Dick Cheney- Corporate Criminal


Vermont Congress candidate calls on Pentagon to arrest Bush, Cheney

by repost Wednesday, Sep. 27, 2006 at 9:41 PM

Saturday, Septmber 23— Former Army Lieutenant and candidate for Congress in Vermont, Dennis Morrisseau, today called for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Cheney by the American military "if necessary" to prevent an unauthorized attack upon the nation of Iran.

The antiwar Vietnam vet is a Republican, but he has won approval from the State of Vermont to run on the ballot line “Impeach Bush Now,” rather than Democrat or Republican.

"American forces are apparently already active inside Iran, and Naval forces have received orders to deploy to that country," Morrisseau said. "The President has NO AUTHORITY to attack the nation of Iran whatsoever, in the absence of a full, formal Declaration of War on Iran by the sitting Congress."

Morrisseau said any order for an attack upon Iran or to deploy naval forces to its coastal waters is illegal, and called upon officers of the American military to "First, refuse to obey such an order. If the president persists and insists on ordering our forces into combat in or over Iran without a formal Declaration of War, then I call upon you, General Pace, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and upon such other military officers as clearly see their duty in these circumstances to detain both the President and Vice President, until such time as the Congress shall act."

Letter to General Pace of the Joint Chiefs

Morrisseau, who was court-martialled for opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968, said he has written to General Pace to ask for the intervention of the military. "In spite of my opposition to the Vietnam War and the court-martial which we ultimately defeated, I was a good soldier who had the respect of my superior officers throughout the ordeal. And they had mine!" Morrisseau said. "There are many many, very, very decent people in the active duty military. I know this," he said "people who love their country and democracy too, and hate war."

Morrisseau wrote that "Iran is no present threat to us or anyone. Their right to enrich uranium under treaties signed by us for the production of nuclear power is clear: and that is all they have so far done. An attack upon that nation now by us, acting alone will constitute an illegal war of aggression under international law. It is illegal under our law as well. I urge you to so advise the President," Morrisseau wrote to Pace, "and urge that he take no such actions. In particular, he must not act in the absense of a full, formal, responsible War Declaration by Congress. That is the Constitutional requirement."

If he and Cheney persist, Morrisseau wrote, "than the country must rely upon you, Sir, and our armed forces generally, to resist all illegal orders by Bush or Cheney, and take the gentlemen into custody if necessary."

October Surprise

Morrissaeu's website notes that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have issued orders for a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast.

This information follows a report in the current issue of Time, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1st.

As Time writes in its cover story "What Would War Look Like?" evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received recent orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21st.

Anti Vietnam War Veteran

Second Lieutenant Dennis Morrisseau was arrested and court-martialled as an Army 2nd lieutenant for repeatedly speaking out in uniform against the Vietnam War, then refusing shipment to South East Asia. His legal team defeated the court-martial and he was allowed to resign his commission in early 1968. The court-martial charges called for 5 years in prison at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.

Statement by Morrisseau

I'm an old war horse and a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Vermont who believes we must impeach Bush and Cheney, and we must remove the neoconservative cabal from power.

Our great nation has suffered a coup.

And there is an immediate need for action and for the piercing of illusions. We need to step across old political boundaries and ideas. Who cares about "Democrats" vs. "Republicans"? The leadership of both parties is thoroughly corrupt. And that "leadership" exercises its power through control of Congress, not the presidency.

Presidents are figureheads and presidential elections are "bread and circuses." In our American system, Congress rules because Congress makes the laws and Congress writes the checks that fund all government activity.

Our leaders are very happy to have us believe otherwise.

But no president can govern at all without the full cooperation of Congress.

The 109th Congress and its leaders of both parties are fully complicit in all actions taken so far by the Bush administration, no matter what they say for public consumption. Their true loyalty is to their fellow senators and representatives and their corporate backers and not to us.

Morrisseau campaign website—



CAUGHT ON TAPE: Bush Ignores Intelligence, Misleads Public On Impact of Iraq on Terrorism »

In April, President Bush received the National Intelligence Estimate, which “represents a consensus view of the 16 separate spy services inside government.” NIEs are “the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces…and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence.”

