Will Bush dump Cheney

“Interesting rumor - there is a discrete "dump Cheney" faction in the Republican party. Maybe they could blame it on his health?”

“There is no way Rove would have any of that!”

“Besides - we all know who wears the pants in the Bush/Cheney relationship.”

“I read the other day that there was talk of dumping Cheney and putting Guiliani on the ticket...”

“Let's see some sources before I start whipping up the band, k?”

“I didn't even know they were dating?!?!”

“Bush thinks he can win if he can get the "angry-left" vote. Watch for Bush to dump Cheney and choose Dean as his running mate.”

“The answer is unequivocably no.

Bush has made that clear more than once. It's a thing that the talking heads like to latch onto in the quest for better dirt than the other network.

Then again, Bush lied about WMD, so, ...”

“There was an article about just this subject in today's Asia Times Online.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FA29Aa01.html”

“Yes, Bush has said that he was keeping his first guy, but he has been noticeably absent lately.


Hmmmmm, is he hiding out in his bunker?”

“xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

“Its not up to Dubya.”

“Not up to President Bush? How do you figure that?”

“Dubya is a tool, he does what he's told.”

“Given that you are so wise and such an indpendent thinker, I'll take your word for it.”

“NoProb - A quick overview of the Republican responses on this message board will quickly reveal the fact that Bush is not or ever repsonisble for anything that happens in this country.....”

“Yes, that's why I'm defering to you wise indepentent thinkers.”

“I've heard this too. The thinking is that by dumping Cheney they can shed the whole Haliburtin thing plus if Bush does win in 04 they won't have to try and sell us a Cheney for Pres. ticket that is on death's door. I've heard a Bush/Julioni ticket in 04 and then a Julioni/Codolisa Rice ticket in 08.

I could go for Julioni being in the mix.”

“Would he have to eat Cheney first?”

“msnbc ran the same story, Dr. Pivo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=4065772&p1=0

I do find it interesting that Bush has gone out of his way to
publicly contradict Dick a couple of times lately.


Giuliani would be a great choice. Lets have a guy who brought his
mistress into the house with him while his estranged wife and kids
still lived there represent the 'family values' party.

I love the idea.”

“ Let's clear that up.”

“Hey Buck. Do you have some reason to question my morals?”

“Bush-Guiliani vs. Kerry-Edwards?

#&%!$in'.”

“The day Cheney was rocked to the core
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - If United States Vice President Dick Cheney was hoping that the cold, crisp air of Davos and his private audience withPope John Paul II late last month would revive his spirits, as well as his standing in the polls, he must be deeply disappointed.

Since returning home, he has faced a seemingly unrelenting succession of disclosures and attacks that appear to get worse with each passing day. What the albatross was to the ancient mariner, Cheney is fast becoming to George W Bush's re-election chances.

Just consider what happened to Cheney Thursday: the early morning edition of the Wall Street Journal ran an article - first reported by Newsweek - on how Justice Department investigators had asked Halliburton Company for documents relating to US$180 million in allegedly illegal payments by a consortium of companies, including Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, in connection with the construction of a big natural-gas plant in Nigeria in the late 1990s, while Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer.

When the Los Angeles Times hit the news stands a couple of hours later, Cheney was right there on the front page with the headline: "Scalia was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest; Ethics Concern Grows." Antonin Scalia is a Supreme Court Justice who was Cheney's guest on a recent and rather costly (to the taxpayer) bird-hunting trip to Louisiana, and who also will soon hear a major case on government secrecy in which the vice president is the defendant.

Legal ethics experts quoted in the story, of course, zeroed in on the question of whether Scalia might best recuse himself from hearing the case, but there were also suggestions that perhaps Cheney could have exercised slightly better judgement. "It is not just a trip with a litigant. It's a trip at the expense of the litigant," noted one law professor.

Finished with the morning papers, Cheney may have tuned in to watch Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet deliver a passionate defense at Georgetown University of the official intelligence community's performance in the runup to the Iraq war, only to find himself a target, if only inferentially.

While Tenet didn't say anything explicitly about Cheney, he certainly didn't do much to dispel the increasingly strong impression in Washington - among Democrats, it's become a conviction - that, of all of Bush's senior advisers, Cheney and his staff worked hardest to hype what the intelligence community was saying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs.

While the intelligence community had concluded that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, Tenet declared, it also made clear as of late 2002 that Saddam had none, and that he probably would not have been able to make one until some time between 2007 and 2009, at the earliest.

That assertion, of course, raises a major question. If the intelligence community agreed that Saddam had no nuclear weapons, where did Cheney get the information that would substantiate his statement on the very day that the US launched its invasion last March: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The answer, according to Democratic members of the Congressional intelligence committees, who have become increasingly outspoken in recent days, is that Cheney and his staff had an independent source of "intelligence" outside the formal intelligence community. Lodged in the Pentagon's policy shop under Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, the now-notorious Office of Special Plans "cherry-picked" raw intelligence, interviewed "defectors", and produced its own talking points and analysis that were "stovepiped" straight to Cheney's office, notably John Hannah, his top Mideast staffer, and I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his powerful chief of staff.

