The Balance Begins to Tip Against Cheney
Dick Cheney's accountability moment may finally be arriving.
After years of pulling punches, Democrats in the Senate are throwing
them at Cheney, following the revelation that the man who operated as
something akin to a co-president during George Bush's first term ordered
the CIA to withhold information about a secret counterterrorism program
from Congress.
There "absolutely" needs to be a Senate Intelligence Committee
investigation of Cheney's assault on the system of checks and balances
outlined in the essential sections of the US Constitution, argued
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois).
"The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these
programs and keep Congress in the dark. There is a requirement for
disclosure," the chamber's number two Democrat said on ABC's This Week program. "(Any investigation) has to be done in an appropriate way
so it doesn't jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive
program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only
inappropriate; it could be illegal."
We have heard calls for investigations before.
But the former vice president's disregard for the vagaries of
constitutional governance seems to have returned to haunt him.
So serious are the charges against Cheney that Senate
Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, the California
Democrat who for too long worked too closely with the Bush-Cheney
administration on so many issues, appears finally to be accepting that
an inquiry is going to be required.
"This is a big problem, because the law is very clear," Feinstein said
as the details of Cheney's wrongdoing began to come to light. "If the
Intelligence Committees had been briefed, they could have asked for
regular reports on the program, they could have made judgments about the
program as it went along. That was not the case, because we were kept in
the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again."
The intelligence committee chair--whose power is usually matched only
by her caution--bluntly suggested that Cheney had acted illegally.
"I think you weaken your case when you go outside the law," Feinstein
said. "We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind
of sensitive program."
Of course, there will be push back from the defenders of the
indefensible. "It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to
be involved in an issue like this," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl,
(R-Arizona). Kyl point is well taken; the Arizonan has worked with
several
vice presidents who have been "involved in an issue like this." George
Herbert Walker Bush was all wrapped up in the Iran-Contra scandal and
Cheney's regard for the rule of law is so dismissive as to make him a
prime suspect whenever a shredded copy of the Constitution is uncovered.
But the fact that the Congress failed to hold the elder Bush to account
for his high crimes and misdemeanors does not absolve Cheney of
responsibility for what he has done. Not, it should be noted, does it
absolve Congress.
Durbin is precisely right when he says:
(We) know that Vice President Cheney played an unusual
role with President Bush in the early days of the administration. That
seemed to change over time.
But it is inappropriate for the vice president or the president to be
ordering that a program be kept secret and not disclosed at the highest
levels of congressional leadership.
We have to have a check and balance in our system. To give to the
president unbridled power and authority goes way beyond what our
Constitution has in mind.
That system of checks and balances has been battered to the breaking
point over the past four years.
The process of restoring it will only be completed if those who were
responsible for the battery are held to account. And the list of these
wrongdoers begins with the name "Dick Cheney."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Dick Cheney's accountability moment may finally be arriving.
After years of pulling punches, Democrats in the Senate are throwing
them at Cheney, following the revelation that the man who operated as
something akin to a co-president during George Bush's first term ordered
the CIA to withhold information about a secret counterterrorism program
from Congress.
There "absolutely" needs to be a Senate Intelligence Committee
investigation of Cheney's assault on the system of checks and balances
outlined in the essential sections of the US Constitution, argued
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois).
"The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these
programs and keep Congress in the dark. There is a requirement for
disclosure," the chamber's number two Democrat said on ABC's This Week program. "(Any investigation) has to be done in an appropriate way
so it doesn't jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive
program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only
inappropriate; it could be illegal."
We have heard calls for investigations before.
But the former vice president's disregard for the vagaries of
constitutional governance seems to have returned to haunt him.
So serious are the charges against Cheney that Senate
Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, the California
Democrat who for too long worked too closely with the Bush-Cheney
administration on so many issues, appears finally to be accepting that
an inquiry is going to be required.
"This is a big problem, because the law is very clear," Feinstein said
as the details of Cheney's wrongdoing began to come to light. "If the
Intelligence Committees had been briefed, they could have asked for
regular reports on the program, they could have made judgments about the
program as it went along. That was not the case, because we were kept in
the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again."
The intelligence committee chair--whose power is usually matched only
by her caution--bluntly suggested that Cheney had acted illegally.
