CHENEY Rats On His Democratic Co-Conspirators

[kpete]

Monday Dec. 22, 2008 06:50 EST
Cheney says top congressional Democrats complicit in spying

(updated below)

Dick Cheney's interview yesterday with Fox's Chris Wallace was filled with significant claims, but certainly among the most significant was his detailed narration of how the administration, and Cheney personally, told numerous Democratic Congressional leaders -- repeatedly and in detail -- about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. And, according to Cheney, every one of those Democrats -- every last one -- not only urged its continuation, but insisted that it be kept secret:

WALLACE: Let's drill down into some of the specific measures that you pushed — first of all, the warrantless surveillance on a massive scale, without telling the appropriate court, without seeking legislation from Congress.

Why not, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the spirit of national unity, get approval, support, bring in the other branches of government?

CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. And we brought in...

WALLACE: Well, you briefed a few members.

CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late '01 up until '04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.

At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.

I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we'd achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.

I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we're doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don't do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we're reading their mail."

That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.

But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.

Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

* Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader);
*
* Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee);
*
* Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee);
*
* Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader).


more at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/22/cheney/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470706,00.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. This is extremely telling. They are complicit. They are guilty as hell.

[truedelphi]

59. My gut tells me you are right, but my head says this:

YOu have Cheney, a mass murderer if ever there was one, saying that such and such is true.

He lies, so maybe he is lying on this??

[salguine]

92. No, these Dems were up to their eyeballs in all kinds of dirty shit. Why do you

think Pelosi fought tooth and nail to keep impeachment "off the table", despite the fact that the list of this administration's crimes is the size of a goddamned phone book? Because she knew if this ever went to hearings, her name would show up in that same book, that's why.

[TheEuclideanOne]

103. It didn't take long to find this theory. I think that it was the 1st response that

I read. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday and he said that Americans will be blown away when they find out what the government has really been doing in regards to wiretapping. When we find out the true details of this program, it will not be infuriating, at least not to DUers. It will simply be a confirmation. We have already been infuriated for far too long. Hearing Cheney make this announcement is not a newsflash. At the same time, it was speculation, so a confirmation of it does explain alot of things that we have theorized. One of them is that Pelosi and others have been as equally complicit as these criminals have. This explains why an administration that has committed every crime in the book has not been impeached. If you involve the person that could impeach you, then that person's hands are tied. If they hold impeachment hearings, they will also show themselves as guilty. Essentially it is blackmail. He is not a liar, he is just confessing now that his term is running near to the end.

In short, I think that I have taken a rather longwinded restatement of what you said in your post.

[rainy]

109. That's why the prosecution of GW and gang should not be left up to the US government

or US courts or US state's attorneys. Can the world court try these criminals?

[hendo]

114. They would never allow the world court to get involved in the trial of a US president.

It would set a bad precedent. Trust me, we really don't want to allow them to put any US president on trial.

[truedelphi]

142. An easy way of saying what you just said is this one

Our nation has been a Banana Republic for at least the last four years.

[TheEuclideanOne]

145. Tempted to update Wikipedia listing for Banana Republic

Yes, I think that you summed it up pretty cleanly.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

137. Bingo

n/t

[truedelphi]

143. Listen I tend to agree with you. I have been trying to look at the world

A bit more optimistically lately, which gets harder with every appointment that Obama makes.

And please, salguine, dont read into this that I expect you and others to be all Polly-anna-ish. I just occasionally have to get the black clouds of doom off my face, for the sake of my inner peace.

[natrat]

147. ofcourse they are crooked-look at the bank bailout gabage bill

[JackRiddler]

95. No, he's not lying on this.

He knows exactly who he is calling out. He might also suspect an imminent pardon on all that he says, which the people he claims as having been complicit will not necessarily have.

[Doremus]

100. Rockefeller was so concerned about the future repercussions of the meeting(s) that

he documented it all in writing and gave it to his lawyer to hold, iirc.

They are all complicit. That's why we'll never see a real investigation or justice served if it is left up to them.


It really, really bites and I abhor that OUR Dems had a hand in any of it. I swear, if Barack doesn't take the high road on this -- politics be damned -- and conduct a REAL investigation with REAL consequences, that will be the final straw for me. All the lofty philosophies in the world don't mean anything if they're propped up on a steaming pile of shit.

If it's politics as usual with a phoney baloney commission that writes a half baked report in two years, so help me God I will work against this party the rest of my life as hard as I have worked FOR it up until now.

[TheEuclideanOne]

104. A REAL invistigation with REAL consequences

Wow, that is a refreshing expression to read. I can't remember the last time that applied to anybody in politics, regardless of how serious the crime was.

If Obama does this, he will be such a hero to alot of people. This administration could potentially be known for more than the administration that committed every imaginable crime that would normally get a presidnet impeached. They will also be known as the administration that bought off the other side by actually making them complicit in some of the crimes so that impeachment hearings would be "off the table"

[disndat]

134. Rockefeller is supposed to have close ties to

Verizon and AT&T.

[truedelphi]

144. I will be right there with you. n/t

[The Magistrate]

2. Cheney Is Not A Reliable Narrator, Ma'am

We have no idea what the facts are: no idea what these people were actually told, whether what they were told was remotely accurate, or even if their response was as Cheney describes it....