When asked about this theory by a Georgetown student on Thursday, Tenet answered artfully, asserting: "I can tell you with certainty that the president of the United States gets his intelligence from one person and one community - me ... The rest of it, I don't know."

In the legal profession, Tenet's reply is called a negative pregnant, an apparent denial that suggests that further questioning may be fruitful. Indeed, Republican Jane Harmon, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, noted in a CNN interview on Thursday evening that, in speaking of "one community", Tenet was effectively confirming that the Pentagon-Cheney channel, that provided a much more alarmist view of Saddam's capabilities, may well have been at work

But if Cheney felt displeased by Tenet's performance, things only got worse - much worse - later in the afternoon when United Press International (UPI) reported what has been rumored ever since Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation into the "outing" as a CIA officer by "two senior administration officials" of Valerie Plame, shortly after her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, had published an article in the New York Times charging that the administration knew that its reports of Saddam's alleged attempts to buy uranium yellowcake in Africa were bogus.

Quoting "federal law-enforcement officials," UPI's intelligence correspondent Richard Sale reported on Thursday that the two main suspects were none other than Libby and Hannah. One official reportedly told Sale that Hannah was being advised "that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time" in order to pressure him to implicate higher-ups - presumably Libby, if not, perhaps, Cheney himself.

A 1982 law makes deliberately revealing the identity of covert intelligence officers a felony punishable by as many as 10 years in prison. If either Hannah or Libby were officially named as suspects or actually indicted, the impact on Cheney's credibility and electability would be devastating.

According to recent polls, Cheney's approval ratings, hovering around 20 percent, are already far below Bush's, which have themselves sunk below 50 percent for the first time in his presidency. Even Halliburton, whose public image has become so tarnished that it has launched a controversial television ad campaign to boost its image, last week listed Cheney's association to the company as a "risk factor" for its shareholders.

Republicans in Congress, particularly on the intelligence and foreign relations committees, find themselves having to devote more time and political capital to defending the vice president, and even some influential Republican donors have privately suggested that Cheney bow out. Speculation about possible replacements - most recently, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (the Republican convention is in New York City, August 30 to September 2.) - is growing steadily.
Of course, there's always another day.”

“Bush can't get rid of Cheney, who will tell him what to do?”

“I see no reason to improve that ticket. I say let them stay together, they've obviously have done a......bang up job!

Dumping Chaney would do nothing. I have a real hard time understanding why this Gee Double Moron has a hard time accepting responsiblity for anything? Be a Man, for goodness sake!”

“If (big if) Lewis Libby fingers Cheney, there will be no choice but to replace him. You can't be VP if you're serving time in a federal pen.”

“"I have a real hard time understanding why this Gee Double Moron has a hard time accepting responsibility for anything? Be a Man, for goodness sake!"

Ya gotta start with being a man.”

“And let that be a lesson to all of you! "Ya gotta start with being a man"”

“Unless of course, your a woman.”

“In the House of White
Are many curtained windows
Time to draw them back.”

“Dood - Lewis will be found on a park bench with his brains blown out from a ball and cap pistol....heheheee”

“Sinister. That word keeps cropping up in descriptions of Dick Cheney's public countenance.
As the choice for veep in 2000, he was the opposite of scary; he was seen as a soothing selection: wise, unflappable, hardboiled, heavy. It was Bush who suffered in comparison to the uber-competent Cheney. The joke was that Papa Bush’s cronies sent Cheney in to watch over Junior, mentor him and mind the till. Now he’s the bogeyman.


Is the "undisclosed location" business still necessary? Was it ever? Why does such a careful man, such a team player, persist in making claims about Saddam's Iraq that would be considered "off the reservation" from other players? Why is one of the administration’s most agile advocates kept away from the press? Why is it that he emerges most often for fundraisers, playing right into the paid-for-by-Halliburton image? Maybe that’s the image they want: these are calculating people.

It is an image that is causing mild heartburn for some Republicans thinking about November, enough to fuel a boomlet of speculation, wishful thinking and mischievous gossip that Cheney might get dumped from the ticket. Replacement names have been floated: Bill Frist, Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, John McCain and Tommy Thompson.

The smart money says that will never happen. But smart money has been dumb this year in politics. Who knows?

What does seem important is that conservatives and Republicans who like Cheney are worried that he is personifying unpopular qualities of this administration and is a liability outside of their world.

The precipitating event, strangely enough, was one of the rare interviews Cheney submitted to, this time with National Public Radio in January. He resurrected two controversial and suspect claims that the administration had abandoned. He said, again, that there was "overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." Meanwhile, Colin Powell had just said he didn’t know of any "smoking gun, concrete evidence" of such a connection.

Cheney also claimed that two trailers found after the war provided "conclusive evidence" that Iraq had a biological weapons program. This is in direct opposition to what the CIA’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, concluded.

This was something of tipping point in the "Is Cheney a liability?" indictment. But there is a long list of other counts.

They began with Cheney’s refusal to give Congress and the General Accounting Office a list of who his energy task force had consulted with and heard from. Cheney has consistently said this was a principled battle to preserve executive powers that Congress was eroding; his critics consistently said it was classic stonewalling to conceal the influence of Cheney’s old business colleagues. That lawsuit is headed to the Supreme Court.

Then Halliburton, where Cheney earned $44 million in five years, acquired huge no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil operations. In Iraq, Halliburton has been accused of overcharging the Pentagon for fuel and admitted that two former employees had taken kickbacks.

After the war, in September of 2003, Cheney implied quite strongly that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Bush himself had to clear that one up, declaring the administration "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in those attacks.

Also after the war, reporting revealed just how deeply Cheney was involved in assessing, interpreting and editing pre-war intelligence on Iraq, working closely with the Pentagon’s shadow espionage think tank, the Office of Special Programs.

Now, the criminal investigation of the potentially illegal leak of the name of a CIA employee, and wife of a Bush critic, to columnist Robert Novak is supposedly honing in on some Cheney staffers.

And to complete the circle, Cheney is getting walloped for taking Justice Antonin Scalia duck-hunting in Louisiana with some oilmen. Scalia will be hearing the energy task force case.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly over at the White House, a CNN/Time poll found that 42 percent thought Cheney should be yanked from the ticket.

Cheney is a full-fledged evildoer to many Democrats and Bush-haters. He is problematic for Republican strategists. But he is deeply supported by many Republicans who see him as the most reliable and influential guardian of the conservative torch. And he is very important to the Hobbesians: generally conservative intellectuals who believe that Democrats, liberals and internationalists profoundly underestimate how dangerous and belligerent the world is, especially the Islamic world today.

The most disciplined, "on message" White House in memory seems uninterested in reshaping Cheney’s public image and style. I guess that means they like it. It’s an image very different from his earlier political incarnations. The reasons for that transformation remain in an undisclosed location.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/03/opinion/meyer/main597854.shtml

*”

“They can't dump Cheney. It would be like an admission of guilt. They will have to sink with him on board.”

“If there was an independant special prosecutor issuing subpoenas he'd already be gone.”

“The chances of beating Bush with Cheney on board are infinitely better than beating Bush with a moderate Republican as running mate.”

“Well said, GEO.”

“Hey Geobeet... Ya Sicko!”

“He'll dump Cheney for Gulliano.”

“That's better than dumping Cheney for Giuliani.”

“I think what you will see is that Cheney will have one or two more "heart episodes" prior to the Republican convention. Then he can step aside for "health reasons" and they can put someone who they think can be poised to run in 2008 to succeed "W". Now if Nader hadn't decided to screw things up, I would not be too worried that "W" would get a shot at a second term. No I am worrying. Does anyoen think that "W" has been good for the environment?”

“"Does anyoen think that "W" has been good for the environment?..."

It's very apparent that some on this board think, yes, he has.

I don't see something liek this happening. One thing is fer sure, 11/04 sure is shaping up to be one hell of a hum dinger!”

“"Does anyone think that "W" has been good for the environment?..."


Yup! An dey be smokin' de crack, too, mon.”

“No...”

“Cheney in firing line over Nigerian bribery claims

Antony Barnett and Martin Bright
Sunday June 20, 2004
The Observer

A British lawyer is emerging as a key witness in a $180 million bribery investigation that could lead to the indictment of US vice president Dick Cheney.
Last week, US oil corporation Halliburton cut all ties with a former senior executive, Albert Stanley, after it emerged he had received as much as $5m in 'improper personal benefits' as part of a $4bn gas project in Nigeria. Halliburton also sacked a second 'consultant', William Chaudan in connection with the bribery allegations. At the time of these alleged payments, Cheney was chief executive of the corporation.

French investigating magistrate Renaud van Ruymbeke is examining a stream of payments surrounding the controversial project which was built during the regime of the late dictator Sani Abacha. The judge has uncovered a $180m web of payments channelled through offshore companies and bank accounts.

The Nigerian project to build a huge gas plant was signed with an international consortium that included Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root. Cheney retired from the chief executive post in 2000.

The French judge is considering summoning Cheney to give evidence in his probe to ascertain whether the US vice president knew about the alleged commission payments.

Van Ruymbeke has been investigating why the consortium, which built the gas plant, paid up to $180m to a Gibraltan company set up by British solicitor Jeffrey Tesler, a partner in law firm Kaye Tesler & Co, based in Tottenham, north London. Van Ruymbeke wants to know whether the Gibraltar firm, TriStar Investments, was used to distribute bribes to win the contracts. Tesler has declined to answer media questions about his role in the project.

The Nigerian deal to build a $4bn liquefied natural gas plant is already subject to a formal investigation by both the US department of justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

continued...”

“Liars and Crooks, oh my!”

“Oh, all of a sudden Dems want to walk the straight and narrow? HA HA HA!”