Here’s what the NIE said, according to the New York Times:

[T]he American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks…The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

On August 21, President Bush held a press conference and told the American people the exact opposite.

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Cheney ‘Can’t Buy’ Idea That Iraq War Is Creating More Terrorists »

President Bush isn’t the only one who ignored the findings of the NIE that “the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism.” Vice President Cheney did too.

On the September 10, 2006 broadcast of Meet the Press, Tim Russert presented Cheney with a CBS/New York Times poll that said the majority of Americans agree with the intelligence community’s assessment that our actions overseas are creating more terrorists. “I can’t buy that,” Cheney responded.

Polling Data

Right now, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan creating more terrorists who are planning to attack the U.S., eliminating terrorists who were planning to attack the U.S., or is the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan not affecting the number of terrorists planning to attack the U.S.?

Creating more terrorists

Eliminating terrorists

Not affecting the number

Not sure

As a result of U.S. military action against Afghanistan, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?



Stayed about the same

Not sure

As a result of the United States’ military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same?



Stayed about the same

Not sure

Source: CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,206 American adults, conducted from Aug. 17 to Aug. 21, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.


Congress to Bush/Cheney and their Profiteers: Account for Yourselves

Rarely do "bright lines" occur in politics. The New York and LA Times reported one today, albeit with starkly different headlines. The New York Times headline about its poll shouts, "Only 25% in Poll Voice Approval of the Congress. An Echo of 1994 Findings." The LA Times says, "Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters.

The turnaround is a sign that the election battle in November could be fierce. But history shows Democrats remain poised to claim seats."

What's the bright line? It's the fact that the Democrats have an historic opportunity to change the very essence of political and civil discourse in America this fall and by the way, to win. But the summary stories of both polls make clear that such a victory can only occur if, seat by seat, the Democrats can show clearly that a new majority in Washington will change America's course.

So far, we have not done that. But one issue alone--accountability--can sway voters. And, to paraphrase Henry Kissinger, it has the added advantage of being a truly signal issue. The polls show that voters are disenchanted with the course on which their nation heads, but they do not know what to do about it. The LA Times says that "46% of registered voters in the latest survey said their congressional representative deserved reelection, whereas 40% said they wanted to elect someone new - figures that that seem to show a greater desire for change than polls found shortly before the 1994 vote." The New York Times poll says, "While 61 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job, just 29% said they disapproved of the way their "representative is handling his or her job."

The Democratic strategy for this election has always been to nationalize the vote and make it a referendum on President Bush and the Republican handling of the occupation in Iraq and the general direction of the country. However, voters increasingly ask, "what will you do if you win? What will be different?"

The answer: a new majority in Congress will hold the Bush Administration accountable for its conduct of the occupation, for its conduct of securing America and for its conduct as a paymaster to profiteers. If every Democratic candidate said, "look at the atrocities that have been committed in Iraq by people like David Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, who has made about $150 million since the war started. Why has he gotten off scott-free while you are no better off today than you were five years ago, while good Americans continue to die in Iraq so that people like Lesar can get richer?"

It's the story we tell in Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers. It's the human story of abuse and death and family bereavement, of traitors and privateers such as Lesar and his fellow CEOs at Blackwater, Titan/L-3 and CACI that inform Americans about the urgency of change. We all respond to accessible stories. The film does the trick, but it's up to our candidates and party leaders to get the message out loud and clear.

The bright line: keep spending your money to make a few men very rich at the expense of thousands of dead and wounded, without any regard for national security or vote for people who will represent you, who will ask the tough questions and demand answers from Presidents Bush and Cheney, who will find out how the David Lesars of the world become so rich that they probably can't count their money, while our troops languish in a desert far away from home.

Imagine how a CEO of one of these companies would react if he were called before a Congressional committee knowing that he could face charges of treason, perjury and profiteering. I'd guess they'd realize that the bribes they've paid to Republicans these five years only pay off so long as the stories stay under cover. The stories are there to be told; it's our job to know them and to push our leaders to campaign on them. It's a sad but winning strategy. But it's also the Constitutional duty Congress has shirked for five years.