[crikkett]

7. We should ask the implicated Democrats what their response is. n/t

[G_j]

131. it is that simple

step 1..

[Cassandra]

13. That's an understatement, sir.

I think you hit all the relevant points.

[anaxarchos]

16. It is a very easy lie to expose...

Those who were named can simply state the facts and take issue with Cheney. Have they?

[The Magistrate]

19. Those Briefings Are Classified, Sir

Only the Executive can move to disclose their contents, or anything said in the sessions by anyone.

[Fumesucker]

26. Umm.. Cheney has de-facto declassified those briefings.. n/t

[The Magistrate]

38. No, Sir, He Has Not

[Fumesucker]

40. Look at it this way..

Given the fact that virtually no high ranking government officials have been prosecuted for much of anything over the last twenty years or so and even fewer have been convicted and actually been punished, what is there to fear from talking about these meetings by the Dems involved?

Why is it that one side flouts the law with apparent impunity while the other is scared to speak up?

Edited to add: The Dems in question can simply say that what Cheney has relate is untrue without giving away any national security secrets.

I wait with bated breath for their statements to that effect.

[EstimatedProphet]

48. So, because Cheney breaks the law...

it's now proof that Pelosi is part of the problem, because she isn't breaking the law? Maybe she's simply obeying the ruling that they are classified. Just because their side has contempt for the law doesn't mean that our side is wrong for not having the same contempt.

[Fumesucker]

53. I guess you missed my edit....

Why can't the Dems involved simply say that what Cheney related was incorrect without revealing details?

I honestly don't see how that could compromise security.

Cheney is either telling the truth or he is lying, saying he is lying doesn't break security.

Frankly I think the Dems were involved, to the degree Cheney says I really don't know but something kept impeachment off the table for two years.

[EstimatedProphet]

63. What kept impeachment off the table for 2 years is the fact that it wouldn't work

and that it would be political suicide to bring up. Why people don't get that here I'll never understand. The idea that the Dem leadership is complicit is proved by their refusal to impeach is absurd.

[Fumesucker]

66. We all know what opinions are like, everbody has one..

My opinion differs from yours.

[EstimatedProphet]

88. You can have whatever opinions you want

but if the only evidence that you have that Dems are in collusion with Cheney is that they didn't impeach him, it stops being about an opinion and becomes about a conspiracy.

[OnyxCollie]

72. Or, if you follow game theory

the refusal to impeach may be evidence of collusion between players in the game.

[Mithreal]

99. I can't figure out why folks keep spreading the lie that it would have

been political suicide.

First, you can't know that.

Second, there is historical record that proves you are wrong.

Third, only the DLC'ers would be committing suicide. I say good riddance, long overdue.

[EstimatedProphet]

107. Can't know that? Really?

With a firmly entrenched Republican party that was so heavily in power that when they lot big, really big, they were just barely under a minority;

With a complicit media completely in the pocket of the Republican party;

With a large portion of the Democratic party willing to turn tail if the wind blows the wrong way;

How on earth could anyone predict that it would fail?!?

It really cracks me up how people seem to believe that simply because something hasn't been tried, there can be no possible way of knowing what will happen. Do you go up on your roof and wonder if you will be able to fly if you jump off? after all, you haven't tried, have you? How could you possibly know you couldn't?

The fact that all these things were against impeachment may not prove that it wouldn't work, but it certainly would suggest to people who are politically astute that the odds are very much against it. So no, to get back to the original statement - the fact that impeachment didn't hapen isn't prima facie evidence that the Dem leadership were in collusion with Repubs, any more than the fact that someone has a car wreck is proof that they were drunk. The historical record doesn't count for shit. It doesn't matter whether impeachments have happened before. What matters is that the Repubs are in lockstep dedicated to complete and total power, and have had the resources to get it and use it.

[Mithreal]

124. "The historical record doesn't count for shit." Really?

Weak response to the historical record argument. Also, your metaphor was weak.

Do you know what the word collusion means?

collusion: Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights.

The Democrats were informed of the use of torture and wire tapping. I have heard their own voices on Progressive radio confirming these meetings. I am sure there are other examples. The Democratic leadership supported preemptive war for another example. Neither do you know what agreements were made between the leadership of both parties with regards to impeachment.

As to whether or not doing the right thing is something to make a political bet on, that sounds entirely too cynical and cowardly. Hearings can also be used for public record, for maintaining the integrity of our Democracy, even serving as a precedent that crimes will not be ignored. Just because something does not succeed does not mean it wasn't worth the effort to try. Your argument is pro-impotency. If you do not think you can win, don't bother trying. It often is a self-fulfilling prophecy, right. Maybe I do not understand the tone of your argument but it screams weakness and surrender. Maybe I am wrong, would not be the first time.

You are "misunderestimating" the Democratic Party. You are also underestimating the American people. Republicans have also been disgusted by Bush. Public hearings of the crimes of the Bush administration could have so disgusted both sides that it may have been as good as a visit to the Wizard. Your arguments are so cowardly that I can't help but think you are exposing the very thinking of the Democratic leadership.

I am sorry, but since you were, I thought I should be blunt as well.

[EstimatedProphet]

125. Missed my point entirely

Which was: it is not reasonable to claim that the fact that impeachment didn't happen is proof that the Dem leadership is in collusion with Repubs, specifically Cheney. That was the original statement that started this, and given the fact that impeachment had several things stacked against it, rejecting all of those things as possible reasons and assuming that impeachment not proceeding proves collusion is unrealistic at best.

Now, you personally said that the DLC would be the only ones who would be hurt by an attempt at impeachment politically. That's very naive, but let's assume it's true. Without the DLC support, could it be successful? No. Besides, holding the hearings would have given the Repubs a gigantic bat to beat us over the head with. They had nothing to go after Obama with in the election, which is why their attacks looked so pointless to the American people. Give them the failed impeachment attempt and all of that changes. They would have played the "Dems are wasting your money again!" commercial 24/7 for months. It might not have worked on everyone, but it is damned certain that it would have worked on a lot of people - after all, there's people to this day that swear that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Maybe you think the possibility of holding hearings would be worth the cost, but in my opinion doing something that would be guaranteed to be defeated and would go a long way to elect people who would be more of the same as Bush isn't my idea of progress. So, yes, I do believe that the leadership likely looked at the situation, and decided that an impeachment hearing would be doomed from the outset and guarantee a Repub party that would give us more of the same Bush that we've had in the last 8 years. Isn't it better to defeat the Repub ideals in the long run? If doing something is going to fail and then make things worse, and not doing that something will help to make things better, how is it wrong to not do that thing? Electing more Repubs means more of the same thing from the Repub party, and forcing impeachment would elect more Repubs. That's not cowardice. That's simple common sense. You should know the difference.

Repubs have only become disgusted by Bush when things went against them. Turning the situation around by giving them something to attack us with would only embolden them. They are there for power, period. They will do whatever it takes to hold onto that power, period. They have proven that repeatedly over the last several decades. Expecting them to do something entirely different is unrealistic. The historical record (in this case Nixon) indicates that the Repubs didn't stop supporting Nixon until very late, after months of investigations. We haven't had those investigations (I would have liked to have seen them, but we also didn't have the power to start them until 2007, whereas the Dem party controlled congress the entire time Nixon was in office). An impeachment without those investigations is a non-starter. That's why the historical record doesn't apply here. Those who think an impeachment which is started without investigations is anything more than grandstanding are fooling themselves. The proof is in the fact that that did happen, and the motion to impeach was tabled within minutes. That's the way it works. How is that result any different than having an impeachment fail with more effort put behind it, other than in the damage it does?

So let me be blunt here, again. You are naive if you think that forcing the impeachment issue would have made for a positive result.

By the way:
Neither do you know what agreements were made between the leadership of both parties with regards to impeachment.
You don't either. Neither one of us do. no one on this board does, unless we have a Federal rep undercover here, which I doubt.

[Mithreal]

148. Your arguments are not persuasive. nt

[polmaven]

56. Sure, because

Dick Cheney is such an upstanding and reliable fella.

[acmavm]

101. Yeah, and Pelosi and Reid have been such crackerjack reps, looking out

for our interests at every turn, making sure that our rights are protected.

Oh wait a minute. They sided with the bush** admin ever step of the way these past 8 years. Nah, this fuckwit opportunists wouldn't stick it to US, would they?

[polmaven]

105. That is a bunch

of bull and you know it. Since winning the majority 2 years ago, the Democrats have done as much as they have been able with the slim majority they have had.

Impeachment was not by any means the over-riding issue facing this country, and the amount of legislation passed in the firs 6 months of the Democratic Congress was very well done.

Perhaps you need to take some Civics courses to learn how our government actually works. It is not nearly as straightforward as you may like it to be.

[acmavm]

106. When this all comes out in the wash I'll expect an apology for

your ignorant post. Bury your head where ever you find it most comfortable, I'll skip my suggestion.

What's wrong with people like you? What does it take to make you understand that Reid and Pelosi have been standing next to george and dick every step of the way. Along with some other fine dems like Feinstein and Schumer. The repubics could NEVER have gotten as far as they have, done all the harm that they did, without the help and full complicity of those two fuckwits.

I would have thought that watching them get away with war crimes and the looting of our Treasury while out worthless reps sat there and let them run with the plan, let them loot, kill, lie, and steal whatever the fuck they wanted. And I include the fucking bailout in that.

[polmaven]

108. What is wrong with

"people like" me is an understanding of how things get done in Congress.

You believe whatever you want to, but limitations exist, even with a majority, so with the very slim one the Democrats have had for only 2 of the 8 years, a lot of good legislation was passed.

If you don't want to understand that, well, fine, that is your right.

[acmavm]

118. YOU understand how things get 'done'??? Like what might I ask?

You need to quit patting yourself on the back. Your intellect ain't all that you think it is.

Let's see, what could you possibly understand? That we were lied into a war that has killed over 4500 Americans and a million innocent civilians? Do you understand that? And do you understand that Pelosi is a lying bitch? All her big talk about what the Dems were gonna do if they took the majority position. What was one of the first thing she did? Why, she gave her boy george more billions so the killing wouldn't stop. And when the news came out about the spying on American citizens. That was an egregious violation of the Constitution. Did her or Nancy ever say anything. Hell no. Now we know why, they are as dirty as bush**, Cheney, Armitage, all of 'em.

Why is it that even as a minority the repubics have held the Congress hostage? There is not one thing that they've demanded that they haven't been given by the democratic leadership. Remember this little gem?

