Impeach Dick ! that dick

[A Veteran for Peace]

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_112.shtml


Commentary
Twenty questions about impeaching a vice president
By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.
Online Journal Guest Writer


Nov 4, 2005, 15:33

1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office
by impeachment?

A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member
of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of
Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50%
plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the
Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate
to convict.

2. Q: Why is it so simple?

A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not
judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.

3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?

A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices
cronyism. We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the
Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President,
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. President Gerald Ford was correct
when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the
majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any
given moment in its history.

4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice
president based on the notion that the person of greater authority
the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his
administration?

A: No, none whatsoever.

5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable
time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of
evidence?

A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes
for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section
5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

6. Q: Doesn’t the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of
justice here?

A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a
congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win
reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds
office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure
every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the
voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any
time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice
president.

7. Q: Has this ever happened?

A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two
presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the
Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe
that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee
had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter
was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly
resigned.

8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like?

A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate
session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I,
Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. The man of the hour
may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or
refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and
pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution
requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the
Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In
1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.

9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are
dissatisfied?

A: Yes, it’s a snap. It takes only one House member to propose
impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are
present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or
abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219
House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is “Yes, if they
feel that it is in their interest - whatever way they may calculate
that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see
if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.

10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be
possible to get that many votes?

A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are
asking about is ‘possibility’. In reality, during President Andrew
Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate
spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the
two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton’s trial, the
vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the
second one, it was 50-50.

11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we
precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant,
Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?

A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take
years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr.
Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought
forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining
specifically to him.

12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of
impeachment?

A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s
power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.

13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed
a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?

A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president,
could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from
interfering in the process of impeachment.

14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding
a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very
moment.

15. Q: Are you suggesting that President Bush could pardon a
person’s crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?

A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued
a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who
at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his
motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger’s
trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own
dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.

16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?

A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what
the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a
scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and
balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president
but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted
the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult
or dangerous circumstances.

17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current
vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of
impeachment start to swirl?

A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of
immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten
to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president
ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become
president.

18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up,
how is he replaced?

A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the
president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older.
That nomination must then be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote
in the Senate before the person can be sworn in as the new vice
president.

19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?

A: By ‘talking it up,’ by seeking publicity for the idea, and by
persuading a Congressperson to propose it. Since 2001 when President
George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for
his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the
impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal
that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was
Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed
his petition. Number 16 in Clark’s list of complaints sounds
particularly relevant to the vice president, namely “refusal to
provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of
executive functions.

20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?

A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several
others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal
prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if
appropriate. ‘RICO’ stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York because it
accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the
U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases
at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v.
Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.

Mary Maxwell, P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA, is a political
scientist. She can be emailed as ‘mary’ at her website
marymaxwell.us. She hereby permits anyone to distribute this article
as long as it is unaltered and credits the author.


Copyright 1998-2005 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

[A Veteran for Peace]

Post by A Veteran for Peace
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_112.shtml
Commentary
Twenty questions about impeaching a vice president
By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.
Online Journal Guest Writer
Nov 4, 2005, 15:33
1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office
by impeachment?
A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member
of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of
Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50%
plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the
Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate
to convict.
2. Q: Why is it so simple?
A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not
judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.
3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?
A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices
cronyism. We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the
Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President,
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. President Gerald Ford was correct
when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the
majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any
given moment in its history.
4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice
president based on the notion that the person of greater authority
the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his
administration?
A: No, none whatsoever.
5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable
time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of
evidence?
A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes
for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section
5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
6. Q: Doesn’t the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of
justice here?
A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a
congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win
reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds
office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure
every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the
voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any
time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice
president.
7. Q: Has this ever happened?
A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two
presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the
Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe
that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee
had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter
was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly
resigned.
8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like?
A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate
session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I,
Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. The man of the hour
may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or
refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and
pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution
requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the
Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In
1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.
9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are
dissatisfied?
A: Yes, it’s a snap. It takes only one House member to propose
impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are
present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or
abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219
House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is “Yes, if they
feel that it is in their interest - whatever way they may calculate
that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see
if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.
10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be
possible to get that many votes?
A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are
asking about is ‘possibility’. In reality, during President Andrew
Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate
spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the
two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton’s trial, the
vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the
second one, it was 50-50.
11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we
precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant,
Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?
A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take
years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr.
Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought
forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining
specifically to him.
12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of
impeachment?
A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s
power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.
13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed
a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?
A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president,
could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from
interfering in the process of impeachment.
14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?
A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding
a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very
moment.
15. Q: Are you suggesting that President Bush could pardon a
person’s crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?
A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued
a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who
at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his
motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger’s
trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own
dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.
16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?
A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what
the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a
scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and
balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president
but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted
the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult
or dangerous circumstances.
17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current
vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of
impeachment start to swirl?
A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of
immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten
to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president
ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become
president.
18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up,
how is he replaced?
A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the
president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older.
That nomination must then be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote
in the Senate before the person can be sworn in as the new vice
president.
19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?
A: By ‘talking it up,’ by seeking publicity for the idea, and by
persuading a Congressperson to propose it. Since 2001 when President
George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for
his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the
impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal
that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was
Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed
his petition. Number 16 in Clark’s list of complaints sounds
particularly relevant to the vice president, namely “refusal to
provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of
executive functions.
20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?
A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several
others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal
prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if
appropriate. ‘RICO’ stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York because it
accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the
U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases
at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v.
Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.
Mary Maxwell, P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA, is a political
scientist. She can be emailed as ‘mary’ at her website
marymaxwell.us. She hereby permits anyone to distribute this article
as long as it is unaltered and credits the author.
Copyright 1998-2005 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

