The Hand Cheney Dealt Himself

By Keith R. Schmitz

Tough time for someone not only to be a liberal but a fan of rule of law.

Check out the dilemma laid out by Ron Suskind on Salon.com.

In talking about the possibility of impeaching torture enabler and now federal judge for life Jay S. Bybee, Susskind notes that torture that was sanctioned is a violation of treaties not only negotiated by this country, but by the Reagan administration.

Accordingly, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that "(A)ll Treaties made ... under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. This country's authoritarian conservatives therefore who cavalierly feel that we should disregard these treaties are insisting we violate the Constitution.

Certainly Barack Obama as a Constitutional law professor, is painfully aware of this fact. Barack Obama as President of the United States however, also has to deal with the massive junk heap of problems left behind by Cheney's administration, further complicated by the prospect of an investigation into these abuses being incredibly distracting from the heavy lifting at hand.

But there is the possibility of crimes being committed by Cheney and others and the law being flaunted, especially if, as Suskind pointed on Rachel Maddow's show the other night, torture was used to construct an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. Then the case to move forward is compelling.

What to do? Maybe put the investigation in the hands of Attorney General Eric Holder and have him conduct low level probes until the major problems Obama is dealing with subside a little bit, then put it on all cylinders. But, at the same time, liberals and others who hold our legal system important should continue to push on the issue.

Cheney Makes the Case for His Own Impeachment

By Keith R. Schmitz

On ABC last night Vice-President Dick Cheney defended the decision to go into Iraq:

I think we made the right decision in spite of the fact that the original [intelligence estimate] was off in some of its major judgments.

It is more likely that Cheney wanted to invade Iraq and would have done it even if the intelligence showed Saddam Hussein was Mother Teresa. Again he makes the fine men and women working intelligence who are doing the job of protecting us out to be the fall guys. Valarie Plame was not exceptional in this case. What a class act Cheney is.

We all of have our ideas why we made this mistake -- other than the supposed threat of Hussein -- and all of them are probably right.

Even if Cheney and Bush had gone into Iraq for honorable, decent, constructive reasons the invasion was poorly planned, ham-handedly conducted and opened the doors to incredible corruption on the part of administration cronies. Over 4,000 of our own people have been killed, thousands more injured, thousands more of the reservists had their lives disrupted due to stop loss, scores of thousands of Iraqis killed and about two million displaced from their homes.

At the least honest leadership with character would have resigned in disgrace or a competent Congress - both on the Republican and Democratic side -- would have held hearings and meted out punishments and sanctions.

The New York Times on Sunday had an op-ed talking about how the Clinton impeachment poisoned our political process with the partisanship leaving little taste for another impeachment, this time for what looks like cause.

In the dwindling days of the Bush administration it looks like this inquiry won't happen. And let's be clear. An impeachment is only an inquiry, not a conviction, and should have been conducted to get to the bottom of this colossal mess.

The founding fathers put impeachment in place for a reason -- to prevent an out of control executive branch. If we fail to hold the Bush administration accountable for this and a bunch of other suspicious acts, the standard for impeachment will be so high that this Congress may have rendered that section of the Constitution effectively null and void.

Happy 5th Anniversary Iraq Invasion -- What No Party?

By Keith Schmitz

Today, if you did the labor of visiting the conservative local blogs you'd find they all one thing in common.

No comments on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq Invasion.

What? This of course is not the worst blunder in American foreign policy history because it's creators wanted to go there from day one they got into office.

Nevertheless, up until recently the blogs on the right prayed for this, cheer led this, backed their Jethro Bodine channeling president and thrilled when ever bogus "evidence" of the non-existent WMD's surfaced. Ah, the good old days of yesteryear.

Ah, the invasion that would rid of the "threat" of Saddam Hussein, that would create a paradise for the Iraqi people, that would be paid for by oil revenues.

The Iraq invasion. Now our brethren on the right treat you like an orphan to be abandoned on the door step.

Only problem is we are left with the bleeding from our treasury, a generation of soldiers who have to live with their personal nightmares and the families of those who didn't make it living without fathers, mothers, siblings children.

But we do have this:

ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Wow!