<snip>

By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.

If Bush vetoes the bill, “then the president won’t get his $50 billion,” Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a similar statement last week in a closed-door caucus meeting.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/reid_and_pelosi_threaten_iraq_cutoff_again/
<snip>

Bwahahahaha! Right!

Okay, let's move on to some of the most disgusting episodes in American history: our 8-year record of torture, extraordinary rendition, and Gitmo. Think there might have been a little something there that just cried out for investigation? Think there might have been a war crime involved anywhere? Did you ever hear one peep out of their mouths? Don't you tell me that they COULDN'T speak out. Don't even try. Because any and all creatures with a sense of dignity and ethics owed it to the US, Iraq, and the world to try to put an end to those obscene and immoral practices.

If Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid would have done what they were elected to do, which was to represent US, maybe some of the worst things that have happened to us in the past four years could have been prevented. Or at least mitigated some of the damage. But no, she and Harry liked those press conferences where they would stand on either side of Chimpy and make there announcements on reaching an agreement on 'trade'. But funny thing, we never got to hear what that agreement was. Or for that matter, all the times that those two buffoons stood up in front of a camera and gave legitimacy to whatever un-Constitutional or illegal scam that the neocons were running that week.

I'm was just sitting here trying to figure out what it is you do understand. And I've come to the conclusion that the only evidence of intelligence that I've seen come from you is the ability to turn on a computer and prove that you're an idiot.

[polmaven]

122. Like I said...

believe what you want to believe. Even that Dick Cheney is to be trusted to tell the truth...EVER! That is your right. I happen to believe you are 100% wrong about that, and that is MY right.

Oh, and if you insist on insulting people's intelligence, perhaps you should learn the difference between there and their.

[acmavm]

130. Don't worry slick, I know the difference. But when having to deal with morans

who my ex used to refer to as sexual intellectuals (fucking know-it-alls to you) I get really pissed. Just think how much we could have avoided if Nancy would have done her job. How much damage we could have prevented.

Excuse me. I suggested that you do something that apparently you are absolutely incapable of doing, and that is to THINK!

That was stupid.

[polmaven]

146. Well, of COURSE!

Bush should have been impeached in the House, then tried and acquitted in the Senate, after, of course, the same road had been taken regarding your apparent new hero, Dick Cheney.

I'm quite sure neither of those two would have seen the acquittal as being anything but verification that what they had done was justified. And surely, even if they had, that justification would NEVER have been taken as a sign of empowerment to do even more damage.

But then, whatever would make me think that they would not have been convicted in the Senate...after all, Democrats had a majority, right?


I realize that disagreeing with your point of view is against the rules, but, oh well, I'll take my chances.

[acmavm]

120. How old are you? Is your age and IQ the same?

Impeachment WAS and IS (too late now though) the biggest issue facing our country. No impeachment means that Chimpy and the rest of the criminals in this administration will skate, never pay for turning this country into a third world shithole.

[polmaven]

123. This isn't even worth answering.

Grow UP!

[acmavm]

128. You need to wise up.

[kenfrequed]

132. Actually...

This is more important than the current problem. The fact that we did not impeach sets the bar lower for our next leaders and allows the next president to be that much closer to dictator status. I fear a competant fundamentalist corporatist who is even more psychopathic and delusional seizing power while our culture breaks down because Obama is more willing to take on the trappings of Clinton than the mantel of FDR.

[kenfrequed]

127. Oh yeah...

Because with the threat of impeachment off the table they were able to coerse the Republicans into doing soooo much.

Primary challenges. All of them.

[disndat]

133. So what if Pelosi and Reid stood up to Bush

and failed. They couldn't look any weaker, or worse, than they do now. The people would have cheered them on.

[iconicgnom]

94. Then you say there's no defense against Cheney? You're OK with that?

[acmavm]

119. Apparently.

[iconicgnom]

93. Then WTF is Cheney doing, and are you seriously suggesting that there's no way to defend? n/t

[bleever]

54. I recall that at least some of them have refuted

Cheney's claims (made earlier) about their inclusion in briefings. Here is one account from Pelosi, via TPM:

"On one occasion, in the fall of 2002, I was briefed on interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using in the future. The Administration advised that legal counsel for the both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal.

"I had no further briefings on the techniques. Several months later, my successor as Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004862.php

On edit: This concerns interrogation, not surveillance, but it is an example of top Dems refuting Cheney's version of their inclusion in top-level briefings.

[hootinholler]

85. There's something about a hand written letter that Reid wrote to himself?

Something about the entire meeting being classified with no room to discuss anything with anyone. That kinda rings a bell with me, but I don't have time to research it right now. Might have been Rockefeller.

:shrug:

-Hoot

[bleever]

87. Yes, it was Rockefeller.

Here's a pdf of it: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/030717_Rockefeller_Intell_Letter.pdf

[hootinholler]

90. Thanks fot that! n/t

[acmavm]

25. Yeah, and those people have played so dishonestly with us that

I have no doubt that he's telling the truth.

We all know they were in on it.

[11 Bravo]

36. I want to be you when I grow up, sir.

(Although at age 57 I may be a lost cause.) I would have simply said that Dick Cheney is a lying sack of shit.

