death of a prisoner days before his release. The three-count indictment alleged The GEO Group allowed other inmates to beat Gregorio de la Rosa Jr. to death with padlocks stuffed into socks. The death happened in 2001 at the Raymondville facility.

In 2006, a jury ordered the company to pay de la Rosa's family $47.5 million in a civil judgment. The Cheney-Gonzales indictment makes reference to the de la Rosa case.

None of the indictments released Tuesday had been signed by Presiding Judge Manuel Banales of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region.

Last month, Banales dismissed indictments that charged Guerra with extorting money from a bail bond company and using his office for personal business. An appeals court had earlier ruled that a special prosecutor was improperly appointed to investigate Guerra.

After Guerra's office was raided as part of the investigation early last year, he camped outside the courthouse in a borrowed camper with a horse, three goats and a rooster. He threatened to dismiss hundreds of cases because he believed local law enforcement had aided the investigation against him.

The indictments were first reported by KRGV-TV.
Share:

Kucinich to Introduce Impeachment of Bush Before State of the Union January 28

In a brazen show of courage, Congressman Kucinich
took to the House
Floor yesterday and called Bush and Cheney
the liars that they are.

"The President and Vice President lied and 4,000
of our soldiers died.
The President and Vice President lied and a
million innocent Iraqis died in a war that'll cost us
two trillion dollars while people here in the states are losing
their jobs, their health care, their homes, their dignity.

Lies are weapons of mass destruction. Lies are also an
impeachable offence. Monday, January 28th is the State of the
Union. We already know the State of the Union, it's a lie."

Dennis said his piece,

then had to retract it.

This clip also shows why

Congress won't let C-SPAN

control the cameras and microphones.

I had to fast-forward to get it into 10 minutes.



Share:

The Untold Story of the Cheney 'Quagmire' Video


The Untold Story of the Cheney 'Quagmire' Video



When the C-SPAN producer toiling in obscurity last month reached for the tape, he had no clue how juicy a nugget he had unearthed. The tape was labeled simply, "Life and Career of Dick Cheney"; dated April 15, 1994.

When he found it in the archives, the producer was just looking for something mildly interesting to help fill the 12-hour Cheney marathon planned by C-SPAN 3. The "Life and Career of Dick Cheney," produced for C-SPAN's "American Profile" series, seemed like a good bet for the marathon; after all, those interviews were personality-based and less wonky, letting viewers get a real feel for Dick and his wife/political partner, Lynne.

But instead of love and marriage, the "Life and Career" tape offered up a much younger looking Cheney saying that a U.S. invasion to capture Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein would be, well, a quagmire.

At the time of the interview 13 years ago, Cheney was the ex-defense secretary, camped out at the American Enterprise Institute and contemplating a run for president. Asked why he didn't think U.S. forces should have gone on to Baghdad during the first Persian Gulf War, he asked rhetorically, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?" He added, "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

The now famous "quagmire" tape, which has gotten over half a million views on YouTube, may well have remained buried in the archives for another decade (and doesn't Cheney wish it had!) if it hadn't been for that one C-SPAN producer, an affable young Irishman named Emmanuel Touhey.

Touhey didn't have time to review the entire hour-long tape before airing it, so he had no idea he was about to spark a firestorm on the Internet. And, at first, no one seemed to notice.

The Cheney tape re-aired for the first time since 1994 on July 11, 2007. But it wasn't until C-SPAN aired the interview again on August 9 (on the same channel, at the same time) that the blogosphere noticed.

As far as we know, the Cheney remarks on Iraq were first noticed by the site Grand Theft Country. When it quickly became an Internet phenomenon, Touhey was surprised. He said people have been calling C-SPAN over the past week asking when the network plans to air the Cheney segment again. (It doesn't, for the record.)

"I was quietly pleased with myself that I'd found a gem, however by accident," said Touhey, who, after nine years with C-SPAN is leaving next week to become a producer for The Diane Rehm Show. "I'm gleeful just from the perspective that it's getting a lot of attention. Any time C-SPAN 3 gets a lot of attention, I'm happy."

Asked what changed the vice president's mind about invading Iraq between 1994 and 2003, Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said she was not authorized to comment.

She did, however, direct us to an interview that ABC News conducted with Cheney in February of this year in which Cheney was asked how his views had changed from 1991, when he also spoke of military action in Iraq as a "quagmire."

