THE LIES OF RICHARD CHENEY

What in the world is going on?
Post Reply
User avatar
Zlatko Waterman
Posts: 1631
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

THE LIES OF RICHARD CHENEY

Post by Zlatko Waterman » February 22nd, 2007, 10:24 am

For those of you who might be asking why Patrick Fitzgerald

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer


and others suspect the Vice-President's involvement in the Plame case and other high crimes, here's a review, from THE CASE AGAINST RICHARD CHENEY, an impreachment petition, of our dear VP's recent career as a blatant liar:
Using the powers of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has personally deceived the American people, in that:

(1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and thereafter, the vice president became aware that no certain evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(a) A report by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, concluding that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

(b) A National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies, admitting to "little specific information" about chemical weapons in Iraq.

(c) A later section of the same NIE, admitting "low confidence" that Saddam Hussein "would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland," and equally "low confidence" that he would "share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida."

(d) An addendum by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, asserting that Hussein's quest for yellowcake uranium in Africa was "highly dubious" and that his acquisition of certain machine parts, considered by some to be evidence of a nuclear program, were "not clearly linked to a nuclear end use."

(e) A report by the United States Department of Energy, stating that the machinery in question was "poorly suited" for nuclear use.

(2) Despite these questions and uncertainties, and having full awareness of them, the vice president nevertheless proceeded to misrepresent the facts in his public statements, claiming that there was no doubt about the existence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and that a full-scale nuclear program was known to exist, including:

(a) March 17, 2002: "We know they have biological and chemical weapons."

(b) March 19, 2002: "We know they are pursuing nuclear weapons."

(c) March 24, 2002: "He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons."

(d) May 19, 2002: "We know he's got chemical and biological...we know he's working on nuclear."

(e) August 26, 2002: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

(f) March 16, 2003: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

(3) At the same time, despite overwhelming skepticism within the government of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda - resulting in the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that "no credible evidence" for such a link existed, and the CIA's determination that Hussein "did not have a relationship" with Al Qaeda - the vice president continued to insist that the relationship had been confirmed, including:

(a) December 2, 2002: "His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists."

(b) January 30, 2003: "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us."

(c) March 16, 2003: "We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization."

(d) September 14, 2003: "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons."

(e) October 10, 2003: "He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda - providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs."

(f) January 9, 2004: "Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services...have worked together on a number of occasions."

(g) January 22, 2004: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government"

(h) June 18, 2004: "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming."

(4) Through all of these misrepresentations, the vice president knowingly skewed the public's perception of reality, clouded the nation's ability to weigh evidence, and willfully disrupted the function of American democracy.

In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

( read the whole article here):

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022207N.shtml


User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7841
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » February 22nd, 2007, 12:57 pm

And the DC Regime is promoting and propagating a whole new culture of misinformation and skew re: Iranian involvement in Iraq. We'll see how that plays. Fool me once or thrice or a dozen times maybe, but...

This is yet another reason why they should all be removed from office immediately. What would happen if a real threat arose? Who in their right mind would believe these lying assholes?

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20646
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » February 22nd, 2007, 1:03 pm

mnaz wrote:
"This is one reason why they should all be removed from office immediately."
I can think of a lot of reasons, just can't think of how you would remove them from office immediately. Pity we don't have a parlimentary system.

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20646
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » February 23rd, 2007, 5:23 am

I have not read the full article yet Zlatko, but I am all for impeachement of Chainsaw. But you know I must be one of little faith because I don't see it happening, just not enough votes in the senate...yet.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » February 25th, 2007, 7:55 pm

Dick Cheney rules!

This guy is one hell uv a kickasser.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7841
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » February 25th, 2007, 8:11 pm

U betcha!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Culture, Politics, Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest