Itís time Cheney steps down


moghrabi
#1
Itís time Cheney steps down
11/22/2005 1:20:00 PM GMT

Quote:

In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute, the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said: "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight. But any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false."



He reiterated his strong rejection to calls from congressman to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq, describing such a proposal "a dangerous illusion."

"It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone," he said.

"Those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq should answer a few simple questions," including whether America will be "better off or worse off" with terror leaders such as Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, or Ayman Al Zawahiri in control?,Ē The Associated Press quoted the Vice President as saying.

An editorial on The Daily Texan stated yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney should resign and the sooner the better.

The American President George W. Bushís recent visits to Asia is an attempt to escape the mounting criticism and public dissatisfaction that's haunting him at home.

And with the ďsaddle in the Oval Office empty for the time beingĒ, according to the editorial, Cheney ďa pandering liar and a corporate toolĒ, is now the most powerful official on U.S. soil.

A number of big oil firms recently lied to a congressional panel investigating whether or not record profits received by those companies were the result of price gouging, The Daily Texan stated.

Each company representative denied involvement by his respective companies in Cheney's "Energy Task Force" in 2001.

Last week, The Washington Post published a story detailing a White House document that proves that those companiesí representatives have held talks with Cheney aides. So why did they lie? Simply because they fear being associated with the Vice President, who ďassembled an energy bill that ignored the needs of consumers and was rigidly biased towards energy industries like coal and oil, whose executives and lobbyists sought and were sought out to influence and guide our nation's energy policy directly into their coffersĒ, the editorial further stated.

ďOver the course of his tenure in office he has proved himself to be a dependable geyser of misinformation, revisionism and bald-faced lies. From the hubris of his pre-Iraq lies "[Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" to his more recent lies (denying on a cable news show that he was Lewis Libby's source for outed CIA agent Valerie Plame's name) our Vice President just can't seem to prevent himself from telling tales. Cheney even lies about his previous lies, so as to not get caught lying, as is the case with his statements regarding Mohamed Atta on June 20, 2004. In that instance, Cheney directly contradicted a video document of himself on a previous news show, saying the exact things he had just denied he had ever said,Ē The Texan Times added.

And as Cheney's office is under investigation in the Valerie Plame leak, his scandal-plagued company, Halliburton, is accused of wasting billion in taxpayer funded no-bid contracts. Cheney refuses to admit error or any wrong doings, even regarding Iraq war. The stunning lack of accountability in Bush's admin. is nowhere more stark than when it concerns the Vice President.

As the public dissatisfaction with Bushís policy mounts, some fundamental changes need to be made for him to be able to revive respect for the executive branch- Cheney's resignation would be a sure-fire way to send a message to the American public and the world that the President is starting to take the right decisions and right actions, including sweeping out the ďcobwebs,Ē the editorial said.

And if Cheney refused to submit his resignation, then, according to the editorial, President Bush should fire him, as heís a manifestation of everything that is wrong with this administration and the Republican Party.

Last September, rumours spread claiming that the Vice President has resigned for health related reasons.

"It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," he added, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated Ė another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP."

Another Bush associate said, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that the Republicans started drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008, U.S. News & World Report said.

"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide.

"Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what's next," said a Bush adviser. But they aren't focused on the future of the vice president- "Not that, at least not seriously," he said.

It's time President Bush do his country a big favor and retire Dick.

http://tinyurl.com/bmupd
 
Reverend Blair
#2
I'd rather see him dragged out of the White House in chains, but I guess a resignation would be acceptable as long as he could still be arrested at a later date.
 
moghrabi
#3
Question Rev. If the Prez and his gang are kicked out of the White House, Can they be arrested inside ans outside the US for crimes against humanity?
 
Reverend Blair
#4
Because the Bush White House has refused to sign onto the International Court, they can only be arrested and tried in the United States by US officials. They cannot be extradited for such a trial unless the US government deems it necessary and cannot be tried in the ICC.

Should they leave US soil and enter a country that has signed conventions saying that they will arrest and try war criminals, such as Canada, they can also be arrested and tried. The trial would have to take place in the arresting country.

So they can be tried, but not in the international court.
 
I think not
#5
I'm curious as to why no country has done that. Any suggestions?
 
no1important
#6
Maybe because they have not left the US on a non state visit. I believe Germany has a warrent out for Rumsfield.
 
I think not
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Maybe because they have not left the US on a non state visit. I believe Germany has a warrent out for Rumsfield.

Bush has been flying all over the place lately, even Latin America. I'd like to know if there is cause for an arrest, why doesn't it happen?
 
missile
Conservative
#8
Perhaps because we perceive Bush as a patsy,and not really the one in charge.
 
moghrabi
#9
Bush can't even walk on his own. Nevermind thinking on his own. Too much drinking and drugs when he was a young fool. But again he grew from a fool to a moron.
 