[bridgit]

45. Or how much of what they were told was spot-on deathly dead accurate for that matter...

[EstimatedProphet]

46. God forbid that stop people from jumping in to blame the Dem leaders though.

[Maven]

52. Then it should be a small matter to dispute his account.

[wyldwolf]

61. Cheney is a big fat liar... until he talks about Democrats...

:eyes:

Amazing how some here want our party to burn.

[PassingFair]

67. Then someone should ASK them....

and they will have to answer, YES, we did know.

[iconicgnom]

96. But what Cheney did say, is recorded fact. We certainly can go with that, and demand truth!

Or do you say that when Cheney speaks, it's gold for R's and D's both? That Cheney is the final voice?

[mmonk]

3. This is actually good in terms of letting people know

about their elected leaders.

[Merlot]

9. IF (and that's a big IF) you can believe anything cheney says

Were there notes or recording of these briefings? Why were they held in chencys office?

I'm not defending the dems or repubs involved. But bushco and cheeenny are working up their revisionist history sotries right now.

Oh, and faux, you can imagine that wallace was given the questions to ask ahead of time.

[madokie]

24. Under these circumstances I believe the dick can be trusted to tell us part of the truth

remember hes been implicated in war crimes and is looking for a way out of spending his last days possibly incarcerated. I say we need to look at the four Dem's and possibly charge them with something too. Torture is wrong and against the law

[polmaven]

34. OK, so...

when it suits your purposes to crap on the Dems who have not done EXACTLY as you want, then all of a sudden DICK CHENEY becomes a reliable source?????

What is HAPPENING here???????? :shrug:

[madokie]

43. I'm not crapping on any dems

I like Obama just fine and have only good things to say about him. I was pointing out that when a man/traitor, in this case cheney, is between a rock and a hard place he will most likely do whatever it takes to get out of that situation.

[polmaven]

49. Who said anything about

the president elect? His name is not on that list. Your post certainly appears to imply that, where the Democratic Congressional leadership is concerned, even Dick Cheney a reliable source for reasons to put them down.

[madokie]

51. Just whatever you want to think its a free country ;-)

edit to remove a want

[mmonk]

64. I did not state I believe everything Cheney has said

just like I don't believe Democrats knew nothing, were never briefed, nor had any inkling of any illegalities. I'm not naive in that way in either direction. Immunity for telecoms pretty much proves my point.

[Winterblues]

4. And that in a nutshell is why none of the Bush* Cabal will ever be pursued for crimes.

That is why "Impeachment is OFF the Table" and why no accountability will ever happen..Democrats are every bit as culpable..

[crikkett]

5. So the Dem names are....

from the article:

...what he said yesterday was merely an expanded and more detailed version of what has previously been publicly reported and, to some degree, confirmed about the knowledge and support of Democratic leaders for the NSA program. Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:

* Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader);

* Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee);

* Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee);

* Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader).

Unsurprisingly, Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller all voted last July to legalize warrantless eavesdropping and to immunize telecoms from liability, thereby ensuring an end to the ongoing investigations into these programs. And though he ultimately cast a meaningless vote against final passage, it was Reid's decisions as Majority Leader which played an instrumental role in ensuring passage of that bill.

I'd like to know what these four have to say about this matter.

[KansDem]

15. I'm confused...

* Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader);

* Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee);

* Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee);

* Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader).

Aren't Pelosi and Reid the majority leaders now? :shrug:

[dixiegrrrrl]

35. Cheney was speaking of the dates 01 thru 04

Reid and Polosi were minority ( ranking) leaders then.
Now of course they are majority leaders, since 06.

[KansDem]

39. Thanks for the clarification!

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

17. delete - see reply #20 below n/t

[peekaloo]

6. first and foremost: Cheney's lips are moving. nt.

[mmonk]

10. A basis for ignoring it as well as justice?

Too much evidence supports some democratic party support, even if out of fear.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Too Much Evidence Exists That Cheney Cannot Be Trusted

Sort of convenient that now when he says something that you already believed, you now find him trustworthy. So, he's a lying, evil bastard, until he says something you like? Then he's believable?
GAC

[mmonk]

41. I just love the false parameters you set up.

Not even the evil lie 100% of the time just like the good don't tell the truth 100% of the time. Cheney's statement might not be without exaggeration but also, it is true the Democrats have done nothing about it and gave the executive branch even more power despite all the cases and petitions brought forward by Constitutional Civil Liberities groups.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Just Comparing Evidence To Evidence

You said there was evidence of complicity. I said there was evidence that Cheney cannot be trusted.

I set up no parameters at all. You're just ducking the obvious.

And, i never suggested i'm ok with how the dem leaders behaved. I just see no reason to believe that they were in on the deal just because Cheney said so.
GAC

[mmonk]

47. I view complicity as letting it stand once you know as well as in

face of what is revealed, continue to allow votes to cover them.

[ProfessorGAC]

89. OK

Then we are just defining the terms differently. We essentially want the same thing. We just think there are different ways to get there. That's ok.
GAC

[peekaloo]

29. Not at all. Don't get me wrong on those listed and their actions.

It's the fear factor that intrigues me the most.

Curious to see if any one of those listed will respond and in what manner.

[asjr]

8. Come to think of it we were never told why

impeachment was "off the table." And I have already put away my tinfoil hat for winter.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Update from Greenwald...