Cheney Biographer Launches Desperate Attack On Senate Intelligence Committee Report

Think Progress

In the Weekly Standard, official Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes attacks the recently-released portion of the Senate Intelligence Committee report that documents the fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not collaborators.

The report’s conclusion deals a devastating blow to Hayes, who has previously declared “case closed” on the connection between Hussein and bin Laden and has authored on a book on that sole issue. Unsurprisingly, he strikes back against the Senate report with more deception and spin:

1. Hayes’ sourcing for his information is unreliable; Senate sourcing is authoritative. Hayes pieces together unverified media reporting to develop his theory of a “connection.” He continues to rely on a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo. At one point, Hayes even sources his claims to the fact that Vice President Cheney repeated them. The Senate Intelligence Committee report relies on “documents uncovered in Iraq and new intelligence collected, including Intelligence Community debriefs of detained Iraqis and al Qa’ida members. … The Committee supplemented this effort by soliciting the Intelligence Community’s judgments of the accuracy of their own prewar assessments.”

2. Hayes ignores the conclusions of the intelligence community. The report notes that the CIA Inspector General has concluded: “The data reveal few indications of an established relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. The DIA, which has reviewed more than 34 million pages of documents that were recovered from Iraq, “continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.”

3. Hayes ignores the report’s conclusion on Zawahiri. He writes, “There is no mention of documents showing that the Iraqi regime cultivated a relationship with bin Laden’s chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, throughout the 1990s.” He ignores the report’s revelation that the former Iraqi Vice President said suggestions of a link between Zawahiri and Saddam were “completely false.”

4. Hayes ignores reports of Saddam’s refusal to partner with bin Laden. The Senate report documents Saddam’s rejection of bin Laden’s requests for assistance, his unwillingness to meet with al Qaeda officials, and his detentions of those he viewed as Islamist radicals. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a participant in the ‘93 World Trade Center bombings (whom Hayes cites as proof of a “connection”), is evidence of Saddam’s actions against al Qaeda because he was jailed by the Iraqi government in 1994 through at least 2002 when 60 Minutes interviewed him there. The Senate report concludes, “Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.”

In his conclusion, Hayes writes, “Some day there will be an authoritative and richly detailed history of the nature of the relationship between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups.” That day has come, and it’s a shame Hayes won’t allow himself to accept it.


Trickery continues on reasons for war

By Derrick Z. Jackson | September 13, 2006

THREE AND A HALF years and tens of thousands of bodies after the Great False War began , Vice President Dick Cheney still tells us it ``was the right thing to do, and if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."

Tim Russert of NBC's ``Meet the Press" asked Cheney, ``Exactly the same thing?"

Cheney said, ``Yes, sir."

In his address to the nation to note the fifth anniversary of 9/11, President Bush added his thoughts on why the Great False War was the right thing. ``I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. ``The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat."

They still are trying to bamboozle us about the threat. These latest attempts came despite last week's report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that destroyed with exactitude every last major, hair-raising reason the White House gave to launch the invasion. The report said in punishing repetition that ``postwar findings do not support" prior assertions or assessments that Iraq:

was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program in general or acquiring uranium from Africa or high-strength aluminum tubes in particular;

had biological weapons and that its biological weapons program was larger and more advanced than before the 1991 Gulf War;

possessed or developed mobile facilities for making biological agents for war;

had chemical weapons or was expanding its chemical industry for weapons production.

That was not even the most important part of the report. Cheney and Bush long ago conceded that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist. But they to this day still call Iraq the ``central front" of the so-called war on terror on scary notions that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had dangerous ties to Al Qaeda. The Senate Intelligence Committee report said:

``No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with [Osama] bin Laden."

``No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW [chemical and biological weapons] training" to Al Qaeda .

``No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or after Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Not only did Saddam Hussein not try to facilitate a relationship with bin Laden, according to the report, but it said that Saddam distrusted both bin Laden and the late Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The report said Saddam's mistrust of Zarqawi ran so high that at one point, Saddam unsuccessfully tried to have Zarqawi captured.