"I think you weaken your case when you go outside the law," Feinstein
said. "We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind
of sensitive program."
Of course, there will be push back from the defenders of the
indefensible. "It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to
be involved in an issue like this," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl,
(R-Arizona). Kyl point is well taken; the Arizonan has worked with
several
vice presidents who have been "involved in an issue like this." George
Herbert Walker Bush was all wrapped up in the Iran-Contra scandal and
Cheney's regard for the rule of law is so dismissive as to make him a
prime suspect whenever a shredded copy of the Constitution is uncovered.
But the fact that the Congress failed to hold the elder Bush to account
for his high crimes and misdemeanors does not absolve Cheney of
responsibility for what he has done. Not, it should be noted, does it
absolve Congress.
Durbin is precisely right when he says:
(We) know that Vice President Cheney played an unusual
role with President Bush in the early days of the administration. That
seemed to change over time.
But it is inappropriate for the vice president or the president to be
ordering that a program be kept secret and not disclosed at the highest
levels of congressional leadership.
We have to have a check and balance in our system. To give to the
president unbridled power and authority goes way beyond what our
Constitution has in mind.
That system of checks and balances has been battered to the breaking
point over the past four years.
The process of restoring it will only be completed if those who were
responsible for the battery are held to account. And the list of these
wrongdoers begins with the name "Dick Cheney."
Dick Cheney's accountability moment may finally be arriving.
After years of pulling punches, Democrats in the Senate are throwing
them at Cheney, following the revelation that the man who operated as
something akin to a co-president during George Bush's first term ordered
the CIA to withhold information about a secret counterterrorism program
from Congress.
There "absolutely" needs to be a Senate Intelligence Committee
investigation of Cheney's assault on the system of checks and balances
outlined in the essential sections of the US Constitution, argued
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois).
"The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these
programs and keep Congress in the dark. There is a requirement for
disclosure," the chamber's number two Democrat said on ABC's This Week program. "(Any investigation) has to be done in an appropriate way
so it doesn't jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive
program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only
inappropriate; it could be illegal."
We have heard calls for investigations before.
But the former vice president's disregard for the vagaries of
constitutional governance seems to have returned to haunt him.
So serious are the charges against Cheney that Senate
Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, the California
Democrat who for too long worked too closely with the Bush-Cheney
administration on so many issues, appears finally to be accepting that
an inquiry is going to be required.
"This is a big problem, because the law is very clear," Feinstein said
as the details of Cheney's wrongdoing began to come to light. "If the
Intelligence Committees had been briefed, they could have asked for
regular reports on the program, they could have made judgments about the
program as it went along. That was not the case, because we were kept in
the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again."
The intelligence committee chair--whose power is usually matched only
by her caution--bluntly suggested that Cheney had acted illegally.
"I think you weaken your case when you go outside the law," Feinstein
said. "We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind
of sensitive program."
Of course, there will be push back from the defenders of the
indefensible. "It is not out of the ordinary for the vice president to
be involved in an issue like this," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl,
(R-Arizona). Kyl point is well taken; the Arizonan has worked with
several
vice presidents who have been "involved in an issue like this." George
Herbert Walker Bush was all wrapped up in the Iran-Contra scandal and
Cheney's regard for the rule of law is so dismissive as to make him a
prime suspect whenever a shredded copy of the Constitution is uncovered.
But the fact that the Congress failed to hold the elder Bush to account
for his high crimes and misdemeanors does not absolve Cheney of
responsibility for what he has done. Not, it should be noted, does it
absolve Congress.
Durbin is precisely right when he says:
(We) know that Vice President Cheney played an unusual
role with President Bush in the early days of the administration. That
seemed to change over time.
But it is inappropriate for the vice president or the president to be
ordering that a program be kept secret and not disclosed at the highest
levels of congressional leadership.
We have to have a check and balance in our system. To give to the
president unbridled power and authority goes way beyond what our
Constitution has in mind.
That system of checks and balances has been battered to the breaking
point over the past four years.
The process of restoring it will only be completed if those who were
responsible for the battery are held to account. And the list of these
wrongdoers begins with the name "Dick Cheney."