"UPDATE: As I said, Cheney's time line is unclear, and it's possible, when he references an "additional controversy," he's referring to the DOJ's objections to the NSA program in March, 2004 -- not anything having to do with the New York Times. That would mean the detailed, expanded briefings he's describing would have included then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, but not Harry Reid (who only became Minority Leader in 2005, once Daschle lost). If Cheney is describing 2005 briefings, they would have included Reid. That's all the more reason why responses from leading Democrats here is required.

That key Democrats were briefed on the NSA program is anything but new. USA Today reported in 2006 that Democratic leaders including Pelosi were repeatedly briefed on the program. There is some marginal dispute about what they were and weren't told, but no dispute about the existence of the briefings and the complete lack of any real efforts by Democrats to stop it or even object."


Congress told 30 times about NSA programs
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-17-nsa-briefings_x.htm

Updated 5/18/2006

"...Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed seven times. The current ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel, Jane Harman of California, was briefed eight times.

Wednesday's briefings to the intelligence panels were called to help members understand the NSA programs in advance of today's confirmation hearing for Hayden before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said. "There was no way we could fulfill our collective constitutional responsibilities without that knowledge," Roberts said.

Hayden led the NSA when the agency conducted the warrantless wiretapping and, according to a USA TODAY report last week, secretly collected the domestic phone call records of tens of millions of Americans.

Citing the classified nature of the briefings, none of the members interviewed would say whether the sessions included information about the USA TODAY report or any other specific program.

"One of the problems is you never know what you don't know," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who was briefed on NSA operations for the first time Wednesday. "They've been giving us quite a bit of information. How comprehensive it is, I can't say."

[WhiteTara]

12. there needs to be a change in leadership NOW

I am writing my Congressman today. I think I'll call as well.

[KansDem]

14. Is this why impeachment is/was "off the table?" (nt)

[yodermon]

18. Even if this is true: Private Meetings with Congressmembers, even the leadership,

do not give legal blessing to illegal activity.

It is not the legislature's or executive's role to adjudicate the legality of certain actions wrt existing law. That is the sole domain of the judiciary. Basically, it just means that these member of Congress are complicit in the conspiracy to violate the law (which of course is the point of the OP).

[slipslidingaway]

20. SEE THE LIST: Lawmakers at NSA briefings since '01

List is from May 2006

Four page pdf file with dates, locations and names of those who attended meetings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program...found in the Greenwald update.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2006-05-17-nsa-list.pdf


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-17-nsa-briefings_x.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. They're two sides of the same worthless coin.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Did I Miss The "Cheney Is Now Trustworthy" Memo?

Now, we're going to believe what this guy says? There is EVIDENCE of his lies, obfuscations, and omissions for nearly 8 years, and NOW we're going to trust what he says?

Why?
GAC

[yellerpup]

27. If these meetings happened in the time frame immediately after 9/11

there was a Republican majority. Would the players mentioned above have still been in the mix?

[glitch]

28. Lie down with rats, get up with plague. nt

[Individualist]

30. It amazes me that anyone can still be in denial

about the neocon enabling DLC. What doesn't amaze me is the way DLC supporters are going all out to spin this report.

[alfredo]

31. Cheney doesn't have a good record when it comes to being truthful.

[balantz]

32. It's pretty simple.

They never impeached him and they kept voting for and funding his projects.

Who can't see they are in with the fascists?

[Festivito]

33. They must deny under oath; or resign or face pitch forks and torches.

We need to take our country back, return to justice as the first establishment.

We lose three of the four to Republican governors. But, it will be the right choice and appear as such.

[Pachamama]

37. It is the reason Pelosi & Reid have refused to Impeach Cheney & Bush - because they know that the

proceedings and discovery process would reveal their complicity and knowledge of violations of their constitutional oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Personally, I think that anyone, Republican or Democrat that aided and abetted this administration into their deliberate breaking of the law, should be removed from office, prevented from ever serving in public office again and hopefully prosecuted and punished too. I know people who often have said that there is only one party and there is little difference between the Dems and Republicans. Of course, we know the glowing differences, but I must say that I am starting to feel as if there is truly one party and they purposely divide us and let us think that there are two parties, but in reality, the Dems over the last 8 years, including even when they have gotten control of Congress, have been complicit in allowing the Republicans and the BushCheney administration to do a lot of the damage they have done. It is truly the only way I can explain why they have not proceeded with impeachment. They are covering their own asses.

[bridgit]

42. Of course Cheney is a noodnik, and the 'encompassed' names are like the same tail being pinned...

on the same DU donkeys over & over again. But now I am, I am wondering just what DU would have authorized the institution & continuance of 'in the after math of 9/11' from the comforts of their home/underground commando computer chairs and with reams of scary intell stuff in their hands from viable & fantastical sources while the ashes were still falling from the skies of NYC.

[bbgrunt]

50. k and r kand r k and r

[spanone]

55. i don't care what party is involved, arrest them all.

[bdamomma]

112. Cheney is an arrogant POS, he should be arrested.

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Cheney is just trying to protect himself. Did he tell them BEFORE 9/11 when he started it? Hell no!

He told them after it was a national security matter. Indict him for doing it in January 2001 when they was no earthly reason to do it. Problem solved.

[bleever]

91. I bet

you could expand that into an excellent OP if you were inclined.