and visit;

http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=taxonomy/term/1

[A Veteran for Peace]

Post by A Veteran for Peace

Post by A Veteran for Peace
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_112.shtml
Commentary
Twenty questions about impeaching a vice president
By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.
Online Journal Guest Writer
Nov 4, 2005, 15:33
1. Q: How long would it take to eject a vice president from office
by impeachment?
A: Theoretically it could be done in a day. In the morning a member
of the House of Representatives could propose one or more Articles of
Impeachment and then a vote could be called. A simple majority (50%
plus one vote) is all that is needed to impeach. In the afternoon the
Senate could try the case. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate
to convict.
2. Q: Why is it so simple?
A: Because ejecting a person from high office is political, not
judicial. The only punishment to be meted out is removal from office.
3. Q: What is an impeachable offense?
A: An impeachable offense can be as nebulous as “He practices
cronyism. We can call this a misdemeanor. According to the
Constitution, Article II, Section 4, “The President, Vice President,
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. President Gerald Ford was correct
when he said in 1970 that, “An impeachable offense is whatever the
majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any
given moment in its history.
4. Q: Is there any good argument against impeaching a vice
president based on the notion that the person of greater authority
the president - should take responsibility for whatever happens in his
administration?
A: No, none whatsoever.
5. Q: Would the Senate have to provide such things as reasonable
time for the defense to prepare its case, and a close scrutinizing of
evidence?
A: No. The Senate is procedurally bound only by the rules it makes
for itself. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section
5 (2), says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
6. Q: Doesn’t the accused have rights? Where are the wheels of
justice here?
A: Justice does not come into it. Think of it this way: If a
congresswoman has done a fabulous job for two years, but fails to win
reelection, does she have any redress? Of course not. She holds
office at the pleasure of the voters, and they indicate their pleasure
every two years. A president takes office at the pleasure of the
voters, but he holds onto office at the pleasure of Congress. At any
time in our history, Congress could have ejected a president or a vice
president.
7. Q: Has this ever happened?
A: Congress has never impeached a vice president, but it impeached two
presidents Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. In both cases, the
Senate subsequently failed to convict. Many people mistakenly believe
that Richard Nixon, too, was impeached. The House Judiciary Committee
had voted three Articles of Impeachment against him, but the matter
was never put to the full House for a vote because Mr. Nixon promptly
resigned.
8. Q: What does an impeachment trial look like?
A: It is held in the Senate Chamber and looks like a normal Senate
session, except that all Senators are sworn in as jurors. Article I,
Section 3 (6) of the Constitution says, “When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. The man of the hour
may attend or send someone to represent him. He can plead guilty or
refute the charges. Each Senator must stand at her place and
pronounce her judgment as ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ The Constitution
requires that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court come over to the
Senate Chamber to preside when a president is being impeached. In
1986, the Senate extended this to cover vice presidents.
9. Q: Is it easy to eject a vice president with whom the people are
dissatisfied?
A: Yes, it’s a snap. It takes only one House member to propose
impeachment. Then, 219 out of the 435 members must agree, if all are
present and voting (fewer, if some are absent from the House or
abstain from voting). So your question boils down to: Are there 219
House members willing to vote to impeach? The answer is “Yes, if they
feel that it is in their interest - whatever way they may calculate
that interest. Part of their calculation may be to look ahead and see
if 67 Senators would be willing to convict the vice president.
10. Q: The number sixty-seven seems very high. Would it ever be
possible to get that many votes?
A: It is possible to get the full 100 Senate votes if all you are
asking about is ‘possibility’. In reality, during President Andrew
Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1867, only a single vote in the Senate
spared him from conviction (since there were fewer states then, the
two-thirds majority was smaller than 67). At Clinton’s trial, the
vote on one of his two Articles of Impeachment was 55-45. On the
second one, it was 50-50.
11. Q: Regarding the current vice president, Richard Cheney, are we
precluded from impeaching during the time that his former assistant,
Mr. Lewis Libby, is facing prosecution for alleged crimes?