"Well, I stand by what I said in '91," Cheney told ABC. "But look what's happened since then -- we had 9/11."

Now, about that faceless voice in the Cheney "quagmire" video -- it belongs to Bruce Collins, the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN who held the same title when he interviewed the former defense secretary and future vice president way back in 1994.

Collins shared with us a funny anecdote about that interview.

When he showed up at Cheney's office, he said the future Veep asked, "How much time do you need -- one, two minutes?" Collins explained it was an hour-long interview.

Cheney grumbled that he hadn't planned on that much time. Collins said the interview was for C-SPAN's "American Profile" series, which would give the audience a chance to learn more about Dick Cheney the man, where he comes from, how he thinks, how he lives.

"You mean, touchy feely?" Cheney replied, according to Collins.

"This is an opportunity to go beyond policy," Collins recalled saying.

To which Cheney growled, "Well, you know I'm a policy kinda guy."

And there you have it: Dick Cheney is not a touchy-feely kinda guy.

Watch the video above:
Share:

The White House website is getting scrubbed


On March 16, 2003 Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press. His absurd claims in that interview have since become politically embarrassing to the White House. For example, he declared...

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

You won't any longer find a link to this transcript on the White House website—nor, indeed, are there links to most of Cheney's interviews from before 2006. Don't believe me? Just do a search for that infamous sentence at www.whitehouse.gov.

The WH website evidently has been busy scrubbing links to interviews and perhaps other public appearances by top officials. The operation has proceeded somewhat unevenly, though aggressively. Pretty clearly the WH wants to make it much harder to research the administration's past pronouncements, especially unscripted ones, and especially those pertaining to Iraq.

How embarrassing now for the White House to get caught in the act of scrubbing its website!

It's difficult to tell how extensive the operation has been, of course, but clearly it has wide dimensions. The most obvious losses from the White House website have been the transcripts of interviews. A little searching for prominent interviews by the Vice President quickly turned up some striking absences.

For example, on May 30, 2005 Cheney told several whoppers to Larry King on CNN, in particular this one:

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

You'll look in vain for any transcript of that interview at the White House website, however. There are several transcripts of subsequent White House briefings in which reporters asked one or another official to comment upon the validity of Cheney's "last throes" statement. But the transcript of the interview in question? AWOL.

Again, on Meet the Press on September 14, 2003 Cheney rejected the calls for an investigation of the pre-war intelligence on so-called WMD, denied that there had been any administration failure in that regard, and predicted that the WH would be vindicated.

"I think in the final analysis, we will find that the Iraqis did have a robust program"

The White House website nowhere links to a transcript of that interview, either.

When did this scrubbing operation occur and what did it involve? It's a difficult question to answer. So far I've located no evidence that the foregoing interviews were ever linked at the WH website. However it's certain that the WH site was scrubbed in some fashion fairly recently.

Take for example the White House Radio Page. Traditionally it has two groups of links: (a) to all the President's scripted weekly radio addresses; (b) to radio interviews given by top administration officials. The scripted addresses are all archived in good order; nothing unusual there. But you'll notice two peculiar things about section (b) of the page, as it appears now.

(i) First, there are no archived interviews since August 2006. I commented on this curious fact in a post dated January 29, 2007: The White House is talking behind your back. I argued that it looked like the WH had decided sometime about a year ago that it was counterproductive to be offering transcripts to interviews that could in the future be used as ammunition against them. So they gradually cut back on the number of linked interview-transcripts, until finally suspending the practice entirely in summer 2006. The interviews with administration officials continued, of course. In fact, in October 2006 the WH had a "Radio Day" in which dozens of right-wing radio talk-show hosts descended on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to hold a marathon of interviews with WH officials. But none of those was linked on the WH "Radio Page".

The only person whose interviews were still (more or less) regularly being linked to at the WH website, I discovered, was Dick Cheney...not on the "Radio Page", but on his own Speeches and News Releases page.

Oddly enough, on Jan. 30, 2007—the very day after I posted (and widely crossposted) that assessment of the WH bunker mentality regarding interview-transcripts—a new (if fairly trivial) radio interview was linked at the WH "Radio Page". This was the first link to be posted in half a year! It's equally remarkable that not one interview-link has been added since then. Make of that what you will.

"When you're at this as long as I've been, you stop believing in coincidence."

(ii) The second strange thing about the WH "Radio Page" is this: No longer are there any radio interviews archived from before March 2004. The entire first three years of transcripts was scrubbed from the site. And I can state with certainty that this occurred sometime after Jan. 29 when I wrote that last analysis of strange doings at the WH "Radio Page". While researching that post, I went through the full range of archives of radio interviews going back to 2001.

So there's no doubt that an extensive scrubbing of the WH website has been carried out in the last few weeks. Whether the rest of what I'm pointing out here also dates to the same operation is not clear.

If we turn our attention now to Dick Cheney's Speeches and News Releases Page, we find another revealing pattern. As I remarked in my foregoing post, it's remarkable that Cheney, alone at the White House, has continued linking to his own interviews throughout last year.

But it's equally remarkable that that pattern of openness holds only for the period from mid December 2005 to the present. For the earlier part of 2005, there are links to only 3 interviews. For 2004, there's a grand total of 5 linked interviews (3 from the same day). And from that point back to late March 2002, there is not a single interview linked on Cheney's website. Thus for more than three and a half years, from March 25, 2002 to December 17, 2005, you'll find links to exactly 8 interviews on Cheney's "Speeches and News Releases Page".

This is of course the most controversial period for the Bush administration. It is a period in which Cheney made frequent appearances to talk up the grounds for attacking Iraq. After the invasion, Cheney continued to be the most vociferous defender of the invasion. His claims about alleged WMD became an object of derision for many Americans. His strident attacks upon administration critics became unusually repellent. His high profile in the outing of a CIA agent, utterly loathsome.

I'd venture that if I were to set about scrubbing the WH website of politically embarrassing interviews, I'd begin with the Vice President's and I'd concentrate on exactly the period for which we now see the fewest interview-links on Cheney's page. In fact I would be particularly thorough in scrubbing any and all interviews by the Great Man during 2002 and 2003—the period in which there are no links whatever now.

And what about the occasional links that remain in the vast wilderness of 2004 and 2005, standing like lone trees here and there after a forest fire? I've read the transcripts of those interviews. None of them touches on politically embarrassing material. Mostly they steer clear of Iraq altogether. Unless and until topics like CAFTA become hot political issues, I would anticipate that the transcripts of those interviews can safely remain available to the public on the Vice President's page.

For what it is worth, I've also noticed that not a single radio interview dating before March 2004 is linked on Cheney's "Speeches etc." page; all (surviving) links to earlier Cheney appearances are instead for televised interviews. Thus if Cheney's page has been scrubbed of interviews as described above, then the operation also involved bringing it into line with the President's "Radio Page", which (as noted) has erased its links to all radio interviews that pre-date March 2004.

Pretty striking: Two peculiar patterns of the absence of linked radio interviews, patterns which happen to coincide perfectly with each other. As I've remarked many times before, the most egregious comments from Bush administration officials can often be found in interviews with nutty radio hosts, where the conservative base gets its red-meat. So scrubbing entire years of transcripts to radio interviews makes a good deal of sense politically for a White House that is increasingly under siege.

What about the equivalent page for George Bush, "Presidential News and Speeches"—has that been scrubbed? The answer is less than clear.

The current February 2007 page links to a few of Cheney's interviews from Australia. I immediately noticed, however, that it has no link to the most embarrassing of those interviews, the one I wrote about yesterday in which the VP was (for the first time) pressed by a journalist (Jonathan Karl) to reconcile his 1991 statement that invading Iraq would inevitably lead to a quagmire, with his support for invading Iraq in 2003. Cheney's own page, by contrast, does provide a link to that (second) interview with Jonathan Karl as well as to the other interviews that Bush's page links to. At a minimum, then, I would infer that the White House is being careful to exclude links on the "Presidential News" page to interviews that have the most potential to haunt them.

A little tour of the archives for the "Presidential News and Speeches" page, in any case, turned up surprisingly few links to interviews by administration officials, especially for the period before March 2004. Obviously, none of the three television interviews of Cheney that I began this post with make an appearance. But neither do many other interviews that you might have expected to find linked.