[bobthedrummer]

58. "Inconvenient truths about the New Democrats, the Third Way, Democratic leadership Council, etc"

a related, critical archived DU thread started March 7, 2008
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2973191

[FLAprogressive]

60. Pelosi/Reid/Harman/Rockefeller should rot in prison cells next to Cheney/*/Rove

[nolabels]

117. Stripping them of their congressional retirement and putting them on parole should be enough

There needs to be enough space in those prison cells for the true hardened criminals like Cheney,Bush and Rove

[Radical Activist]

62. We don't know what they were told

and which programs they were told about.

[stevedeshazer]

65. Cheney is right. I believe him.

We've known that the leaders of Congress and the leaders of their respective intelligence committees were briefed on this matter. We've known it since at least as far back as December 2005.

Nancy Harman helped convince the NYT's editorial board to withhold the story for MORE THAN A YEAR prior to that. Eric Lichtau wrote about it in his book.

Check out this snip from:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/key_dem_urged_nyt_reporter_aga.php

I approached Harman with notepad in hand and told her that I’d been involved in our reporting the year before on the NSA eavesdropping program. “I’m trying to square what I heard in there,” I said, “with what we know about that program.” Harman’s golden California tan turned a brighter shade of red. She knew exactly what I was talking about. Shooing away her aides, she grabbed me by the arm and drew me a few feet away to a more remote section of the Capitol corridor.

“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew – namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,” she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated. This was clearly as far as she was willing to take the conversation, and we didn’t speak again until months later, after the NSA story had already run. By then, Harman’s position had undergone a dramatic transformation. When the story broke publicly, she was among the first in line on Capitol Hill to denounce the administration’s handling of the wiretapping program, declaring that what the NSA was doing could have been done under the existing FISA law.

Harman did say in an appearance on Meet The Press in 2006, after the story broke, that she "deplored" the leak that led to the Times story. But she said that the president's public confirmation of the program's existence after the Times story had allowed her to consult with "constitutional experts, the former general counsel of the CIA, some of the excellent staff on the House Intelligence Committee." She continued: "then I learned, although I’m a trained lawyer, about some of the serious legal issues that I have been raising ever since."

----
Of course the Democrats are complicit.

Why is that so hard to accept?

[PassingFair]

68. Because many people here think that politics is a GAME.

And that everything is OK as long as THEIR TEAM IS WINNING.

They are republicanesque.

[FLAprogressive]

69. Exactly....they think everyone with a "D" on the end of their name is good...

even the most vile DLC/Blue Dog reactionaries.....

[PassingFair]

70. Actually, they are quite willing to smirk and deride those they see as "back benchers"

like Dean, Feingold and Kucinich.

They like the ones that bring in the corpo bucks.
Those are their "star" players.

[FLAprogressive]

71. Oh yes. I know a few of them here...they actively scoff at the "left"

I wish we could just break off from the DLC Party and form a new Democratic party....one that stands up for the progressive ideals our party used to stand for.

[PassingFair]

73. Well beyond time for a Progressive Party.

If we start agitating now, Obama will
have to turn to progressive action or
face running against a third party that
will split his vote in 2012.

[FLAprogressive]

74. Yup. the triangulation of the left needs to stop. nt

[FLAprogressive]

75. this needs another kick. time to recruit primary challenges against these traitors. nt

[ProSense]

76. Cheney must be worried or trying to salvage his and Bush's reputation

Cheney must be worried or trying to salvage his and Bush's reputation

[FLAprogressive]

77. can't accept that some traitors in our own party were in on it? nt

[ProSense]

78. No, can't accept the word of a lying ass war criminal

in the face of the facts at that link.

[FLAprogressive]

79. Yet they did nothing about it. Notice that Jane Harman doesn't have an excuse yet? nt

[ProSense]

80. Nonsense. The facts are clear. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

81. Denial is the first step.

Anyone who says that Pelosi, Reid, Harman, Rockefeller and the leadership has not been complacent in the BushCo. war crimes is in serious denial.

[ProSense]

82. The desire to salivate doesn't make Cheney's lie true.

This is serious desperation.

[MilesColtrane]

83. And, now we know why there were no impeachment proceedings against Cheney.

"Yaaa...see? You make a play for me, I'll take you down with me, see? Snaarl!"

[PassingFair]

84. They should have started impeachment proceedings against

Bush and Cheney for lying to Congress.

[FLAprogressive]

86. But remember...it would have been too "divisive". As if that's ever stopped anyone.....nt

[bdamomma]

113. and Cheney is vindictive enough to take everyone down with him.

these House and Senate leaders both Democrat and Republican know alot more of this situation than what they are telling the public about it, we should all know how they keep information like this to themselves. Cheney needs his a$$ kicked to the curb, or arrested.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Thanks for confirming what I already knew...

and why there is no impeachment

[droidamus2]

98. Sure we always get the truth from Bush/Cheney

Bush/Cheney briefed the whole country on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Al-Queda connections to Iraq and all sorts of other BS in Iraq and that proved to be real accurate. We know that the bush cadre are not above cooking the intell and creating their own reality. Yes I would like to hear some responses from the Democrats named but until then I will choose not to believe much of anything Cheney tells me. I see this as somewhat of a threat in the sense that he may be letting the Democratic leadership know that if they go after him he will drag them into it and keep them tied up in his mess and away from doing their jobs in Congress. If the Democratic leadership was duped that is one thing if they were complicit then they should be exposed but again it is Dick Cheney talking so the odds are at least part of what he is saying is a lie.