A: No. There is no reason to hold back - the Libby case may take
years. However, persons wishing to take care not to prejudice Mr.
Libby’s trial may wisely urge that any impeachable offense brought
forward against the vice president be of a type pertaining
specifically to him.
12. Q: Could the president offer a pardon to thwart the process of
impeachment?
A: No. The Constitution puts only one restriction on the president’s
power to pardon, namely it cannot be used in cases of impeachment.
13. Q: Does this mean that if by any chance Mr. Cheney has committed
a crime he can never enjoy a pardon?
A: No, it does not mean that. President Bush, or a later president,
could pardon Mr. Cheney. The president is prevented only from
interfering in the process of impeachment.
14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?
A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding
a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very
moment.
15. Q: Are you suggesting that President Bush could pardon a
person’s crime in advance of the person being convicted of any crime?
A: Yes. The elder President Bush (president from 1989 to 1993) issued
a pardon a few weeks before he left office, for Caspar Weinberger, who
at that point had not been convicted of anything. Quite possibly his
motive was to avoid being subpoenaed as a witness at Weinberger’s
trial. As a witness, Bush could be cross-examined and his own
dealings in the Iran-Contra affair could have been revealed.
16. Q: Did the president dishonor the Constitution by doing that?
A: No. He played the Constitution for all it is worth. That is what
the Constitution is for. It is not an idealistic statement; it is a
scheme for allocating power and controlling power by checks and
balances. The Founding Fathers put many restraints on the president
but gave him his head when it came to pardons. They probably wanted
the president to have bargaining chips that he could use in difficult
or dangerous circumstances.
17. Q: Strategically, from the viewpoint of the current
vice-president, what would be the best move to make if rumors of
impeachment start to swirl?
A: Presuming that Mr. Cheney would hate to lose the position of
immense power that he now occupies, his options would be a) to hasten
to correct any offending behaviors, or b) to try to get the president
ejected from office, in which case he himself would immediately become
president.
18. Q: When a vice president leaves office before his term is up,
how is he replaced?
A: If a vice president dies, resigns, or is impeached, the
president can nominate any American-born citizen, age 35 or older.
That nomination must then be confirmed by a two-thirds majority vote
in the Senate before the person can be sworn in as the new vice
president.
19. Q: How can a citizen start impeachment activity?
A: By ‘talking it up,’ by seeking publicity for the idea, and by
persuading a Congressperson to propose it. Since 2001 when President
George W. Bush took office, there have been numerous public calls for
his impeachment and some of these extend their proposal to include the
impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One proposal
that names all of those persons is sponsored by Ramsey Clark, who was
Attorney General in the 1960s. So far, 607,000 citizens have signed
his petition. Number 16 in Clark’s list of complaints sounds
particularly relevant to the vice president, namely “refusal to
provide information and records [needed for] legislative oversight of
executive functions.
20. Q: Is Mr. Cheney currently threatened with any prosecutions?
A: The case of Rodriguez v. Bush, names Bush, Cheney, and several
others as defendants in a RICO suit. This is not a criminal
prosecution, but is a civil suit that asks for criminal penalties, if
appropriate. ‘RICO’ stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. A judge recently transferred this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York because it
accuses the government of crimes related to September 11th and the
U.S. Attorney has decided to coordinate numerous September 11th cases
at that court. The mainstream media never mentions the Rodriguez v.
Bush case, but it is available on the Internet.
Mary Maxwell, P.O. Box 4307, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA, is a political
scientist. She can be emailed as ‘mary’ at her website
marymaxwell.us. She hereby permits anyone to distribute this article
as long as it is unaltered and credits the author.
Copyright 1998-2005 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

and visit;
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=taxonomy/term/1

and;


SALON.COM
The long march of Dick Cheney
For his entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush
presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him -- and he's not about to
give it up.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Nov. 24, 2005 | The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its
illegitimacy. Its essential method is bypassing established lines of
authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential
power. When it matters, the regular operations of the CIA, Defense
Department and State Department have been sidelined.

