Cheyenne

Cheney...the very name creates visions of a snarling, angry man. A man who went into office worth 20+ million, and will leave office worth an estimated 180+ million. What kind of return on your investment is that?

Eisenhower predicted this predicament; and he was a republican. He foresaw the danger of the military industrial complex.

Have you had a chance to watch Syriana yet?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061226_robert_scheer_ike_was_right...

inimical
One entry found for inimical.

Main Entry: in•im•i•cal
Pronunciation: i-'ni-mi-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin inimicalis, from Latin inimicus enemy -- more at ENEMY
1 : being adverse often by reason of hostility or malevolence
2 a : having the disposition of an enemy : HOSTILE b : reflecting or indicating hostility : UNFRIENDLY

Robert Scheer: Ike Was Right
Posted on Dec 26, 2006
By Robert Scheer
The public, seeing through the tissue of Bush administration lies told to justify an invasion that never had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 or weapons of mass destruction, now has begun a national questioning: Why are we still in Iraq? The answers posted most widely on the Internet by critics of the war suggest its continuation as a naked imperial grab for the world’s second-largest petroleum source, but that is wrong.
It’s not primarily about the oil; it’s much more about the military-industrial complex, the label employed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 45 years ago when he warned of the dangers of “a permanent arms industry of vast proportions.”

The Cold War had provided the rationale for the first peacetime creation of a militarized economy. While the former general, Eisenhower, was well aware of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, he chose in his farewell presidential address to the nation to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own, one that was inimical to the survival of American democracy:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Ponder those words as you consider the predominant presence of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney in the councils of this White House, and how his old company has profiteered more than any other from the disaster that is Iraq. Despite having been found to have overcharged some $60 million to the U.S. military for fuel deliveries, the formerly bankrupt Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in lucrative contracts.

End quote.

Have you had an opportunity to consider that the local hero from Wyoming, Dick Cheney, is an international villain?

Cheney does not care if you live or die, he cares about money and the white people he knows who make the money.

Enzi is Cheney-lite. Enzi has been groomed to take Cheney place. Thomas is to good-hearted and ill. Cubin is cross-eyed and absent. Enzi has the opportunity to become Tricky Dick the III.

An open rebuttal to Senator Mike Enzi:

Sir,

Thank you for your reply. I have a many problems with the logic you have presented in your argument for full support of illegal spying on United States citizens, legalizing the degradation of habeus corpus, and refusing oversight of the executive branch of government.

To begin, maybe as a former accountant who is currently involved with Washington D.C. politics, you could elaborate on John McCain’s role in the Savings and Loans scandal . While you have taken McCain’s judgment to be unquestionable, certainly his ethics can be considered questionable when it comes to the governance of this country. If this were not true, he might actually have a shot at the presidency. Graham has been accused of misleading the Supreme Court.

Secondly, Jose Padilla, an accused terrorist, is a United States citizen. Regardless of the right or wrong of his actions, the Justice Dept. under guidance of the executive branch has violated Padilla’s constitutional rights . And, according to his defense lawyers, subjected him to torture. There are many other instances of alleged torture by the United States.

With your open support of the NSA spying on Americans, the spying a fact repeatedly documented in the press, I deny your primary argument directly.

Congress has not declared a war against terror . Because it is a verb! The powers the administration claims during wartime are moot; there is no war. Just as Oliver North and TIA got shot down during the Reagan years, supposedly part of the Cold War, the NSA spying will be shot down as well. I am supposed to feel sympathy for a Department of Justice headed by a man (Gonzales) who tried to find loopholes for torturing?

Where was your concern for tax dollars and man hours considering the outing of a CIA operative (Plame)? Plame was assigned to nuclear proliferation, dealing with Iran (a current national security concern), and outed by the White House. Clearly a treasonous action. Instead, the White House can drag these charges out for years, while you simply state “innocent until proven guilty”? Refusal of oversight is a dereliction of duty!

Senator, if you have read the news (AP) lately you will notice people released from Guantanamo without charges to their respective countries. If we are to believe your rhetoric, why are these people walking free? Again, your point does not stand up to public scrutiny and facts.

The worst part of the matter; the men who ordered these crimes of torture to be committed have placed the accountability squarely on the shoulders of our troops. Blaming the troops for following orders!

Speaking of Defense Bills, why, sir, is it so important posse comitatus be removed from the Constitution? Surely Katrina is not the answer. The blame for the poor response lies directly at the city, state, and federal level. Since you operate at the federal level, you must understand this incompetent administration does not need to pick up any more responsibilities. The DHS cannot even screen internet predators from its ranks!

Please in the future, in regard to correspondence, save the rhetoric for party liners. I had stated in my original letter; I am an informed, independent voter in the state of Wyoming. I write for the Cheyenne Drinking Liberally blog. It is well past time, sir, for you to show allegiance to our country and the great state of Wyoming over the GOP!