[and-justice-for-all]

102. How much lying has this rat fuck done during his White House career?

I do not trust a damn thing this asshole says, he is a lying fuck and a traitor.

[dreamnightwind]

136. Both things are true

moved this post to the top level
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4701396&mesg_id=4710310>

[NashVegas]

110. This Is Just What Many of Us Have Said Everytime BushCo Breaks a Law

And congress remakes the law, and gives retro-active immunity from prosecution.

I don't doubt there was some extortion involved, but the bottom lines is Democrats in congress were complicit everytime they caved.

[OwnedByFerrets]

111. I want them to deny that they are guilty of this crime, as well as the

ones concerning torture.

[KharmaTrain]

115. Hostage Mentality

Rockafeller was the worst...spine of jelly and was obviously intimidated by cheney...I mean scared shit. He claims he had reservations...wrote it out in a letter and put it in his desk. Great going, patriot. Harmon was just as bad...completely hoodwinked by this regime and totally out of her league...always opportunistic and saw being "tough of terror" as a winner...as did many back in '02 & '03.

Anyone who dared to dissent was stomped on by a totally stupified and compicit corporate media and hate radio...the intimidation factor was intense and these were people who crumbled under that pressure. Of course Cheney is gonna try to take others down with him...muddy all the waters, but I saw a lot more extortion and intimidation going on that led to docile complicity.

The need for a tribunal to investigate all the abuses of the past 8 years is imperative if this nation is ever to restore not only its international respect, but its own self esteem. When that time comes, no one is immune from responsibiility in the crimes committed...no one!

[Joanne98]

116. This isn't surprising. I"ve never believed their "Bush tricked me" defense.

[dysfunctional press]

121. just more reasons why pelosi and reid HAVE TO GO!

NOTHING meaningful is going to change with those worthless pieces of shit at the helm in congress.

[lovuian]

126. Hey if he goes down they will too and Congress

gave the money and gave the OK and all who signed on are part of the NWO

[Alcibiades]

129. You cannot impeach

for crimes that you helped commit.

This explains a lot.

[mikehiggins]

135. Thank you, DIck

You're still a dick, Dick, but this time you pulled the rug off of some of the other roaches hiding in the dark

How can anyone maintain hope in the face of stuff like this?

Dick is basically saying, yeah, I did it and what do you THINK you're going to do about it?

And Bush pardons him on the way out the door, leaving the Democratic leadership swinging in the wind.

No wonder the GOPukes have such a low opinion of us. This kind of thing leaves a bad taste, even in their mouths.

The nation may well be doomed.

[dreamnightwind]

138. Both things are true

Cheney is no doubt telling his version of the truth, leaving out important details to present it in a way that suits his purposes. He's a total snake. Probably too smart to straight-out lie, more likely he picks exactly the bits of reality that will tell his story and omits the rest. So no, we shouldn't trust his words on this.

Neither should we discount them. It no doubt IS true that these people were briefed (thanks for posting the pdf link above whoever did it, what a list of worthless "public servants" that was!) We don't know exactly what they were told nor in exactly what context. Saying, based on this, that the Dems involved are no better than the BFEE is absurd. Also saying these Dems are blameless is absurd. We're intelligent enough, hopefully, to look at nuance and degrees of complicity without knee jerk judgments.

Prosecute them all, I have no interest in protecting any Dems involved, but let's not fall for the "dems are no better than repubs" trap, it ain't true.

I also don't think this is necessarily related to the impeachment issue. Though I love conspiracy theories and buy into them more than most, I think they made a political decision to let the Bushies be a fatal stone around the GOP's neck through the 2008 election, for the purpose of getting more seats in congress and getting the Whitehouse. If so, I think they seriously underestimated how much further damage the Bushies could do if left in office. Got us a brand new depression, it did, we're totally screwed.

I agree that we need a new party that is truly progressive, or better yet we could kick out the DLC types. Actually if we could make common ground with the disaffected right (like the Ron Paul types) we could squeeze out the corporate centrists. Sounds far-fetched, but these are our fellow citizens, and the corporatists basically divided and conquered us using wedge issues such as abortion, homosexuality, the communist left bogeyman, firearms, etc. There are ways around these divisions, and as things deteriorate (which they will now with the economy collapsing) we either need to make common cause with these people or end up fighting them. The real enemy is global capital, not the domestic right wing.

[Stinky The Clown]

139. And we should trust The Dick's account of this ....... why?

[stillcool]

140. there must be a shitstorm brewing..

in the lower ranks, that Cheney's trying to get out in front of.

[DireStrike]

141. Now that Cheney says so, I am wary of believing this to be true anymore.

Of course I did before, it was obvious we had some weak and stupid DINOS in the party. Lots of them, in fact, who would gladly stand up straighter and smile brighter whenever a good old Fascist In Charge walked into the room.

But it's just so rare that anything they say is true, and not deceptive. Hmm, this requires more thinking.

[Phred42]

149. This is why there has been no Impeachment - Blackmail

Blackmail

[Mark Twain Girl]

150. Let justice be done though the heavens fall. Anyone involved must be held accountable. nt