Yet, Zarqawi was a cornerstone of justifying the Great False War.

In his infamous February 2003 United Nations presentation, then-secretary of state Colin Powell said, ``Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Powell said Zarqawi and his poison weapons training camp represented a ``potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda network." He said, ``We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

In June 2004, Cheney and Bush trumped up the sinister nexus in tag-team style. Cheney said Saddam had ``long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Bush was asked a day later what was the best evidence to back up Cheney's assertion. Bush responded, ``Zarqawi. Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to Al Qaeda affiliates and Al Qaeda."

That very same week, the 9/11 Commission announced it found ``no credible evidence" of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Last week's Senate report was a brutally ironic reaffirmation of that finding, given Powell's choice of words at the UN. The report said, ``The regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

In all this desperation to maintain credibility on the Great False War, bin Laden himself is slipping through America's fingers. The Washington Post reported this week that the trail to bin Laden himself has been ``stone cold" for more than two years, in the words of one counterterrorism official. With disapproval ratings for the handling of war running up to 65 percent in recent major polls, it is clear that Americans are growing cold to Cheney when he says, ``we'd do exactly the same thing." The only thing left is the manner in which Americans will throw a figurative stone.


Book of revelations
As details about the lead-up to the Iraq war are revealed, it's time to ask how much political resonance they really have.

David Corn
September 7, 2006 11:01 AM

A British editor sent me an email asking whether new revelations about the lead-up to the war in Iraq can cause political damage to President Bush and his Republican comrades in Congress. I knew why he was asking. I have a new book out (co-written with Michael Isikoff of Newsweek), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, which is loaded with revelations.

The book chronicles the intelligence battles that raged within the hallways and offices of the CIA, the State Department, the White House and Congress in the year before Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. The book opens with a scene from May 2002, in which Bush tells his aides he intends to "kick [Saddam Hussein's] sorry motherfucking ass all over the Mideast."

This is a tip-off that the White House was being, shall we say, misleading throughout 2002 and early 2003 when it repeatedly declared that no decision had been made to attack Iraq. The book exposes details of an extensive covert operation approved by the White House to pave the way for war in Iraq (again, at a time when the administration was claiming Bush had no plans to invade Iraq.)

It shows how (and why) Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress were scared to challenge intelligence briefings they received directly from vice president Dick Cheney on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction - briefings that these legislators did not find convincing. (Still, they voted to grant Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.)

The book details how the CIA overstated flimsy intelligence and how the White House then overstated these overstatements and didn't bother to review the intelligence reports. (Bush did not even read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which was only 90 pages long, before ordering the war.) The book reports that CIA officers (before the war) suspected Iranian intelligence was working through the Iraqi National Congress (an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, who wanted war in Iraq) to influence the Bush administration and American public opinion.

I could go on. For more information on the book and its revelations, click here. But the question at hand is this: does any of this matter?

Of course, one answer is, of course. That is, uncovering and presenting the truth about such a historically important issue as what led to the launching of a war must, at some point, matter. There still is debate in the United States over the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Bush's Iraq endeavour. This book will provide material that will inform that ongoing battle.

But to reply to the query honestly I might have to admit that the revelations of Hubris (and those of other books and news articles) may not have political resonance. That's because the American public has already rendered a judgment on the war: it was a bad idea. Over 60% of Americans, according to opinion polls, now say Bush was wrong to have invaded Iraq. Only about a third back his decision to start this war.

The widespread dissatisfaction among Americans with Bush and his war, no doubt, is driven by the abysmal results. Thousands of American lives have been lost. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. And still Iraq is a mess - and one that seems to be getting worse (with thousands of civilians being slaughtered in sectarian violence on a monthly basis).

My hunch is that most Americans care less about how we got to this point than about this point itself - had the war and the post-invasion period been a cakewalk, as some war advocates promised prior to the invasion, there would not be much talk in the United States about how Bush had misled the country into battle. Also, Bush has lost almost as much of the country as he could lose. He is down to his diehard base.