Richard Nixon is the model, but with modifications. In the Nixon
administration, the president was the prime mover, present at the
creation of his own options, attentive to detail, and conscious of
their consequences. In the Cheney administration, the president is
volatile but passive, firm but malleable, presiding but absent. Once
his complicity has been arranged, a closely held "cabal" -- as
Lawrence Wilkerson, once chief of staff to former Secretary of State
Colin Powell, calls it -- wields control.

Within the White House, the office of the vice president is the
strategic center. The National Security Council has been demoted to
enabler and implementer. Systems of off-line operations have been laid
to evade professional analysis and a responsible chain of command.
Those who attempt to fulfill their duties in the old ways have been
humiliated when necessary, fired, retired early or shunted aside. In
their place, acolytes and careerists indistinguishable from true
believers in their eagerness have been elevated.

The collapse of sections of the façade shielding Cheney from public
view has not inhibited him. His former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby,
indicted on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, appears
to be withholding information about the vice president's actions in
the Plame affair from the special prosecutor. While Bush has
declaimed, "We do not torture," Cheney lobbied the Senate to stop it
from prohibiting torture.

At the same time, Cheney has taken the lead in defending the
administration from charges that it twisted intelligence to justify
the Iraq war and misled the Congress even as new stories underscore
the legitimacy of the charges.

Former Sen. Bob Graham has revealed, in a Nov. 20 article in the
Washington Post, that the condensed version of the National
Intelligence Estimate titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
Programs" that was submitted to the Senate days before it voted on the
Iraq war resolution "represented an unqualified case that Hussein
possessed [WMD], avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to
use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the
classified version." The condensed version also contained the
falsehood that Saddam Hussein was seeking "weapons-grade fissile
material from abroad."

The administration relied for key information in the NIE on an Iraqi
defector code-named Curveball. According to a Nov. 20 report in the
Los Angeles Times, it had learned from German intelligence beforehand
that Curveball was completely untrustworthy and his claims fabricated.
Yet Bush, Cheney and, most notably, Powell in his prewar performance
before the United Nations, which he now calls the biggest "blot" on
his record and about which he insists he was "deceived," touted
Curveball's disinformation.

In two speeches over the past week Cheney has called congressional
critics "dishonest," "shameless" and "reprehensible." He ridiculed
their claim that they did not have the same intelligence as the
administration. "These are elected officials who had access to the
intelligence materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their
own analytical capabilities." Lambasting them for historical
"revisionism," he repeatedly invoked Sept. 11. "We were not in Iraq on
September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway," he said.

The day after Cheney's most recent speech, the National Journal
reported that the president's daily briefing prepared by the CIA 10
days after Sept. 11, 2001, indicated that there was no connection
between Saddam and the terrorist attacks. Of course, the 9/11
Commission had made the same point in its report.

Even though experts and pundits contradict his talking points, Cheney
presents them with characteristic assurance. His rhetoric is like a
paving truck that will flatten obstacles. Cheney remains undeterred;
he has no recourse. He will not run for president in 2008. He is
defending more than the Bush record; he is defending the culmination
of his career. Cheney's alliances, ideas, antagonisms and tactics have
accumulated for decades.

Cheney is a master bureaucrat, proficient in the White House, the
agencies and departments, and Congress. The many offices Cheney has
held add up to an extraordinary résumé. His competence and measured
manner are often mistaken for moderation. Among those who have
misjudged Cheney are military men -- Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft and
Wilkerson, who lacked a sense of him as a political man in full. As a
result, they expressed surprise at their discovery of the ideological
hard man. Scowcroft told the New Yorker recently that Cheney was not
the Cheney he once knew. But Scowcroft and the other military men rose
by working through regular channels; they were trained to respect
established authority. They are at a disadvantage in internal
political battles with those operating by different rules of warfare.
Their realism does not account for radicalism within the U.S.
government.

Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for
an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that
Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's
counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the
presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador
to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his
former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh
lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his
surrogate on intelligence matters. During the immediate aftermath of
Watergate, Congress investigated past CIA abuses, and the press was
filled with revelations. In May 1975, Seymour Hersh reported in the
New York Times on how the CIA had sought to recover a sunken Soviet
submarine with a deep-sea mining vessel called the Glomar Explorer,
built by Howard Hughes. When Hersh's article appeared, Cheney wrote
memos laying out options ranging from indicting Hersh or getting a
search warrant for Hersh's apartment to suing the Times and pressuring
its owners "to discourage the NYT and other publications from similar
action." "In the end," writes James Mann, in his indispensable book,
"Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," "Cheney and
the White House decided to back off after the intelligence community
decided its work had not been significantly damaged."

Rumsfeld and Cheney quickly gained control of the White House staff,
edging out Ford's old aides. From this base, they waged bureaucratic
war on Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, a
colossus of foreign policy, who occupied the posts of both secretary
of state and national security advisor. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the
right wing of the Ford administration, opposed to the policy of
détente with the Soviet Union, and they operated by stealthy internal
maneuver. The Secret Service gave Cheney the code name "Backseat."

In 1975, Rumsfeld and Cheney stage-managed a Cabinet purge called the
"Halloween massacre" that made Rumsfeld secretary of defense and
Cheney White House chief of staff. Kissinger, forced to surrender
control of the National Security Council, angrily drafted a letter of
resignation (which he never submitted). Rumsfeld and Cheney helped
convince Ford, who faced a challenge for the Republican nomination
from Ronald Reagan, that he needed to shore up his support on the
right and that Rockefeller was a political liability. Rockefeller felt
compelled to announce he would not be Ford's running mate. Upset at
the end of his ambition, Rockefeller charged that Rumsfeld intended to
become vice president himself. In fact, Rumsfeld had contemplated
running for president in the future and undoubtedly would have
accepted a vice presidential nod.

In the meantime, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld undermined the
negotiations for a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty being
conducted by Kissinger. Fighting off Reagan's attacks during the
Republican primaries, Ford was pressured by Cheney to adopt his
foreign policy views, which amounted to a self-repudiation. At the
Republican Party Convention, acting as Ford's representative, Cheney
engineered the adoption of Reagan's foreign policy plank in the
platform. By doing so he preempted an open debate and split.
Privately, Ford, Kissinger and Rockefeller were infuriated.

As part of the Halloween massacre Rumsfeld and Cheney pushed out CIA
director William Colby and replaced him with George H.W. Bush, then
the U.S. plenipotentiary to China. The CIA had been uncooperative with
the Rumsfeld/Cheney anti-détente campaign. Instead of producing
intelligence reports simply showing an urgent Soviet military buildup,
the CIA issued complex analyses that were filled with qualifications.
Its National Intelligence Estimate on the Soviet threat contained
numerous caveats, dissents and contradictory opinions. From the
conservative point of view, the CIA was guilty of groupthink,
unwilling to challenge its own premises and hostile to conservative
ideas.

The new CIA director was prompted to authorize an alternative unit
outside the CIA to challenge the agency's intelligence on Soviet
intentions. Bush was more compliant in the political winds than his
predecessor. Consisting of a host of conservatives, the unit was
called Team B. A young aide from the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, Paul Wolfowitz, was selected to represent Rumsfeld's interest
and served as coauthor of Team B's report. The report was
single-minded in its conclusion about the Soviet buildup and cleansed
of contrary intelligence. It was fundamentally a political tool in the
struggle for control of the Republican Party, intended to destroy
détente and aimed particularly at Kissinger. Both Ford and Kissinger
took pains to dismiss Team B and its effort. (Later, Team B's report
was revealed to be wildly off the mark about the scope and capability
of the Soviet military.)

With Ford's defeat, Team B became the kernel of the Committee on the
Present Danger, a conservative group that attacked President Carter
for weakness on the Soviet threat. The growing strength of the right
thwarted ratification of SALT II, setting the stage for Reagan's
nomination and election.

Elected to the House of Representatives in 1978, Cheney became the
Republican leader on the House Intelligence Committee, where he
consistently fought congressional oversight and limits on presidential
authority. When Congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal (the
creation of an illegal, privately funded, offshore U.S. foreign policy
initiative), Cheney was the crucial administration defender. At every
turn, he blocked the Democrats and prevented them from questioning
Vice President Bush. Under his leadership, not a single House
Republican signed the special investigating committee's final report
charging "secrecy, deception and disdain for law." Instead, the
Republicans issued their own report claiming there had been no major
wrongdoing.

