Why aren't we impeaching Cheney?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Cheney denied having financial ties with Halliburton when he in fact did have financial ties. Period.  Millions of Americans find that to be somewhat unsettling.

Denied what financial ties?  That he was a former executive, or that he had unexercised stock options?   What does it matter if he had unexercised stock options, they don't grant you a controlling interest or sway over the board.  

Most importantly, Cheney is a US citizen and has NO obligation, just as you have no obligation, to expose our personal finances for the world to see.  They would get that information from me with a court ordered subpoena and not a second before.  You do believe in a fundamental right to privacy don't you, or do you think those rights only apply to aledged terrorists?

As to the contention about millions of Americans...there are supposedly "millions" of Americans who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, according to the 9/11 loon crew.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Most importantly, Cheney is a US citizen and has NO obligation, just as you have no obligation, to expose our personal finances for the world to see.  They would get that information from me with a court ordered subpoena and not a second before.

You and I are not the vice president of the United States.  I do firmly believe in the right to privacy, but Cheney is required to file a confidential financial disclosure report.  While people such as you or I have no business reading it, members of the US Office of Government Ethics do.

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

As to the contention about millions of Americans...there are supposedly "millions" of Americans who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, according to the 9/11 loon crew.

So is it your contention that most Americans approve of Cheney's performance, and the Bush adminsistration's performance?  Are you just writing off everyone who is criticizing the Bush administration as liberal extremists?  According to CNN, Bush's approval rating is 34% and disapproval rating is 63%.  And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

You do believe in a fundamental right to privacy don't you, or do you think those rights only apply to aledged terrorists?

What are you attempting to suggest here?

[iplaw]

quote:
You and I are not the vice president of the United States.  I do firmly believe in the right to privacy, but Cheney is required to file a confidential financial disclosure report.  While people such as you or I have no business reading it, members of the US Office of Government Ethics do.

You're just not going to give up are you, you cute little Independent (TM).  Maybe this article will finally shut you up.

quote:
And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.

Well congratulations you're only half nuts.

quote:
So is it your contention that most Americans approve of Cheney's performance, and the Bush adminsistration's performance?  Are you just writing off everyone who is criticizing the Bush administration as liberal extremists?  According to CNN, Bush's approval rating is 34% and disapproval rating is 63%.  And no, I don't think it is very likely that 9/11 was a huge government conspiracy.

Non-sequitor argument, attempted misdirection and completely irrelevant information.  Try again.

[Conan71]

Better question yet for P-85.  What politician who is in a national office doesn't have ties to a corporation of one sort or another prior to coming to or after leaving Washington? The Cheney/Halliburton angle is very over-blown.

Are you really naive enough to believe that corporate contributions to political campaigns are not some sort of compensation?  Dig around the different government ethics sites and I dare you to find more than a small handful of legislators who aren't taking money from anyone other than individuals.

The way Democrats hammered on GOP donors prior to the mid-terms you would have thought that Democrats never take money from special interests or corporate entities looking for favors.

What in the hell is so fascinating about Halliburton?  There are far more companies who do business with no-bid contracts with the government.  Name some companies with the same scope and range of capabilities and competence as Halliburton who have been shut out of the Iraq contracts.

[iplaw]

It's not just overblown its complete BS as evidenced by the factcheck.org article.  Maybe a little fact checking is something our Independent (TM) should do more of before posting on this forum...

[perspicuity85]

It is entirely likely that Cheney did not in fact commit any unethical or illegal act.  He did lie to the media, not under oath.  But you have to admit, that lie made him look guilty of something.  Instead of explaining that any ties he had were deferred compensation only, he dodged the issue completely.  I don't think he needed to go into great detail about his personal finances, but a simple explanation to call off the dogs would have been a good idea.  When people lie, they lose credibility.  When footnotes and asterisks are explained up front, people earn credibility.  Any business executive should understand that.

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Non-sequitor argument, attempted misdirection and completely irrelevant information.  Try again.

Perhaps it was a bit of a non-sequitor, but my response was to the conspicuous implications of your previous statement.  And since we're on the topic of fallacies, you yourself have overattributed my arguments as being consistent with the entire Democratic platform, instead of focusing on the one issue at hand.  Based on your overattribution, you concluded that I was in agreement with supposed 9/11 conspiracy-theorists, and thus, committed the fallacy of   argumentum ad Hominem- circumstantial, a.k.a. undermining a claim by calling attention to the irrelevant circumstances of the one making the claim.  And yes, in case you're wondering, I had to look up the name of argumentum ad Hominem- circumstantial, because I could not remember the specific name of the fallacy.

As for me giving up, it's not too likely.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Better question yet for P-85.  What politician who is in a national office doesn't have ties to a corporation of one sort or another prior to coming to or after leaving Washington? The Cheney/Halliburton angle is very over-blown.

Are you really naive enough to believe that corporate contributions to political campaigns are not some sort of compensation?  Dig around the different government ethics sites and I dare you to find more than a small handful of legislators who aren't taking money from anyone other than individuals.

The way Democrats hammered on GOP donors prior to the mid-terms you would have thought that Democrats never take money from special interests or corporate entities looking for favors.

What in the hell is so fascinating about Halliburton?  There are far more companies who do business with no-bid contracts with the government.  Name some companies with the same scope and range of capabilities and competence as Halliburton who have been shut out of the Iraq contracts.

No argument there, Conan.  What I have been posting about is one specific incidence in which Cheney lied about financial ties.

[iplaw]

quote:
It is entirely likely that Cheney did not in fact commit any unethical or illegal act.

Hmmm...you sound remarkably less confident than you did a few days ago.  First it was he's DEFINITELY did it, later it was FISHY, now it's "entirely likely" he didn't...give you another couple of days and you MIGHT actually get the right answer.

quote:
He did lie to the media, not under oath.

Not according to Factcheck.org.

quote:
But you have to admit, that lie made him look guilty of something. Instead of explaining that any ties he had were deferred compensation only, he dodged the issue completely.

This supposed guilt is wishful thinking on your part...did you even bother to see that he ASSIGNED all of his profits from the stock options to CHARITY?

quote:
I don't think he needed to go into great detail about his personal finances, but a simple explanation to call off the dogs would have been a good idea. When people lie, they lose credibility. When footnotes and asterisks are explained up front, people earn credibility. Any business executive should understand that.

He didn't lie, but you can't get that through your thick skull...it's no wonder OJ was able to get a "not guilty" verdict with people walking around who have reasoning skills like the ones that we've seen on this thread...

[aoxamaxoa]

"What If Vice Pres. Gore Had Outed a Covert CIA Specialist in Terror Weapons? Why is There a Cheney-Bush Double Standard? Gore Would Never Do Such a Thing. Bush and Cheney Did -- And Have Endangered the National Security of the United States of America."

I'd think he'd be lynched!

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/02/05/what-if-gore-had-outed-secret-agent/

"It is apparent that Vice Pres. Cheney will get away with jeopardizing our national security without punsihment, or even a mild rebuke."

"It's just Cheney being Cheney."

[perspicuity85]

Originally posted by iplaw

Hmmm...you sound remarkably less confident than you did a few days ago.  First it was he's DEFINITELY did it, later it was FISHY, now it's "entirely likely" he didn't...give you another couple of days and you MIGHT actually get the right answer.

What are you talking about?  I never said definitely.  I said he lied to the media, which according to CBS News, is true.  When people lie, I generally think they have something to hide.  I admitted that there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing.  I bring up one little fact, make a joke about Fox News, and in Oklahoma I'm a flaming liberal.  Why do we have such a bipolar political environment?

[iplaw]

quote:
What are you talking about?  I never said definitely.  I said he lied to the media, which according to CBS News, is true.  

Are you blind or just wilfully ignoring reality?  Factcheck did your work for you and debunked the alleged "lie."  Game, set, match...nothing left to debate.  

quote:
When people lie, I generally think they have something to hide.  I admitted that there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing.  I bring up one little fact, make a joke about Fox News, and in Oklahoma I'm a flaming liberal.  Why do we have such a bipolar political environment?

Go peddle your sob story somewhere else.  If you bring conspiracy garbage into a debate expect to get smacked.  Go protest Cheney with altrusim suffers, he needs the company.

[iplaw]

I have another question for you Independent (TM).  Why are you so hell bent on pushing this issue, which is a farce, but I have yet to hear any outcry from you about Sandy Berger and his theft of classified documents?  I thought you were an Independent (TM)?

[aoxamaxoa]

There are no conspiracies. Just Conmen.

"Tell Congress to Impeach Cheney First"


http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73


"Vice President Cheney was a key architect of the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. Behind the scenes, Cheney was in charge of assembling bogus "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction, both by "stovepiping" evidence from paid liars and by visiting the CIA to personally intimidate analysts who disputed those lies. In public, Cheney uttered the Administration's most egregious and bald-faced lies, especially about Iraq's non-existent nuclear program. When his nuclear lies were exposed by Ambassador Joe Wilson, Cheney led the criminal campaign to attack Joe Wilson, including "outing" Wilson's wife Valerie Plame to reporters. By "outing" Plame, Cheney destroyed Plame's covert network which was fighting the spread of weapons of mass destruction in Iran and elsewhere. Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, committed perjury and obstruction of justice to keep Cheney from being indicted for his role in outing Plame. Cheney adamantly refuses to take any responsibility for the war or for his crimes. To hold Cheney accountable - and to deter future Vice Presidents from committing similar crimes - Congress must begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney immediately."

[cannon_fodder]

There was more loaded language in the first paragraph of the Huffington article than I care to read.  To quote the author

quote: These are not facts; rather they are opinions twisting basic facts.

The facts presented, that Cheney paid people to lie or that the evidence was a lie at all, are not only disputed, but not held as the truth by most circles.  If any administration blatantly lied, especially if their paid people to do so, and there was actual evidence of such... impeachment would be inevitable and a criminal prosecution would surely follow.

The cry of war-profiteer is as old as war itself.  Hurrah for the military industrial complex and all the horrors it is responsible for.  If only it werent for evil corporations we could all dance naked under apple trees and live in peace and understanding. Damn corporations.

This is akin to me starting a discussion about Hillary Clinton by posting an article from Stophillarypac.com.  

Move along, nothing to see here.

[aoxamaxoa]

"If any administration blatantly lied..."
They did just that. And the consequences have been huge.

"impeachment would be inevitable and a criminal prosecution would surely follow"...what you are saying is, "because congress will not move ahead on impeachment, these 'people' obviously have not committed an impeachable offense."

"The cry of war-profiteer is as old as war itself."
There is so much fraud connected to this wars profiteering it goes to show that the current executive branch are incompetents.


"Hurrah for the military industrial complex and all the horrors it is responsible for. " If you were being sarcastic for the right reasons I could accept your point of view. But this institution as predicted by President Eisenhower has manipulated this country into a terrible defeat through it's shear size and influence.

"If only it weren't for evil corporations we could all dance naked under apple trees and live in peace and understanding. Damn corporations." More obnoxious sarcasm. Sorry you do not know peace and are incapable of understanding.

"Move along, nothing to see here."
Yes, there is plenty to see here. You just gotta read between the lines!

btw, I can't find the first paragraph you speaketh about....Lizzie is a witch....Dickie should be impeached.....first.