Reverend Blair
#10
Because everybody is afraid of the US, ITN. Your cowardly leader has already said that if any member of the US government is arrested for such crimes he will respond militarily. There are also other leaders who are complici in the crimes. That doesn't make Bush innocent though, in fact it shows that he understands his guilt.

There is a change going on though. The Supreme Court of BC recently struck down a gag order on a private citizen calling for Bush's arrest. There have been similar motions all over the place. At the same time, Bush has weakened the US's position internationally to the point where it is extremely doubtful that he could attack a western country, even in a small raid, without serious repercussions to the US. There is also growing support in the US for something to be done to make these people pay for what they've done.

We're not at the point where it is possible to arrest them yet, but things move that way every time another of your war crimes hit the news, ITN.
 
I think not
#11
So why not issue arrest warrants for John Howard? Tony Blair? And all the other leaders? What's stopping the international community from doing that?
 
missile
Conservative
#12
It's people like the CEO of Exxon who should be arrested for these crimes.
 
Reverend Blair
#13
You can't go after Howard and Blair without going after Bush, ITN. It was US troops who used white phosphorus. It was US troops who used napalm. There is some evidence that Britain used DU, but it is almost certain that the US did. It was the US who failed to protect civilians and antiquities in Baghdad.

Austrailia has kept their troops mostly behind the lines and mostly in non-combat roles.

Should they all be charged? You bet. The original invasion was illegal. The US is the big fish here though. They are the ones who have committed most of the crimes.
 
I think not
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Should they all be charged? You bet. The original invasion was illegal. The US is the big fish here though. They are the ones who have committed most of the crimes.

Right, so why aren't they? You cliam that Bush threatened to respond militarily if an arrest warrant was issued towards his administration, first I have ever heard of this by the way. But let's assume for a moment you are right. Why not issue arrest warrants for everybody else? What's the problem?
 
peapod
#15
You know dam well why think, your government is nothing but a pack of bullies and munipulators. The fact that people even speak about this shows the distain and contempt the world feels for your government. Just like all bullies, you might be running the playground, but everyone hates your guts.
 
I think not
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

You know dam well why think, your government is nothing but a pack of bullies and munipulators. The fact that people even speak about this shows the distain and contempt the world feels for your government. Just like all bullies, you might be running the playground, but everyone hates your guts.

Why don't you tell me why other country leaders are not being indicted instead of the usual diatribe and spinning you like?
 
Reverend Blair
#17
Because everybody is afraid of the US, ITN.
 
I think not
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Because everybody is afraid of the US, ITN.



Germany and France weren't afraid Rev when they didn't go along with the Iraq war. Other countries who voted against it weren't afraid. Spain wasn't afraid of the big bad US when they withdrew their troops. Fear isn't an answer. It's evading the question.
 
Reverend Blair
#19
There's a difference between refusing to partake in an illegal war and actually arresting those responsible for that war, ITN.

Compare it gangsterism, since that's how the US operates. Everybody in a neighbourhood may know that the gangster is a bad person. They may even know details. They may have refused to participate in crimes that the gangster would have paid them to participate in, possibly even punished them in a minor way for their refusal.

When it comes time to testify against the gangster they all suddenly become unwilling to cooperate though.
 
Karlin
#20
Interesting conversation here!

Why don't they arrest Bush, etc?
- because there are some serious connections between all the people in power. Similiar kinds of supporters, ties to businesses, and loyalty to certain organisations.

It is those organisations that are giving the direction to government leaders, legal bodies, etc. They are saying "shut the hell up about Presidential and Vice-Pres. lies, crimes, etc."

Anyone doing the arresting of an American president would be betraying some of those loyalties.

None of the loyalties are to voters - we are at the very bottom of the power and control, of the direction-giving.

Just who would write up a warrant for a national leader? They might never be seen again....
ITN - consider why so many criminal leaders of nations stay in power - like Africa's many criminals in power.... loyalties, FEAR, etc. Same crap goes on in the USA, and Canada no doubt.

All that aside, I am hoping a Canadian will get up the courage to do it, but it will be a tricky deal to do.
 
I think not
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

There's a difference between refusing to partake in an illegal war and actually arresting those responsible for that war, ITN.

Compare it gangsterism, since that's how the US operates. Everybody in a neighbourhood may know that the gangster is a bad person. They may even know details. They may have refused to participate in crimes that the gangster would have paid them to participate in, possibly even punished them in a minor way for their refusal.

When it comes time to testify against the gangster they all suddenly become unwilling to cooperate though.