The origin of Cheney's alliance with the neoconservatives goes back to
his instrumental support for Team B. Upon being appointed secretary of
defense by the elder Bush, he kept on Wolfowitz as undersecretary. And
Wolfowitz kept on his deputy, his former student at the University of
Chicago, Scooter Libby. Earlier, Wolfowitz and Libby had written a
document expressing suspicion of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's
liberalizing perestroika and warning against making deals with him, a
document that President Reagan ignored as he made an arms control
agreement and proclaimed that the Cold War was ending.

During the Gulf War, Secretary of Defense Cheney clashed with Gen.
Colin Powell. At one point, he admonished Powell, who had been
Reagan's national security advisor, "Colin, you're chairman of the
Joint Chiefs ... so stick to military matters." During the run-up to
the war, Cheney set up a secret unit in the Pentagon to develop an
alternative war plan, his own version of Team B. "Set up a team, and
don't tell Powell or anybody else," Cheney ordered Wolfowitz. The plan
was called Operation Scorpion. "While Powell was out of town, visiting
Saudi Arabia, Cheney -- again, without telling Powell -- took the
civilian-drafted plan, Operation Scorpion, to the White House and
presented it to the president and the national security adviser,"
writes Mann in his book. Bush, however, rejected it as too risky. Gen.
Norman Schwarzkopf was enraged at Cheney's presumption. "Put a
civilian in charge of professional military men and before long he's
no longer satisfied with setting policy but wants to outgeneral the
generals," he wrote in his memoir. After Operation Scorpion was
rejected, Cheney urged Bush to go to war without congressional
approval, a notion the elder Bush dismissed.

After the Gulf War victory, in 1992, Cheney approved a new "Defense
Planning Guidance" advocating U.S. unilateralism in the post-Cold War,
a document whose final draft was written by Libby. Cheney assumed
Republican rule for the indefinite future.

One week after Bill Clinton's inauguration, on Jan. 27, 1993, Cheney
appeared on "Larry King Live," where he declared his interest in
running for the presidency. "Obviously," he said, "it's something I'll
take a look at ... Obviously, I've worked for three presidents and
watched two others up close, and so it is an idea that has occurred to
me." For two years, he quietly campaigned in Republican circles, but
discovered little enthusiasm. He was less well known than he imagined
and less magnetic in person than his former titles suggested. On Aug.
10, 1995, he held a news conference at the headquarters of the
Halliburton Co. in Dallas, announcing he would become its chief
executive officer. "When I made the decision earlier this year not to
run for president, not to seek the White House, that really was a
decision to wrap up my political career and move on to other things,"
he said.

But in 2000, Cheney surfaced in the role of party elder, above the
fray, willing to serve as the man who would help Gov. George W. Bush
determine who should be his running mate. Prospective candidates
turned over to him all sensitive material about themselves, financial,
political and personal. Once he had collected it, he decided that he
should be the vice presidential candidate himself. Bush said he had
previously thought of the idea and happily accepted. Asked who vetted
Cheney's records, Bush's then aide Karen Hughes explained, "Just as
with other candidates, Secretary Cheney is the one who handled that."

Most observers assumed that Cheney would provide balancing experience
and maturity, serving in his way as a surrogate father and elder
statesman. Few grasped his deeply held view on presidential power.
With Rumsfeld returned as secretary of defense, the position he had
held during the Ford administration, the old team was back in place.
Rivals from the past had departed and the field was clear. The methods
used before were implemented again. To get around the CIA, the Office
of Special Plans was created within the Pentagon, yet another version
of Team B. Senior military dissenters were removed. Powell was
manipulated and outmaneuvered.

The making of the Iraq war, torture policy and an industry-friendly
energy plan has required secrecy, deception and subordination of
government as it previously existed. But these, too, are means to an
end. Even projecting a "war on terror" as total war, trying to envelop
the whole American society within its fog, is a device to invest
absolute power in the executive.

Dick Cheney sees in George W. Bush his last chance. Nixon
self-destructed, Ford was fatally compromised by his moderation,
Reagan was not what was hoped for, the elder Bush ended up a
disappointment. In every case, the Republican presidents had been
checked or gone soft. Finally, President Bush provided the instrument,
Sept. 11 the opportunity. This time the failures of the past provided
the guideposts for getting it right. The administration's heedlessness
was simply the wisdom of Cheney's experience.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/11/24/cheney/index.html
Diogenes
Diogenes, when asked from what country he came, replied, "I am a
citizen of the world"

"I am called a dog because I fawn on those who give me anything, I
yelp at those who refuse, and I set my teeth in rascals"