Thank you,

Nathan Maine

In reply to queries regarding the duties of oversight, the Senator sent me the following reply:

Dear Nathan:

On September 29, 2006, I joined 65 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the passage of S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I understand your opposition to this legislation; however, I believe it is necessary to defend our nation against terrorists.

President Bush established the original military commissions after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when he realized we were fighting an enemy that did not respect the rule of law or the sovereignty of the United States. He issued the President's Military Order of November 13, 2001 directing the Department of Defense to conduct military commissions and charges of courts-martial for enemy combatants captured during military operations in the Global War on Terrorism. On June 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the President lacked the authority to proceed with military tribunals for enemy combatants. The Supreme Court ruling returned the matter to the United States Congress for resolution under American law and international treaty obligations.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is the product of work by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a prisoner of war in Vietnam; Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a military judge and military reservist member of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps; and Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA), a World War II veteran and former Secretary of the Navy. These Senators drew on their personal experiences and qualifications to draft legislation that will allow our armed service members to keep America safe while respecting the rule of law. They worked in consultation with President Bush, but ultimately the Senate passed legislation that I believe addresses the new threat of terrorists who wear no uniform, claim no allegiance to any nation, and will use any means to harm the United States and our citizens.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 creates a legal framework for the detention, questioning and prosecution of terrorists detained in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader Global War on Terrorism. The Senate tailored existing military and civilian tribunals that have been used to prosecute war criminals since World War II to reflect the realities of terrorist warfare that our men and women in uniform now face. The military commissions will provide all of the legal protections afforded under the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the bill, terrorists will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They will have the right to a JAG attorney or a civilian counsel. They will have the opportunity to challenge their detention as well as the evidence against them. A Combatant Status Review Tribunal, similar to a grand jury, will determine if an enemy combatant is lawful or unlawful and if a military commission should be convened. A five or 12-member military commission, depending on the charge and potential length of sentence, will then conduct a trial fashioned after a court-martial overseen by a military judge.

I would like to dispel a falsity used by opponents of this legislation. In no way does this law allow for the use of torture by the United States of America. In 2005, following the dishonorable actions at Abu Ghraib, the Senate passed amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 and the Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 sponsored by Senator McCain that became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which reaffirmed the United States position against the use of torture and provided our armed forces with a clear definition of acceptable detention practices in the Army Field Manuel. I supported both amendments and I do not support the use of torture.

Finally, I want to address your specific concerns about habeas corpus. I want to make it clear that the provisions dealing with habeas corpus only apply to non-United States citizens. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the habeas corpus statute, 28 USC 2241, in Rasul, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Detainee Treatment Act in Hamdan, enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay were awarded the privilege of a petition for habeas corpus status before a U.S. federal court.

There have been 160 habeas petitions on behalf of approximately 300 detainees filed in federal court to date. The challenges have been filed including those questioning the quality of their food and speed of mail delivery. Others have questioned the legality of their detention, being returned to the country of their citizenship, and allotment of exercise time. The Department of Justice is devoting tremendous resources to the litigation of habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees. These are resources and energy that should be devoted to prosecuting terrorists.

This detainee population includes highly trained and dangerous members of the al Qaeda terrorist network, namely terrorist trainers, recruiters, bomb-makers, operatives, and financiers. The same terrorists that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 and have been fighting our armed services personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world have begun claiming the rights and benefits of the U.S. Constitution, our laws, and treaties. The Military Commissions Act clarifies the previous understanding of the habeas statute that terrorists outside the United States do not have access to our federal courts.

The House of Representatives passed S. 3930 on September 29, 2006. President Bush signed the bill into law (Public Law 109-366) on October 17, 2006.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very difficult and complicated issue. I think we can both agree on the importance of allowing individuals being held by the United States to have the opportunity to answer to the charges they face and seek judicial resolution.

I want my constituents to have access to a more complete view of Congress and my activities so I have started a monthly e-newsletter. It is a brief summary of important issues and happenings. I encourage you to sign up on my web page at enzi.senate.gov. You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Sincerely,
Michael Enzi, U.S. Senator
Chairman: Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

MBE:bn

It seems I might be getting some Christmas love a little early via the ghost of Christmas future in the form of Congressman Henry Waxman. Seems Henry thinks Cheney’s no-bid getting Halliburton got some ‘splaining to do. Read ‘em and weep, Cheney lovers!

And then Geiger got Reid on the record: “ Reid: I closed the Senate -- closed it down, for the first time in a long, long, long time. I did it because Republicans were stonewalling us on investigating why we went to war. There were five issues that were to be looked at by that committee and since I closed the Senate, we've only gotten two of them. Now that we're in charge, with Senator Rockefeller, we'll get the other three.

We're going to find out how intelligence was manipulated, taking us to war. We have to look back to be able to look forward. We're going to do both. We're not going to limit ourselves to looking back but we have to look back in an effort to go forward.”

Get ready for investigations. The bad thing is for this administration is the dirt is not to far below the surface, this time. Its going to be like peeling the onion at a Taco Bell, first you cry, then you crap your pants.