NSA Fact FInding: Cheney Refuses To Do What He Once Demanded

NSA: Cheney's fatal assertions in 1987 over Iran-Contra undermines his stand on the NSA cover-up, I mean "investigation".

In light of the NSA illegal domestic activity, it's interesting to review Cheney's assertions over the Iran-Contra affair, and show how his statements are no longer consistent.



At the heart of the matter on the NSA issue is domestic, illegal activity. The Iran-Contra affair found many people had committed crimes.

Vice President Cheney in 1987, then a representative on the House Intelligence Committee, made some curious comments which wholly undermine the RNC Congress position on the NSA investigation and impeachment.

Cheney:

What's needed . . .is a calm, objective weighing of the evidence to be presented. Once all the evidence is in we will have the opportunity to draw conclusions and make recommendations to the House and Senate.

This was in the wake of asserting a right to wage illegal, covert operations.

Cheney in 2006 cannot explain why his 1987 call for investigations and "weighing of evidence" is not permissible. Rather, than face the evidence as we should in a republic, this Vice President absurdly argues the issue cannot be examined.

Questions:

1. Why is Cheney in 2006 arguing for suppression of fact finding, and blocking an impeachment investigation; but in 1987 he wanted to find facts?

2. What is the reason for the willingness to gather facts in 1987, but he shows no similar interest in 2006?

3. What is the basis to believe the Vice President's comments in 1987 should be believed: Either

A. Cheney was not being candid in 1987, and simply wanted to go through the motions on Iran Contra; and similarly does not wish to do the same in 2006; OR

B. Cheney was serious in 1987, wanted to find facts; and is not being consistent in 2006.

* * *



You'll also see how the 1987 statements undermine what Cheney would have us believe in 2006. Cheney in 1987 stated,

"One important question to be asked is to what extent did the lack of a clear-cut policy by the Congress contribute to the events we will exploring in the weeks ahead."

This is absurd. The Congress specifically stated what the law was: It was the Boland Amendment. This Vice President is again imagining things.

The problem for the Vice President in 2006, unlike what he pretends existed in 1987, there was in place a clear-cut policy on issues related to the NSA: It is called the FISA statute.

What could explain the Vice President's reluctance in 2006 to do what he stated should be the standard in 2006? The only reasonable answer is that Cheney would be the target of the 2006 fact finding.

* * *

The reason this has dragged on for so long is that the nation honestly believed that they had no option.

Small problem for the Vice President: The States can launch impeachment proclamations, forcing a vote before the 2006 November election; and the House Judiciary Committee has openly discussed the possibility of impeaching Gonzalez.

At the same time, Gonzalez and Addington are not longer on the same page.

There is clearly an open split not just within the RNC leadership and ranks, but well down the middle of the RNC legal community. This is a problem for Cheney. He's caught on both sides of the argument.

One camp in the RNC is pointing to what he's saying about Iran-Contra, and pushing for investigations so they do not get hammered; the other (dwindling) wants to wait it out.

They miscalculated. All the revelations related to the NSA and domestic illegal activity was never supposed to surface. Now, the courts are turning against Addington's legal arguments, exactly what Addington planned on avoiding by keeping the cases out of court.

Unlike the Iran-Contra issue where the President hoped to keep Congress in the dark, this Vice President wants to keep all the branches in the dark. Now, they are turning on him.

This Vice President's only option is to go on more hunting trips.