Republicans, rabies, and the debate.

Last night’s CNN/ YouTube republican debate was probably the most entertaining performance that the democrats could hope for. Several things stood out. The most obvious was that Rudy G. was distracted by yesterday’s report about his abuse of funds as mayor, in order to carry on an affair. In the next few days, this report may get more attention than Rudy’s feeble attempts to deliver zingers at target Romney. I suspect this newest scandal will not play well with republicans across America.

The debate also featured some battles of half-wits, and that the second best part of the show. Old Fred, who seemed to sleep through much of the debate, did deliver a few meaningless lines that won the hearts of all twelve of his supporters in the audience. John McCain continued to put his campaign to sleep. It struck me as part of an American tragedy to hear him give one good answer – on torture – but he has been willing to humiliate himself to such a degree in order to become president, that it has become impossible to justify the respect he once demanded.

The best part of the debate was, without question, the questions from several of the citizens which indicated the republican party represents the unstable extremist strains of our society. Tell us about your gun collection? All we need to know is: do you believe every word of the Good Book literally? Will you wrap yourself in the flag of racism?

The questions were so strange that they allowed Ron Paul to appear rational for 45 seconds in a row. They also proved that if a younger Bob Dole had rabies, his name would be Tom Tancredo. It is difficult to imagine a weaker group of republicans for a presidential primary.

The only candidate who came across as capable of using logic and reasoning was Mike Huckabee. But, although he is gaining in support from the republican base, he is unlikely to gain the nomination. The republican machine does not base it’s decisions on qualities such as logic or reasoning, as the presidency of George W. Bush makes clear. Huckabee might become the choice for vice president, although the machine will hesitate to grant him that much power.

That leaves them with the man who learned two things in his youth: first, from watching the movie The Graduate, he became convinced that there was a future in plastics; and second, from his father’s experience, he learned that the threat of being brain-washed could be reduced by displaying no evidence of any gray matter. Plastic, black and white thinking defines Mitt Romney.

Thus, this morning, though every guest on Mourning Joe says that Huckabee won the debate hands down, the machine candidate is going to be the special guest.

It must have been difficult to be a loyal republican last night. And it has to be worse to think about it this morning, while they read the paper or watch the tv. But the republican machine will not be bothered by rational thought, logic, or reasoning. The machine will be focused on selling a plastic product, and they will rely upon their base’s willingness to be cogs in the machine.

A Dollar's Worth

"I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved-the Great Society-in order to get involved in that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs…. But if I left that war and let the Communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe." -- President Lyndon B. Johnson

Strange man, that Lyndon Johnson. He was an extreme mixture of good and bad. Despite his personal flaws, his concepts for a Great Society were progressive. He was also aware that all government programs tended to bloat, and that social programs could only work if the public saw they got "a dollar’s worth for every buck spent."

At the same time, he was able to convince himself that a war he was afraid to stop was actually not only a way of combating the evil threat of communism, but a way to spread the fruits of social progress on a global scale.

By late 1967, LBJ had begun to lose touch with reality. His closest and most loyal advisers were concerned by his behaviors. The rest of the nation experienced an extreme mix of good and bad as 1967 became 1968. If younger folks want to know what 1968 was really like (or if older folks want to refresh foggy memories), the book "An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968" by Chester, Hodgson, and Page is the single best comprehensive source of information.

There are, of course, valuable lessons to be learned from 1968. Just like then, there are numerous issues that are important to the majority of democrats today. These include ending the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan; repairing the damage the Bush-Cheney administration has done to our reputation on a global scale; restoring the Constitutional balance of federal powers; improving the economy; investing in education; insuring the rights of all US citizens; addressing the environmental crisis; and creating real job opportunities in our communities.

We can see that those who oppose these traditional democratic values seek to divide us. As long as we are divided into small groups, our enemy can break us like individual fingers. Yet when we recognize that we have common interests – and are confronted by a common enemy – we can see the advantages of joining the individual fingers together to create a fist that is powerful enough to confront that common enemy.

We must also see that it will be impossible to deal with the other problems in a meaningful way if we continue down the administration’s path in the Middle East. The PNAC/neoconservative policies of violence are not going to spread the fruits of social progress in Iraq. It is a policy that can only lead to an expanded level of violence involving Syria, Iran, and eventually other interests in that area of the world.

The war budget will make it impossible to deal in any meaningful way with the other urgent problems we face in this country. There isn’t enough money for butter and bombs. That was true in 1967, and it’s true in 2007. It isn’t just the lower economic class that is suffering from the economic crunch the Bush-Cheney policies have caused: it’s the shrinking middle class, as well. The war is taking money that should be being invested in the communities across this nation. As we become poorer, a tiny minority becomes richer. They are the common enemy looking to break your fingers and steal what is good about America from you.

When we talk about the democratic party being a big tent, that’s fine -- just as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking it includes those who would continue the current war of occupation in Iraq

Regarding the McClellan snippet

{1}"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."
--snippet from Scott McClellan’s book

The news that Scott McClellan is attempting to distance himself from the incorrect information he provided to journalists at White House press briefings has created some renewed interest in the Plame scandal. There are over 700 articles listed in a google search, indicating that everyone from the corporate media to progressive bloggers are discussing the potential significance of the few sentences of McClellan’s book.

Is it simply an attempt to sell books? Could it lead to Patrick Fitzgerald calling for a new grand jury to examine what McClellan may know about the Plame scandal? Or might it be something different altogether?

Let’s take a closer look.

{2} " ’I’ve made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous,’ McClellan said. ‘I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know what kind of person he is, and he is someone committed to the highest standards of conduct.’ But McClellan added, ‘I have spoken with Karl about this matter ….I’ve made it very clear that he’s not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was. …. I’ve made it clear that there’s nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office."
--Hubris; Isikoff & Corn; pages 322-323

In the fall of 2005, it had become clear that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had been involved in the Plame scandal. A 10-15 NY Times article "Bush Adviser Goes Before Grand Jury Again" noted that Rove had testified for the fourth time before the grand jury, which was considering handing down indictments in the case. The article’s sub-title read: "Testimony comes as a mood of foreboding grips Washington."