OK, the US is a gangster. You still haven't answered the question why The Hague wouldn't issue an arrest warrant for say.... Albania? Macedonia? Latvia? Lithuania? They are all complicit and hardly gangsters.
 
peapod
#22
thats because of "fear" rev, the product of all bullies. There will be those that will come forward in spite of that fear...its what they call "courage". All their awe and shock, shake and bake, hearts and minds jingo, can't hold a candle to it.

Filthy bastards! they showed themselves for exactly what they are, a dumb bitch who has no idea of war, can attack a man, who is a decorated war hero because he speaks out. Swines at the trough....

Sidenote....Would anyone around here be handy? I would like my own soapbox to stand on when I post. Could you please make it out of cedar, I love da smell of cedar, calms me down. Course I really hate that cedar itch.
 
I think not
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin

Interesting conversation here!

Why don't they arrest Bush, etc?
- because there are some serious connections between all the people in power. Similiar kinds of supporters, ties to businesses, and loyalty to certain organisations.

It is those organisations that are giving the direction to government leaders, legal bodies, etc. They are saying "shut the hell up about Presidential and Vice-Pres. lies, crimes, etc."

Anyone doing the arresting of an American president would be betraying some of those loyalties.

None of the loyalties are to voters - we are at the very bottom of the power and control, of the direction-giving.

Just who would write up a warrant for a national leader? They might never be seen again....
ITN - consider why so many criminal leaders of nations stay in power - like Africa's many criminals in power.... loyalties, FEAR, etc. Same crap goes on in the USA, and Canada no doubt.


All that aside, I am hoping a Canadian will get up the courage to do it, but it will be a tricky deal to do.

Who would write up a warrant for a national leader? That's a good question. I would imagine The International Criminal Court, and even if they issued a warrant, who would execute the warrant? Who will go knocking on the respectives leader door and say, you are under arrest blah blah blah and expect that leader to walk away in handcuffs?
 
Reverend Blair
#24
Quote:

Interesting conversation here!

Why don't they arrest Bush, etc?
- because there are some serious connections between all the people in power. Similiar kinds of supporters, ties to businesses, and loyalty to certain organisations.

It is those organisations that are giving the direction to government leaders, legal bodies, etc. They are saying "shut the hell up about Presidential and Vice-Pres. lies, crimes, etc."

Anyone doing the arresting of an American president would be betraying some of those loyalties.

None of the loyalties are to voters - we are at the very bottom of the power and control, of the direction-giving.

Just who would write up a warrant for a national leader? They might never be seen again....
ITN - consider why so many criminal leaders of nations stay in power - like Africa's many criminals in power.... loyalties, FEAR, etc. Same crap goes on in the USA, and Canada no doubt.

That all comes back to the press again, Karlin. They are the ones who can force the politicians to act because public opinion shifts when the real story gets out. For instance, ITN here unaware of the move to charge Bush and Blair with war crimes although it caused quite a stir at the time.
 
I think not
#25
"Court case against General Franks in Brussels"

"Twenty victims of war crimes committed by U.S. troops during the recent war against Iraq are filing charges before the federal prosecutor of Belgium for violations of International Humanitarian Law."

"The complaint is directed against soldiersówho are not identified at this stageówho have committed war crimes. It mentions General Tommy Franks in particular for ordering war crimes and for not preventing others from committing them or for providing protection to the perpetrators."

This was a move for those mentioned above regarding war crimes and not for Bush and Blair.

Why not do the same for leaders of other countries that are obviously complicit? Since the US is so feared. Why? Even if it is done to make a political statement worldwide, why isn't it done?
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#26
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese240.html


Cheney losing his moorings?????

( seems to be a contageous "disease" in the bush regime.)


{imagine a nation being run by a gang of lunatics...Yikes!}
 
moghrabi
#27
funny to read. Thanks OB.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#28
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/scheer1122


Cheney's trouble with truth
 
unclepercy
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

You know dam well why think, your government is nothing but a pack of bullies and munipulators. The fact that people even speak about this shows the distain and contempt the world feels for your government. Just like all bullies, you might be running the playground, but everyone hates your guts.

Get a grip. Your government is any better? Uh, take a look at the news today:

November 29, 2005

Canadian Government Expected to Be Toppled

http://channelone.com/news/2005/11/29/ap_canada/

At least we have a government. Laughing my ass off! Percy
 
moghrabi
#30
When we have a corrupt government, we expect it to be removed. We are still waiting for you to even admit to have a corrupt government.
 

Similar Threads

25
Tim Hortonís Steps Into a Cow pie!
by SirJosephPorter | Aug 12th, 2009
17
Miers steps down
by Hard-Luck Henry | Oct 29th, 2005