After sticking with Bush through the past three years - as his initial WMD rationale for the war evaporated, as his strategic decisions (de-Ba'athification, dissolving the Iraqi military) were proven wrong, as his policies in Iraq failed to stem the chaos and violence enveloping that nation - these people are unlikely to cut and run on Bush just because there is new and dramatic evidence that he rigged the road to war.

Republican candidates in the coming congressional elections are already weakened by Bush's low approval rating. Many do not want to campaign with Bush (though they still accept the campaign cash he raises for them). And they have to face the challenge of what to say about the war. Support the unpopular president and the unpopular war? Distance themselves and admit a mistake? But since politicians draw house district lines to favour incumbents, only about 35 of the 232 Republicans in the House of Representatives are in competitive races. So the war, and revelations about Bush and the war, will not affect most Republicans, who are in safe seats.

The Iraq fiasco, though, is clearly the undercurrent of this election. Bush and the Republicans are trying to tie the Iraq war to the so-called "war on terrorism". They are going to great lengths to depict critics of their Iraq misadventure as being soft on al-Qaida. (This is not logic; this is politics.)

Such a tactic may yet work. But the war appears to be the albatross around the neck of the Republican party. Its weight grows daily. And revelations about the run-up to the war - while perhaps not determinative in a political sense - do serve to remind people of an important fact: this war was a chosen war. And that means that the chooser-in-chief and all his aides and supporters still have to answer for that choice.


Dick Cheney confirms: Democratic campaign contributions support Al-Qaeda

by Walid

"Democrats are Supporting Terror Groups!"(Washington D.C.) Unconfirmed sources report Vice president Dick Cheney will personally release information showing how Democratic congressional contributions helped finance Al-Qaeda and the UK airline Bomb plot. Cheney has been leading the terror investigation for several months now but has just revealed that Ned Lamont, Jon Tester, Bob Casey are the lead targets of his investigation.

In April of '06 George W. Bush has assigned Dick Cheney to head up the "USA Internal Terror Task Force". The Cheney task force has been working diligently to describe the "Fifth column" run by Democrats and Al-Qaeda. The Targets of the task force all seem to be Democrats poised to defeat incumbent Republicans.

Speaking to reporters in Washington last week Cheney explained the operation of the task force. "We are looking at close congressional races in predominately Republican "safe" districts. When we see a problem a team is assigned to fabricate evidence, spread lies and otherwise create fear, uncertainty and doubt." The policy is nothing new to the Bush administration, as they speak often of the growing threat Democratic victories portend.

Dick Cheney himself has been busy in Connecticut. Cheney confirmed to the press that Joe Lieberman was in fact on the verge of catching Osama Bin Laden when he lost the Democratic primary. According to Dick "The loss was a shocking setback to the global war on Islamic fascist terrorism." He also stated the victory of Ned Lamont, a know Al-Qaeda associate "Just shows the dangers of allowing the average American to vote as they please."



Bush, first visiting Little Rock, Arkansas, to raise money for Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson, rejected any tie between politics and the blitz of speeches on Iraq.

"My series of speeches, they are not political speeches, they are speeches about the future of this country and they are speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation will become in even more jeopardy," he said.

"These are important times and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I am going to talk about," Bush added.


OMAHA - Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that some Democrats' calls for troop withdrawal in Iraq only serve to embolden terrorists.

“Decisions about troop levels will be driven by conditions on the ground, not by polls or artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.,” Cheney said in Omaha during a speech at a Republican fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska.

Cheney said electing Republicans such as Fortenberry and U.S. Senate candidate Pete Ricketts is important to the war on terror.

Fortenberry has become a strong ally to the Bush administration in his two years in the House, Cheney said.

“Jeff Fortenberry recognizes that the first order of business in Washington is to protect the American people and to support the men and women who defend us in time of war,” the vice president said.

Cheney also appeared at Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha later in the day and thanked the men and women in uniform for their support of U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also promised that the United States would not relent in the war on terror.

“I want you to know as members of the United States military that the American people do not support a policy of retreat or defeat,” Cheney said. “We want to complete the mission. We want it done right, and we want to return with honor.”