Three days later, the Times ran an article "Bush Crises Raise Criticism of Chief of Staff’s Management Style," in which Andrew Card’s role in the White House spin was detailed. The next week, an op-ed "Dick at the Heart of Darkness" focused on VP Cheney’s role.
However, the actual indictment of Scooter Libby, and the pre-trial court documents that followed, allowed the American public the chance to see evidence that indicated Libby and Cheney were as central to the scandal as progressive journalists had suggested.

A copy of Joe Wilson’s op-ed, complete with Cheney’s hand-written notes in the margins; a snippet of Libby’s grand jury testimony, indicating that both Bush and Cheney were involved in a decision to declassify NIE information to counter Wilson; and other related information removed any shadow of a doubt that the Plame scandal was an OVP operation.

{3} "On Monday, July 11, when Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, took the podium, the press corps ripped into him. It was as if the reporters were venting pent-up frustrations that had been gathering for years. AP’s Terry Hunt initiated the barrage: ‘Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anybody involved in the leak?’ McClellan responded that ‘while the investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.’ An angry David Gregory of NBC News grilled the press secretary: ‘This is ridiculous!’ Gregory exclaimed, adding, ’Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?’ And so it went."
--Hubris; pages 388-389

During the Libby trial, Government Exhibit 532 was made public. It was VP Cheney’s hand-written instructions to McClellan to tell the journalists, "People have made too much of the reference of how I described Karl and Libby. I’ve talked to Libby. I’ve said that it is rediculous (sic) about Karl and it is rediculous (sic) about Libby. Libby was not the source of the Novak story. And he did not leak classified information."

It was on the same page, where Cheney stressed this "Has to happen today," that he wrote "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres then crossed off "the Pres," before continuing, "that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Hence, at this time, what McClellan wrote in his book is not new, in and of itself. But that does not mean it is not potentially significant.

It seems unlikely that what McClellan is speaking of is unknown to Patrick Fitzgerald. In fact, it is possible that McClellan has told the grand jury what he knows about Bush and Cheney’s involvement. While it may not have reached the level that would allow Mr. Fitzgerald to prosecute for criminal violations, it is obvious that Scott McClellan is describing abuses of power in the White House.

The Congress has the ability to call Scott McClellan to testify about what he knows. Congress also has the ability to access the information from the FBI and grand jury investigation of the Plame scandal that has not been made public in the Libby trial. That includes the information provided by Bush and Cheney in July of 2004, when they each met with Mr. Fitzgerald.

Is McClellan looking to sell books? Of course. But there could be more. I’ll never forget the day that Scott "resigned," when he walked out with Bush to talk to reporters on the White House lawn. McClellan was clearly upset, and was so choked up he had trouble answering questions. Bush, who is supposed to be his friend, took a disturbing amount of pleasure in McClellan’s suffering.

I doubt that Scott has forgotten that, either.

1000 Days

{1} "….This is a time for courage and a time of challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the fainthearted are needed. … Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause…."
--From a speech JFK was to deliver on 11-22-1963

November 22, 1963 was one of the most important dates in American history. When we read the above quote, from a speech President Kennedy was prepared to deliver in Austin, Texas, it is easy to think about "what might have been" if he had lived to serve a second term as president. More, people will discuss what the Thousand Days meant to them, and debate what Kennedy’s legacy should be.

There have been hundreds of books published about JFK in the 44 years since Dallas. Some of them are outstanding, most are by definition "average," and many are trash. I’ve tried to read as many of the good-to-average books as time allows. In the past few months, that has included the updated edition of "Ultimate Sacrifice," by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartman; "Reclaiming History," by Vince Bugliosi; and "Brothers," by David Talbot.
Each of these books covers the events relating to Dallas. Each also documents the respect that the authors share for what President Kennedy stood for. JFK influenced the way that people from the generations who remember where they were on 11-22 view the world.

My primary interest in President Kennedy has always been the meaning of his life, rather than his death, though the two are obviously closely connected. Thus, I am particularly interested in the way that Kennedy was viewed while he was still living, and to trace the connections between that, and some of the trash that can be found today – not only in books, but by those who pretend to be objective thinkers.

{2} "In its early years, the CIA was composed mostly of men who, though not necessarily born to the manor, were tweedy, often intellectual, Ivy League alumni (authors Warren Hinckle and William Turner observed that Yale’s secretive Skull and Bones Society had ‘more CIA men than the Vatican has cardinals’) who shared a deeply patriotic love for this country and its always rim-full plates and cocktail glasses, and a pulsating fear that global Communism might end the party. Though they were ‘gentlemen’ warriors, they procured ring-around-the-collar men much more coarse than they to implement their plans. And they were committed and passionate enough not to be above whatever it took – including assassination of foreign leaders, even breaking bread with organized crime – to carry out their mission ‘in the national interest’."
--Vince Bugliosi; Reclaiming History; page 1191

One of those tweedy and patriotic gentlemen that Mr. Bugliosi did not refer to in his lengthy examination of the murder of President Kennedy was Victor Lasky. Lasky was the author of the 1963 book "JFK: The Man and the Myth." Though the book received mixed reviews, it did well enough to be at the top of the New York Times’ best Sellers’ List in the fall of 1963.

JFK, asked about the book at a press conference, responded, "I haven’t read all of Mr. Lasky, except that I’ve just gotten the flavor of it. I’ve seen it highly praised by Mr. Drummond and Mr. Krock and others, so I’m looking forward to reading it, because the part I’ve read was not so brilliant as I gather the rest of it is, from what they say about it." He also told Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirkson, who expressed concerns that he would face "some castigation" for supporting Kennedy’s limited nuclear test ban treaty, that until he read Lasky’s book, he wouldn’t "know what castigation is."

Though he is largely forgotten today, Lasky was influential in his time. He was a journalist when he joined the Army in 1942. He spent his time as a war correspondent with the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. When he "officially" left the service, he became one of the nation’s leading anti-communism journalists.

Lasky was one of the central figures in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, which attempted to influence both the domestic and foreign media. Operation Mockingbird engaged in "dis-information campaigns" that were coordinated with what Mr. Bugliosi describes as the "whatever it took" to promote their agenda.

Lasky’s book resorted to some tactics that readers might find strangely familiar. He presents an unbalanced view of Kennedy by quoting almost every negative thing every said or written about JFK, including the original "swiftboating": "By now the story of how Jack Kennedy became a hero in the South Pacific is an old one. …The significance, frequently overlooked, however, is that Kennedy was only one of many who – without dramatics or posturing – rose to greatness in World War II, one of a great band of heroes. …But it must also be stated there were those Navy skeptics who wondered how it was possible for Jack, as the skipper of PT 109, to have gotten such a small maneuverable craft into position to be slashed in two by the bow of a Japanese destroyer – and this in Allied-controlled waters. No other motor torpedo boat was reported to have suffered such singular misfortune in any of the oceans in World War II." (pages 112-113)

{3}"Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger is from within. … They equate the Democratic Party with the welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, and socialism with communism. They object, quite rightly, to politics intruding on the military, but they are very anxious for the military to engage in politics."
--President Kennedy; 11-18-1961

In "Brothers," author David Talbot documents the attempts by high-ranking Pentagon officials to indoctrinate the military in ultra-right wing political ideology. He also notes the friction between Kennedy and military leaders who believed that the President had betrayed our national security, starting with his actions during the infamous Bay of Pigs episode.

Lasky’s book was an attempt to not only portray Kennedy as a fraud in terms of his military service and his experience in Congress, but to make the case that Kennedy was a socialist who posed a threat to the American Way. That position, which has been resurrected in more recent years, is particularly interesting when we consider that Lasky was promoting it while in the service of a US intelligence organization.

Lasky had been employed by Radio Liberty, one of the CIA’s largest media front organizations, from 1956 to 1960. He was one of the founders of the Council Against Communist Aggression, as well as CACA’s first vice president. He first came to national attention for his coverage of the Alger Hiss case. His career as a "journalist" would continue to be closely tied to Richard Nixon.

In later books and articles, Lasky would say that Watergate was an insignificant scandal, and that the political "crime of the century" was Kennedy’s "theft" of the 1960 election. His attempts at dis-information included "It Didn’t Start With Watergate," as well as "man & myth"- style attacks on RFK and Jimmy Carter. However, our tweedy gentleman would be exposed as a fraud, and his fall from grace would be completed in a compelling courtroom drama.

{4} "Money to Be Made: Surprisingly, Lasky, 50, turns out to be an amiable, ex-Scripps-Howard correspondent, who describes himself as a ‘political centrist. I’m a hatchet man with a sense of humor,’ he laughs, though humor is nowhere apparent in his book. In the foreword to RFK, Lasky claims to describe his subject ‘as he actually was,’ but privately he nowadmits: ‘I never really knew him. This was a tentative appraisal from one side. I don’t tell the whole story. I’m trying to tell "the opposite side." That’s why I sided with Hoffa, even though I don’t like him’."
--The Lasky Lash; TIME ; 12-20-1968

Victor Lasky’s dis-information filled "biography" of Robert Kennedy was "influenced by the fear that he through into my life," according to the TIME book review. Lasky would be among those who would claim the Kennedy’s abused the power of office to investigate and intimidate political opponents. He is also representative of those who followed who would claim that they are being "viciously attacked" by Kennedy supporters who attempt to correct the lies they tell about JFK and RFK. We still find such agents of dis-information in the media today, as well as on progressive and democratic discussion forums on the internet.

The Nixon White House tapes showed that Lasky, a close associate of William Casey, spoke with Nixon about how to make the best use of the "silent majority" talking point that the president had first used in November, 1969. (4-12-1971; 477-13) Also, an "Eyes Only" White House memorandum from 4-12-1973 focuses on making use of "information" on the democrats provided to the administration by Victor Lasky. The Watergate investigations would disclose the fact that Lasky was on the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) payroll, pocketing $20,000 for his efforts.

In his 2005 book "Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment," Floyd Abrams describes a1988 case Lasky filed against ABC for slander. The network had reported in a documentary "American Inquisition" that Lasky had accused a college teacher of being a communist at a public meeting in 1951. Though there were witnesses to the event, by the time of the trial, as Geoffrey Stone notes in his Chicago Law School review, memories had faded to an extent that Lasky’s attorneys were able to discredit them. Thus, after Lasky testified that he had never called the teacher a communist, and called the ABC producers "arrogant lying bastards," Abrams had his work cut out for him.

Abrams asked Lasky about his involvement with actor Edward G. Robinson, and Lasky "boasted that he had played a generous role in guiding Robinson through his crisis. Having set his trap, the lawyer then read to Lasky and the jury Robinson’s own account of the incident. In his memoirs, Robinson wrote that Lasky had pressured him to publish a 26-page confession (written for him by Lasky) admitting that he had been a ‘dupe’ of the Communists. Robinson refused, informing Lasky that he ‘wished no part’ of his effort to portray him as ‘a fool who out of brainlessness’ had been ‘blindly led into organizations that wished to destroy America.’ After hearing this evidence, the jurors turned their heads away from Lasky, Mr. Abrams recalls, and shortly thereafter unanimously found the ABC program accurate." (Jeffrey Stone; University of Chicago Law School; 4-16-05)

In a December, 2005 column about Jack Anderson, journalist Murray Waas wrote about his former boss’s "Peace, War, and Politics: An Eyewitness Account." Anderson had told of how years ago, Waas called Lasky and impersonated Nixon. Anderson, who had put Waas up to the call, listened in on an extension line.

There are still a lot of arrogant, lying bastards like Victor Lasky who are manipulating the media, and attempting to discredit those who, like JFK, RFK, and Jimmy Carter, work to make the world a better place. I’ll end this with a quote from page 940 of historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s book "A Thousand Days":

"Yet he had accomplished so much: the new hope for peace on earth, the elimination of nuclear testing in the atmosphere and the abolition of nuclear diplomacy, the new policies toward Latin America and the third world, the reordering of American defense, the emancipation of the American Negro, the revolution of national economic policy, the concerns for poverty, the stimulus to the arts, the fight for reason against extremism and mythology. Lifting us beyond our capacities, he gave his country back to its best self, wiping away the world’s impression of an old nation of old men, weary, played out, fearful of ideas, change, and the future; he taught mankind that the process of rediscovering America was not over….Above all he gave the world for an imperishable moment the vision of a leader who greatly understood the terror and the hope, the diversity and the possibility, of life on this planet and who made people look beyond nation and race to the future of humanity. So the people of the world grieved as if they had terribly lost their own leader, friend, brother."

Thanksgiving Peace

{1} Water Thanks
The drop of water
hangs from the faucet
pulsing, the heart
of the well still beating

I never drink water
Harold Elm told me
even from the sink
without saying
a prayer of thanks

the drop of water
trembles, holding
the face of all the worlds.
--Joseph Bruchac

Thanksgiving time was when I used to be asked to speak at schools, often with Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, about "Indian issues." I always thought it presented a good opportunity to talk about "human being issues." Part of being human is how we relate to ourselves, other people, and the environment. So if I were in front of a grade school or university classroom, I liked to take about how Harold Elm related to a drink of water.

One nice thing about Thanksgiving is that we have an opportunity to slow our world down. When the world spins at the speed that the United States is spinning today, it’s a good idea to slow down. There is a very significant difference between Harold Elm pouring a glass of water, and a person buying a 12-ounce bottle of sparkling water from a vending machine. The water is the same; it’s the state of mind that differs.

Harold Elm’s wife grew the corn they ate on Thanksgiving in her garden. She had a different relationship with the corn she fed her extended family, than the person who buys a can of corn at the supermarket. The corn is different, too.

{2} "The modern American family is the smallest and most barren family that has ever existed. Each newly married couple moves to a new house or apartment – no uncles or grandmother’s come to live with them. The children live with their peers and leave home early. Many have never had the least sense of family.

"I remember sitting down to Christmas dinner eighteen years ago in a communal house in Portland, Oregon, with about twelve others my own age, all of whom had no place they wished to go home to. This house was my first discovery of harmony and community with fellow beings. This has been the experience of hundreds of thousands of men and women all over America since the end of World War II. Hence the talk about the growth of a ‘new society’."
--Gary Snyder; Earth House Hold;1968

That quote is taken from a chapter of Snyder’s book titled "White Indians." In it, he discusses attempts that focus not on pretending to be "part Indian," but rather on finding a state on mind that embraces a different relationship with the world than our modern society allows for.
It’s important to learn about our nation’s history, including the chapters about the colonist/US relations with Indian nations. It is especially meaningful, because there are issues today that involve if the US will honor its laws and treaties with Native Americans. And more, we can learn different options that we have for interacting with other people, who are from other extended families, clans, tribes, and nations.

Chief Waterman taught that sharing is "divine intervention." It isn’t restricted to Indians sharing a feast with some cold and hungry Pilgrams. It’s how we relate to those who are cold and hungry today. These are concepts that we can all understand, especially if we take some time to slow the pace of the world. Put down the bottled water, and drink from Harold Elm’s cup.

{3} "Q: Do you have any closing message for our readers?

"A: Live. Don’t be afraid to live. We can live through this time.

"I did reburials at the Penn Site. Germ warfare killed them. At the Bloody Hill Site, it was small pox. Some burials were of parents and their children. They were holding hands. This seems to happen when germ warfare kills families.

"But we are here today. It’s our turn to live now. And if you are reading this, it’s your turn as well. Make the most of it. Enjoy your family."
--Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman

That was the ending of a four-part series of interviews that I did with Paul. I feel a mixture of happiness and sadness when I read those words, because I really miss that man. I’m confident that anyone reading this can relate to how the holidays are a mixture of the good and bad.

Commercials on tv tell us that the rest of the world is very happy at holiday time, especially if they have bought the newest and most improved products. When people feel the range of emotions that most of us do at holiday time, they can feel that something is wrong with them. It is important to know that this is not true. It is okay to remember those who have passed.

Likewise, we should not feel that everything is bad. That isn’t accurate. This year, Thanksgiving falls on November 22, and many of those people who grew up reading or living disconnect that Gary Snyder wrote of will think of JFK’s death. No matter what one believes actually happened in Dallas, it was a dark time in our history. But it wasn’t "the end" of everything good. In fact, we do best to remember what John Kennedy’s living message was, and what it was about him that meant so much to the American people.

It’s still here.

Debatable Impressions

I enjoyed watching the CNN debate last night. I thought that the democratic candidates showed that our party has the potential to exercise the type of leadership that is going to be necessary to repair the severe damage that the current administration has done, both domestically and internationally.

At this point, I have not decided which candidate I will vote for in the primary. There are some that I like more than others. The debate tended to reinforce that, and I thought a couple candidates did very well. Yet none of them made what I consider any serious blunder, and each candidate’s supporters have reason to believe their favorite did well.

With 100% certainty, I can say that I will support the democratic nominee for president in 2008. My focus today isn’t to advocate for one candidate, or to attack another. Rather, I had a couple of impressions that I thought were important. I’m curious what other DUers think about these things.

First, I thought it was obvious that Wolf Blitzer of CNN favored one candidate, and was looking to discredit and/or marginalize the others. A number of his questions seem to paraphrase a Woody Allen quote, by stating that we are at a crossroads, with one path leading to complete tragedy, the other to unqualified catastrophe ….. could you please give a one-word answer as to which route you would lead the nation on ?

The best questions, by far, came from the audience. CNN felt it necessary to provide journalists’ interpretation, but the strength of the citizens’ concerns came through. At other times, I thought the CNN folks failed to address what appeared to be organized audience interference with a couple of candidate’s responses to questions.

As we move further into the primary season, I think that the debate provided food for thought on a number of important issues. Despite the unpopularity of the Bush-Cheney administration, and the odd cast of characters in the republican primary, I do not think we can afford to take the ’08 election for granted. The Cheneyites are intent upon increasing tensions with Iran, and the possibility of some military strikes on targets within Iran is real. More, the republican machine is going to be working overtime in the next year to attack democrats; this will include any nominee, as well as our candidates for the House and Senate. It will get ugly, and you can count on the "journalists" in the lap dog media to do their best to help their masters.

The republicans do not have the only machine in the business. We see folks from various camps attempting to "spin" the results of the debate. Even on progressive internet discussion forums, you read things about what a wonderful job Wolf Blitzer did, or how the audience reaction to one candidate "proves" his or her lack of popularity. Baloney. Reject such obvious attempts at perception management. Think for yourself.

Our candidates seem to offer differences, from wanting to fine-tune the national machine, to wanting to make large systematic changes. Which candidate best represents your values? Which one seems most likely to be able to win next November? Which candidate do you think would be most capable of getting programs through congress in the next four years? These are the important questions for people to be thinking about.

Impeach Dick Cheney

Impeach Dick Cheney: Part 1

{A} Introduction

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury …."
--Article III, Section 2; US Constitution

In "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill," author Ron Suskind tells of the Bush2 administration’s first National Security Council’s first meeting. On January 30, 2001, President Bush spoke about his plans to change the foreign policy of the United States in regard to the Middle East. (pages 70-72) "Getting Hussein was now the administration’s focus, that much was clear," Suskind quotes O’Neill as saying .(page 75)

The US war of occupation in Iraq has been based on the actions of numerous people within the Bush2 administration. This paper will focus on the role of one official in particular: Vice President Dick Cheney. The long political career of Dick Cheney is well known: he served in Washington as part of the Nixon and Ford administrations, and was closely connected to the Reagan and Bush1 administrations. It is interesting to note that Cheney had been opposed to occupying Iraq during the first Gulf War:

" ‘I was not an enthusiast about getting US forces and going into Iraq,’ Cheney later said. ‘We were there in the southern part of Iraq to the extent we needed to be there to defeat his forces and get him out of Kuwait, but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn’t anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world.’ Sounding like a determined foreign policy pragmatist, Cheney said that Americans needed to accept that ‘Saddam is just one more irratant, but there’s a long list of irritants in that part of the world.’ To actually invade Iraq, he said, ‘I don’t think would have been worth it’." (Fiasco; Thomas Ricks; pages 6-7.)

This paper will examine what changed Dick Cheney’s mind about invading Iraq between the first Gulf War and the first Bush2 NSC meeting, and then focuses on the role that VP Cheney played in selling the invasion and occupation of Iraq to congress and the American people. This will be done in a manner that explains three of the charges that VP Cheney should be impeached by congress.

In order to understand and fully appreciate the process of impeachment, people should read the 1974 House Judiciary Committee’s report on the Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment. On November 15, 1973, as a result of several resolutions calling for the impeachment of President Nixon had been introduced in the House of Representatives, the Speaker referred them to the Judiciary Committee for consideration, investigation, and a report.

The legal staff’s report takes a close look at the history and legal issues involved in impeachment. It is important to understand that the process of impeachment, in the House and then Senate, is a civil trial. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an archaic phrase that implies abuses of power. These abuses can be violations of criminal law. But it can also include abuses of power that are not violations of the criminal laws, much as the Joseph and Valerie Wilson civil suit attempted to hold Cheney et al responsible for abuses of power. In dismissing their case, Federal Judge Bates voiced his opinion that their suit raised important Constitutional questions, but that his court lacked jurisdiction.

The Congress of the United States has the needed jurisdiction to try VP Dick Cheney. He should face the consequences for abuses of power that include violations of 18 USC, Section 1001 and Section 371, which as noted in Rep. Maurice Hinchey’s September 15, 2005 letter to Patrick Fitzgerald, involve the false and fraudulent misrepresentation to the congress and the public the "immediate threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. More, as in Article 2 of the articles of impeachment to be brought against Richard Nixon, Vice President Cheney engaged in a campaign against Joseph Wilson on political grounds, in which he is guilty of gross abuses of the power of his office.

{B} Cheney’s Transition

"While I was meeting with Saddam, Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney was in Saudi Arabia showing the rulers of the kingdom satellite photos of the Iraqi troop deployment throughout Kuwait, close to its southern border with Saudi Arabia and not far from the fabulously lucrative eastern Saudi oil fields." – The Politics of Truth; Joseph Wilson; page 126.

In 1992, two Cheney aides, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby, prepared a document titled "Defense Planning Guidance," that called for an expanded US military presence around the world in the next century. It called for a "permanent US military presence on six continents to deter any ‘potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role’." Though the plan was shelved then, it would be resurrected a decade later in an official Bush document, The National Security Strategy of the United States." (Where the Right Went Wrong; Patrick Buchanan; pages 42-44)

In the years following his role in the Bush1 administration, Dick Cheney would, among other things, serve as a "senior fellow" in the conservative American Enterprise Institute. (Hubris; David Corn & Michael Isikoff; page 51) He would also be aomong the signers of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) founding statement, along with Wolfowitz and Libby. (ibid; page 78)

PNAC would send a letter to President Clinton, urging him to attack Iraq to insure that Saddam did not acquire WMD, and to protect "the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil …."

Just as Paul O’Neill notes in The Price of Loyalty, the authors of Hubris make clear that the Bush administration is focused on "when," rather than "if," it will attack Iraq and remove Saddam from power. (page 11) Suskind notes that in mid-August of 2002, VP Cheney spoke to Iraqi dissidents in exile, and assured them that the United States was going to remove Saddam.
Although it is well-documented that the forces in the administration, led by Cheney, were advocating an attack on Iraq from well before September 11, 2001, that day’s events would be hijacked in the effort to convince the congress and public that Saddam posed a threat to our national security.

{C} The Office of the Vice President

"They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal – a small cluster of policy advisors and analysts ….who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, (producing) a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy towards Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. By the fall of 2002, the operation rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda."
--Chain of Command; Seymour Hersh; pages 207-208.

In his book Losing America, Senator Robert Byrd tells of how in the hours after the 9/11 attacks, VP Cheney instituted the "continuity of government" plans, which had been prepared during the Cold War, in case of a nuclear attack on the US. The "shadow government" combined executive branch officials and business leaders, and not only did not include either other branch of the federal government, but was placed beyond any congressional review.

In the summer of 2002, the OVP helped to institute two other new groups. The first was the White House Iraq Group, which consisted of officials who would coordinate the information provided to the public to sell the war in Iraq. Scooter Libby was among its members. The second group was the Office of Special Plans, an intelligence group that was run out of the Pentagon, but with cells in the State Department and other areas of the federal government. (A Pretext for War; James Bamford; pages 318-319) The OSP was also set-up to serve as VP Cheney’s "parallel national security office" and had no congressional oversight. (Wilson; pages 432-434)

VP Cheney was recognized as being in charge of the administration’s pre-war intelligence. (Plan of Attack; Bob Woodward; page 29) Cheney put Libby in charge of his " ‘shadow’ National Security Council." (Corn & Isikoff; page 5) In Fiasco, Thomas Ricks identifies Cheney, Libby, and Wolfowitz as being among the administration hawks who were intent upon attacking Iraq. (page 51) They engaged in activities that were geared only to support their pre-determined decision to identify information that justified attacking Iraq. In Chain of Command, Hersch describes the way that "intelligence" was stove-piped both from the OSP to the OVP, and thus to the Oval Office. (pages 207, 227-228)

Bob Woodward describes how David Kay, "one of the world’s foremost experts on nuclear weapons inspections," worked with US intelligence and the United Nations to attempt to evaluate possible Iraqi WMD programs. (State of Denial; page 213) Both Cheney and Libby would attempt to influence Kay’s work. He told Woodward that he was "astounded" by the vice president’s attempt to use raw intelligence to bolster his position. (page 238) Libby called Kay to tell him that Cheney wanted him to examine "intelligence" provided by Manucher Ghorbanifar, who was associated with Oliver North’s criminal activities in the Iran-contra scandal. Kay told Woodward that the Cheney-Libby efforts reminded him of the novel The Da Vinci Code. (pages 259-260)

In "Plan of Attack," Woodward had compared Cheney’s isolation to that of Howard Hughes. (page 419) He noted that despite opposition to his opinion, "Cheney thought it wouldn’t matter in the end. It would be noise to history as long as they were successful in what they were trying to do. Outcomes matter." (page 429) As former federal prosecutor Elizabeith de la Vega has noted, CEOs engaged in fraud are often confident that "everything will turn out okay in the end." It is not a legal defense to charges of fraud.

{D} The OVP vs the CIA (Part 2)

"The tensions between the White House and the CIA had been rising steadily in the months before the Iraqi invasion, as CIA analysts complained about evidence being distorted or ignored and the White House pushed back with complaints about the quality of the intel they were getting. ‘I know the analyst who was subjected to withering questioning on the Iraq—al-Qaeda links by Libby with the Vice President sitting there,’ says a CIA analyst. ‘So I think there was an anger at the CIA for not getting it and not being on board." – The Rove Problem; TIME; Nancy Gibbs; 7-25-05; page 29.

Woodward describes when Saul, the chief of the CIA’s Iraqi Operations, explained to Cheney some of the difficulties associated with the bifurcated approach the administration was taking on Iraq: on one hand, they spoke publicly about negotiations and containment, but in private, they had assured a number of people, including the Saudis and Jordanians, that they were definitely taking Saddam out. "They needed a single national policy that everyone supported and explained the same way." (Plan of Attack; pages 72-73)

The result is found in a footnote on page 230 of Hubris: "In an earlier interview with a Vanity Fair writer on May 10, Wolfowitz said, ‘For reasons that have a lot to do with US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue (to justify the war) that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason…."

Isikoff and Corn tell about Cheney’s frequent visits to the CIA headquarters. He would "park himself in Director George Tenet’s seventh-floor conference room. Then officers and analysts would be summoned" to brief him. (page 3) Cheney and Libby were focused on two issues in particular: Iraqi WMD programs, and ties to al Qaeda. They "were never satisfied and continually asked for more. ‘It was like they were hoping we’d find something buried in the files or come back with some different answer,’ Michael Sulick, deputy chief of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, later said." (pages 4-5)

In time, word leaked that Cheney was pressuring the CIA. "There had been a number of anonymous leaks to reporters from the intelligence community during the late spring and early summer of 2003, claiming that Vice President Cheney, his chief of staff, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, and even former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich had pressured analysts to skew intelligence analyses to back up the administration’s preconceived political intentions." (Wilson; page 6)

James Bamford quotes CIA officials as saying, "Cheney came and literally went around to people saying find something. I was in there at the time when everyone said, ‘Remember when Cheney came in, said we needed to find something nuclear?’." (page 334) He tells of written testimony that documented Cheney and Libby pressuring "analysts to provide support for the claims. Cheney, he noted, ‘insisted that desk analysts were not looking hard enough for evidence’." (page 336)

In a nine month period, Libby’s requests to the CIA resulted in an estimated 500 documents being provided to the OVP. (Isikoff & Corn; page 5) The vice president and his chief of staff would then make recommendations to David Kay. The inspector told of one "lead" that Cheney demanded be followed up on resulted in the Iraq Survey Group "finding" trenches that local farmers had made on hillsides, for collecting drinking water for cattle. (Ibid; page 304)

Cheney was warned by General Hugh Shelton about the dangers that come from situations where the executive office pressures others for information that they want to hear. General Shelton mentioned a 1997 book by H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Lead to Vietnam. In the book, McMaster, a West Point graduate, noted that the failure was partly due to the pressures that resulted in the advisors not working together, and not daring to give their best military advice. (State of Denial; page 61)

The CIA and other intelligence analysts are highly compartmentalized. When doubts about part of the administration’s positions were voiced, Cheney dismissed them. A senior military intelligence official told Thomas Ricks, "When the vice president stood up and said, ‘We are sure’ – well, who are we to argue? With all the compartmentalization, there’s a good chance that a guy that senior has seen stuff you haven’t." (page 51)

Ricks explains that these officers were convinced that Cheney had access to some "crown jewel" that was being withheld from them. "In fact, Cheney played that insider’s card himself, dismissively telling Tim Russet in an appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, that those who doubted his assertions about the threat presented by Iraq hadn’t ‘seen all the intelligence that we have seen’." (ibid; page 51)

{E} Public Relations

"Trust me on this." – Vice President Dick Cheney
(Hubris; page 115)

Although the WHIG did the majority of the behind-the-scenes media manipulation, VP Cheney recognized it was important to front for the administration. On August 7, 2002, he told an audience in California: "What we know now, from various sources, is that he ….continues to pursue a nuclear weapon." (Hersh; page 230)

But other republicans associated with Bush the Elder began to publicly express doubts. On August 16, 2002, a NY Time front-page headline read: "Top Republicans Break with Bush on Iraq Strategy." It reported on differences between the administration and Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. Woodward reported that VP Cheney and Scooter Libby found this article "extremely aggravating." (Plan of Attack; page 163)

On August 26, 2002, Cheney addressed a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience in Nashville. He made several claims, among them: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction (and) there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." Cheney noted that these WMDs, "in the hand of a ‘murderous dictator’ are ‘as great a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action’." (ibid; page 164)

In State of Denial, Woodward reported that Army Major General James "Spider" Marks has assumed that not only had Cheney had definite proof of Iraqi WMD, but that US intelligence must have cleared the Nashville speech. (page 92) However, in Plan of Attack, he had noted that Cheney had instead cleared the speech with President Bush, who had only said, "Don’t get me in trouble." Woodward noted that Cheney’s claims in Nashville had been far beyond what Powell, the CIA, or Bush had claimed. In fact, only ten days before, Bush had only gone as far as to say that Saddam "desired" such weapons as Cheney now said he definitely had. (page 164)
"The president and I never for a moment forget our number-one responsibility: To protect the American people against further attack and to win the war that began last September eleventh. We realize that wars are never won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy," Cheney warned. "Time is not on our side. " (Ricks; page 49)

The NY Times August 27, 2002 headline read, " Cheney Says Peril of a Nuclear Iraq Justifies Attack." This type of coverage countered the reasoned positions of Scowcroft and Baker. The OVP and WHIG continued to promote the hype.

Less than two weeks later, on Sunday, September 8, 2002, the front page of the NY Times read: "US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts." The article, by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, quoted administration officials, who said Iraq’s leaders "attempted (the) purchase of ‘specially designed aluminum tubes, which Americans believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium’." The article quoted an "unnamed administration source" who warned that "all of Iraq is one large storage facility," and that "the first sign of a ‘smoking gun’ ….may be a mushroom cloud." (Bamford; pages 323-324)

That morning, the WHIG had a coordinated media offensive on the Sunday talk shows. Powell was on Fox; Rice on CNN; Rumsfeld on CBS’s Face the Nation; and Cheney was on Meet the Press. Each focused on the Miller article in the NY Times. They pretended that it was "proof" that the United States was at risk of attack from Iraq. The fact that Miller was simply using information the WHIG had provided her was overlooked. The image of a "mushroom cloud" had been firmly planted in the public’s mind.

"First OSP supplies false or exaggerated intelligence; then members of the WHIG leak it to friendly reporters, complete with prepackaged vivid imagery; finally, when the story breaks, senior officials point to it as proof and parrot the unnamed quotes they or their colleagues previously supplied.

"Bush later evoked the mushroom-cloud scenario himself during his major address to the nation from Cincinnati in October 2002: ‘The Iraqi regime is seeking nuclear weapons,’ he said. ‘Does it make sense for the world to wait ….for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?’ And in November, General Tommy R. Franks, the chief of the US Central Command, said inaction might provoke ‘the sight of the first mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet’." (Bamford; page 325)

On January 28, 2003, President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech. He included what has become known as the "16 words" about Iraq attempting to buy uranium from Niger in what is considered to be the president’s most important speech to the congress and the nation. The connection between these 16 words and VP Cheney will be examined in a following section of this essay.

On March 7, 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that the documents that the United States had provided them as evidence of the Iraqi attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger were "crude forgeries." The following day, a State Department spokesperson said, "We fell for it." On CNN, a retired ambassador named Joseph Wilson stated that the administration had more information on this than the State Department spokesperson had acknowledged. (Wilson; page 452)

On March 16, 2003, VP Cheney appeared on Meet the Press. "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators," he told Tim Russert. "To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement." (State of Denial; page 151)

Three days later, the United States invaded Iraq.

{F} The Dogs of War (Part 3)

"On September 14, he appeared on Meet the Press, and host Time Russert grilled him on the administration’s prewar arguments. Cheney once again talked about links between Saddam’s regime and bin Laden, claiming that Iraq’s support for al-Qaeda was ‘clearly official policy.’ He once more cited the Czech report about Mohamed Atta in Prague as though it were still credible. He ignored the dispute over mobile bioweapon labs and insisted without equivocation that the US government had found ‘two of them’ – even though David Kay had told them that was not true."
--Hubris; Isikoff & Corn; page 314

In Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward tells about Colin Powell’s concerns that VP Cheney "had the fever" in regard to making a case that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda and to the 9/11 attacks on the United States. When Powell would argue that there was no proof to support these positions, Cheney would respond, "We know." The vice president would quote information provided by the OSP’s Douglas Feith. Powell referred to the OSP as Feith’s "Gestapo office." (page 292)

Isikoff and Corn also note that Cheney and Libby coordinated a White House effort with Feith and Wolfowitz at the Pentagon to make the case that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks on the US. (page 140) The significance of this cannot be overstated: it is central to what former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has called the administration’s hijacking the country’s emotions, in order to reach a goal that the White House had identified long before the 9/11 attacks.

In October of 2003, Doug Feith had sent the Senate Intelligence Committee a classified report, "Summary of Body of Intelligence on Iraq—al Qaeda Contacts." The report listed 50 incidents that Feith claimed were proof that positive proof of a working relationship between Saddam’s government and Usama bin Laden’s terrorist network.

Two days later, the Weekly Standard published "Case Closed: The US Government’s Secret Memo Detailing Cooperation Between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden," by Stephen Hayes. The article was based entirely on Feith’s classified report. It ended with the claim, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

Isikoff and Corn note that the Pentagon distanced itself from Feith’s report the day that the Weekly Standard printed Hayes’ article. They noted it was based on raw intelligence, and was not an actual analysis of possible relationships between Iraq and al Qaeda. More, the leak of the classified report was possibly illegal. (page 335)

Despite both the Pentagon and the CIA’s dismissing the Feith report, VP Cheney would refer to it as the "best source of information" in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News, and as "overwhelming evidence" in an NPR interview in the days after the Weekly Standard article appeared. Again, the vice president was involved in a propaganda campaign, coordinating efforts to mislead both the congress and the public, and using "possibly illegal" leaks to the media to accomplish their goal.

{G} Purposeful Lies

"Russert asked, If CIA analysts were to be proven wrong, ‘shouldn’t we have a wholesale investigation into the intelligence failure…’
" ‘What failure?’ Cheney interjected.
" ‘That Saddam had biological, chemical, and is developing a nuclear program,’ Russert replied.
" ‘My guess is in the end they’ll be proven right, Tim’."
--Hubris; Isikoff & Corn; page 314

One of the best examples of the White House’s efforts to mislead the nation about the "threat" posed by Saddam can be found in Hersh’s Chain of Command (pages 212-213) and Bamford’s A Pretext for War (pages 319-320). It involved Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who had defected to Jordan in 1995. He provided significant information about Iraq’s WMD programs, before being convinced by Saddam to return to Iraq. When Kamel did return, Saddam had him executed.

In August of 2002, Dick Cheney looked into a television camera and told the American public: "We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon. …. We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons …. Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam’s son-in-law. …. (This) should serve as a reminder to all that we often learn more as the results of defectors than we learn from the inspection regime itself."

The problem with Cheney’s claims, as Bamford noted, is that it was the exact opposite of what Kamel had told interrogators. After being questioned by US intelligence, UN inspectors, and Jordanian intelligence, all reports noted the same thing: Kamel had said that Saddam ended all uranium enrichment attempts at the beginning of the first Gulf War, and that "all weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear – were destroyed." (Bamford; page 320)

Further evidence of VP Cheney’s purposeful misrepresentations of the "threat" posed to the US can be found in A Pretext for War, in regard to "unmanned aerial vehicles" which could be used in germ warfare. Cheney took part in presenting information about the UAV threat to select members of congress, with CIA Director Tenet. They told of a fleet of UAVs that were capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons, and of Iraqi software used to produce sophisticated maps of US cities on the east coast.

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) would later explain his vote in favor of the administration was due to being convinced by this presentation that there was an immediate threat to this country. "I was looked straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States. …. It was in a highly classified setting in a secure room." (Bamford; 330)

In State of Denial, Bob Woodward notes that Senator Carl Levin had attempted to get parts of the administration’s case for war declassified, so that the public would know they were being mislead. But the White House refused to allow the information to be declassified. "He complained about ‘all of the shadings, exaggerations, and hype’ about WMD by Bush and Cheney and sait it ‘showed the most willful and purposeful intent’ to create a deception." (page 416)

{H} Fair Game

"Madness! Madness! Outrageous! …What is this case about? Is it about something bigger? There is a cloud over the vice president …… We didn’t put that cloud there. That cloud’s there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can’t pretend isn’t there. …Don’t you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"
--Patrick Fitzgerald; Closing statement in Libby trial; February 20, 2007

In early 2002, VP Dick Cheney requested information from the CIA on a report that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger. The CIA would request that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson investigate the reported incident. Wilson had gone on a similar mission for the CIA in 1999.

Wilson went to Niger, and found that the rumor was untrue. He reported this to two CIA officials in March. More, there were reports by the American ambassador and by a four-star Marine Corps General that reached the same conclusion as Wilson had. Thus, the CIA, the State Department, and Military Intelligence had all, within a period of weeks, concluded that there was no truth to the reported attempt by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger. (Wilson; page 2)

Though the OVP would later claim this issue was not important to Dick Cheney, and that he had forgotten it soon after asking a CIA briefer about it, there is substantial evidence that this is not true. A senate intelligence report noted it was considered a "high priority" issue; more, in early March, Cheney asked the CIA briefer for an update. It is unclear when Cheney first learned about Wilson’s findings, the two other reports, or about Wilson’s 1999 investigation.

Despite warnings by the CIA that the yellow cake information was weak at best, and its being removed from a fall ’02 presidential speech, it would be included in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech.

On May 29, 2003, Walter Pincus wrote about the disputed information in the Washington Post. The article caused concern in the Office of the Vice President, and Cheney and Libby began to investigate Joseph Wilson.

On July 6, the NY Times published an op-ed by Joseph Wilson, titled "What I Didn’t Find in Africa." On July 14, columnist Robert Novak exposed Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

The scandal that unfolded is long and complicated. The State Department’s Counterespionage Unit referred the case to the FBI, which conducted an investigation from September to December, 2003. After that, the FBI coordinated efforts with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who headed a federal grand jury investigation. Much of that investigation focused on people other than Vice President Cheney. This included examining the roles played by individuals such as Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

What is known about Cheney’s role in the scandal comes from the trial of Scooter Libby. Isikoff and Corn write: "Determined to protect Dick Cheney, Libby had told a convoluted story under oath: I knew; I forgot; I learned it again from journalists, not from the vice president." (page 408) Libby’s attempts to protect Cheney had led to the most serious felony charge that he was convicted of – obstruction of justice.

Still, the pre-trial documents and trial testimony showed that VP Cheney was obsessed with Wilson. Libby told the grand jury that Cheney and he discussed Wilson numerous times per day following the NY Times op-ed. Fitzgerald produced a copy of the op-ed, with notations from Cheney that indicated the "talking points" he wanted the WHIG to use to discredit Wilson.

Cheney told Libby about Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who worked at the CIA. As the Wilson op-ed exposed the weakness of the "16 words" and mushroom cloud threats, Dick Cheney instructed Libby, "Let’s get everything out." Libby would meet with Judith Miller, and reveal parts of a classified National Intelligence Estimate, and tell her about Plame’s CIA employment.
Libby also shared Plame’s identity with others in the administration, such as Ari Fleischer, and discuss her with at least one other journalist, Matt Cooper. When the CIA filed a notice of a possible criminal violation with the Justice Department, there were attempts by administration officials to distance themselves from the scandal. Eventually, only Libby would be indicted, tried, and convicted for his role in the scandal.

{I} Justice delayed is justice denied

"I am very disappointed with the verdict. I am saddened for Scooter and his family. As I have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years of public service.
"Since his legal team has announced that he is seeking a new trial and, if necessary, pursuing an appeal, I plan to have no further comment on the merits of this matter until these proceedings are concluded."
--Vice President’s Statement on Libby Verdict; March 6, 2007.

All of the documents needed to impeach and convict VP Dick Cheney on the two criminal charges of misleading the congress and public on the "threat" posed by Iraq are already on record. There is no need for so much as a single further subpoena.

Numerous democrats from the House of Representatives have requested that the Justice Department release material from the FBI and grand jury investigation of the Plame scandal. They are seeking the information about the roles played by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald does not have the authority to release the information to congress, and the Justice Department has ignored each and every request from congress.

The information that the Justice Department wants to keep from congress contains what was learned about VP Cheney’s role. In fact, it includes the information from Mr. Fitzgerald’s June 4, 2004 interviews with President Bush and VP Cheney. It includes all of the evidence of abuses of power by a vice president who narrowly escaped criminal charges, but who can – and should – be held accountable by the congress.

There is one way for congress to access the "pot of gold" from the Plame scandal investigation. This can be accomplished by beginning the process of impeachment. In that context, the law is clear, and the federal courts would order the administration to release the information detailing VP Cheney’s role in the Plame scandal to Congress.

The nation is entitled to the truth.