Let's take for example the interviews of Condoleeza Rice, an official who unlike Cheney can be counted on to stay on the reservation and to dance around awkward questions. Under normal circumstances, you would suppose that the White House would be perfectly content to let transcripts of her interviews remain available at the WH website. So I've done a search for transcripts of her interviews at CNN, and checked whether the "Presidential News" page provides a link. The results are pretty striking for the first two pages of interviews that Google pulls up. There is (at the moment) not a single link on the "Presidential News" page for any of the interviews given by Rice in this group: Sept. 24, 2001; May 19, 2002; Nov. 15, 2002; Sept. 7, 2003; Oct. 8, 2003; or Sept. 2, 2005. Google thinks these are the most prominent of her interviews on CNN, but the WH website doesn't care to link to any of them. It tends to confirm my sense that Bush's own "Presidential News" page has thinned out the number of archived interviews.

A more decisive test, perhaps, would be how the WH website treats the interviews given by somebody who is a little more embarrassing than Rice...such as Harriet Miers. How many interviews with Harriet Miers are now linked at the White House website? Not one, as it turns out.

I think there's a good deal of evidence that the White House has decided to throw obstacles in the path of any journalist or meddlesome citizen who might wish to investigate the administration's past pronouncements. Bush & Co. has never been eager to let the public scrutinize its words and deeds, so the absence of links to interviews, even major interviews, does not by itself prove that the links were posted and then removed.

Yet as I've shown, there is definite evidence for some kind of scrubbing operation in recent weeks, and on a massive scale. It's hard to imagine an innocent explanation for the removal of all radio interviews pre-dating March 2004. Therefore it's legitimate to look for further evidence that might fit into a pattern of concealment. And in fact this administration has an established record of scrubbing politically embarrassing information on line, if not necessarily at the White House website.

A final note: While looking to see whether any of the President's more embarrassing speeches had been scrubbed as well, I noticed that the original link to his May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech had gone dead. In September 2005 we'd archived that link at the Timeline on the run-up to the Iraq invasion at DowningStreetMemo.com, and we had double-checked to make sure that the link worked properly.

As it happens, the speech is still linked at the WH website, but under a new address. The difference between the old and new addresses for the "Mission Accomplished" speech is simply that the new address omits the string "/iraq/". Something strange was afoot.

This led me to check out the topical search function located at the top of the "Presidential News" page. I discovered that it is no longer possible to search for WhiteHouse.gov links on the topic "Iraq". Indeed, none of the search functions on that page work any longer...at all. It's as if the topical search function was just disabled by a site administrator.

Now why would the White House want to do that?

Some links pertaining to earlier episodes of scrubbing at the White House website:

In the wake of the Vice Presidential debate and the third Presidential debate, in October 2004 Brad Friedman of BradBlog reported that the WH list of the "coalition of the willing" had been scrubbed, as had some audio/video links—especially the link to Bush's March 13, 2002 Press Conference in which he'd said...

"I truly am not that concerned about him [bin Laden]."

This Oct. 24, 2004 post at BradBlog is particularly relevant. It notes among other things that some of audio links to the President's weekly radio addresses had been scrubbed as well. As far as I can tell, all the radio addresses now have their audio links, so the scrubbing must have been undone at some stage (perhaps after the 2004 election).

The WH claimed at the time that it was removing certain audio links to save space. I don't happen to believe that a government which can afford to ship shrink-wrapped bricks of cash by the C-130 load to Iraq, cannot also afford some web-hosting fees.

Around the same time, Pacific John at dKos showed that the State Dept. website had been scrubbed of a report called Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated.

From 2005, there is this diary by skids that I'm still working through. It concerns various reports of missing or hidden transcripts at the WH website for press gaggles and briefings.

In the first incident, after DUers announced sending the text of the hidden transcript to Fitz's office, the transcript was suddenly linked on whitehouse.gov, resulting in one of those "we are being watched" moments.

In the second incident, there are also ameribloggers noting in the comments about other missing transcripts, or there-but-not-linked transcripts. And, there was one user clever enough to enter the extrapolated URL into the wayback machine at archive.org, and found that there is a record of that URL being extant, suggesting that it was removed from the site (and, this time, thoroughly scrubbed from the site) sometime shortly after Oct 12, 2004

And again from BradBlog just a few weeks ago, we learn that several WH transcripts for press briefings have been altered to expunge the occasions when Scott McClellan said "Go ahead, Jeff". Yes, that Jeff.

For further and various examples of WH scrubbing from the first months of his term, see this list.

Several commenters have pointed out that the WayBack Machine has extensive archives from the White House website.

Thanks to all who've provided info and know-how. There may be further updates.











Share: