Cheney flips out

[GaryC 7]

The definition still stands. And according to that definition, the Veeps office is in scope.

Yeah, I understand. You want another scandal so you are willing to forgo logic to get it. Typical.

[Caladan 19]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

[GaryC 7]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

You are all missing the point! This was an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That means the president just ordered it. When Cheney said it didn't apply to him and the white house backed him up then that is that! The white house made the rule and can say who it applies to! Jeez people, think!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

You are all missing the point! This was an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That means the president just ordered it. When Cheney said it didn't apply to him and the white house backed him up then that is that! The white house made the rule and can say who it applies to! Jeez people, think!

Exactly, Gary, think! The last thing Bush needs right now is having to admit to the well known fact that he has no control over Cheney.

[Portlander 0]

Lets read the story and then think about it for a minute. This is an "executive order", not a law. That means that the executive (Bush) can modify it as he wants.

Not quite - we can wrangle on what exactly the definition of a "law" is, but the Executive Order is a rule that must be followed. Bush CAN modify it, if he wants, that is true, as the government can modify any law, but Cheney is outright declaring that this "rule" doesn't apply to him, and has taken the initiative to DISBAND THE REGULATORY BODY.

That means that the executive says it's OK for what Cheneys office did. Think people. Not everything is a scandal just because you want it to be.

The "executive" also says that it is OK for Prescription Drug companies to charge the US Gov. higher prices than Walgreens. The Executive says its OK to suspend Habeas Corpus, tap your phone, read your email, monitor your library activity, deny ACTIVE SOLDIERS THE RIGHT TO VOTE (but only the black ones!) -- they are in Iraq and obviously not in their voting precinct, so therefore they shouldn't get to vote. What about when Clinton was the Executive?

In fact, this is Clinton's law. Bush reinstated it, as it is a good rule. We need more oversight, as it reduces corruption.

And of course, Bush says "No, Of course Cheney doesn't have to follow the rules!" Thats a no-brainer. Bush takes just about every law that goes through Congress and writes a signing statement saying that this law or that law doesn't apply to him. That doesn't make it not a scandal. That makes it MORE of a scandal.

And While Bush, of course recently backed Cheney up, this is a conflict running back to 2002 (the last time Cheney complied with the law/rule/Executive Order) and, at least up until then, and up until bush rewrites the Executive Order, Cheney is still in noncompliance with the law/rule/Order.

FOX is saying "this is only about the number of secrets." But think about that ... WHY would Cheney want to keep the sheer number of the serets he's keeping a secret? Its 'cause this is by far the most secretive government we've ever had. Even the names of the people working in Cheney's office is a secret.

Don't you think we need more oversight? Less secrets? Can we agree on that point at least?

[GaryC 7]

Lets read the story and then think about it for a minute. This is an "executive order", not a law. That means that the executive (Bush) can modify it as he wants.

Not quite - we can wrangle on what exactly the definition of a "law" is, but the Executive Order is a rule that must be followed. Bush CAN modify it, if he wants, that is true, as the government can modify any law, but Cheney is outright declaring that this "rule" doesn't apply to him, and has taken the initiative to DISBAND THE REGULATORY BODY.

No he didn't. Your confusing Waxmans accusations with reality. Oh wait, to a liberal an accusation is reality. (when a rep is involved anyway, when a lib is convicted it still isn't a problem) Sorry.

That means that the executive says it's OK for what Cheneys office did. Think people. Not everything is a scandal just because you want it to be.

The "executive" also says that it is OK for Prescription Drug companies to charge the US Gov. higher prices than Walgreens. The Executive says its OK to suspend Habeas Corpus, tap your phone, read your email, monitor your library activity, deny ACTIVE SOLDIERS THE RIGHT TO VOTE (but only the black ones!) -- they are in Iraq and obviously not in their voting precinct, so therefore they shouldn't get to vote. What about when Clinton was the Executive?

Those things (other than the prescription Drug reference) are part of the Patriot act. Not an executive order. If you recall the Patriot act was passed by congress. So that is a law. Get your facts straight. (Or learn how the government works) And it was the libs that tried to deny the soldiers the right to vote. They were the one that didn't want the absentee votes to be counted. Throw the mud in the right direction fella. The black comment is just plain racist of you. To my knowledge ballots don't have a "cast by a black" stamp on them. That comment is just disgusting, but typical of a liberal.

In fact, this is Clinton's law. Bush reinstated it, as it is a good rule. We need more oversight, as it reduces corruption.

And of course, Bush says "No, Of course Cheney doesn't have to follow the rules!" Thats a no-brainer. Bush takes just about every law that goes through Congress and writes a signing statement saying that this law or that law doesn't apply to him. That doesn't make it not a scandal. That makes it MORE of a scandal.

And While Bush, of course recently backed Cheney up, this is a conflict running back to 2002 (the last time Cheney complied with the law/rule/Executive Order) and, at least up until then, and up until bush rewrites the Executive Order, Cheney is still in noncompliance with the law/rule/Order.

FOX is saying "this is only about the number of secrets." But think about that ... WHY would Cheney want to keep the sheer number of the serets he's keeping a secret? Its 'cause this is by far the most secretive government we've ever had. Even the names of the people working in Cheney's office is a secret.

Don't you think we need more oversight? Less secrets? Can we agree on that point at least?

What is it with you and Fox? I never mentioned Fox or referred to a story by Fox. You have Fox on the brain. Liberals. Jeez.

[Caladan 19]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

You are all missing the point! This was an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That means the president just ordered it. When Cheney said it didn't apply to him and the white house backed him up then that is that! The white house made the rule and can say who it applies to! Jeez people, think!

The executive order, as written, applies to the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that because the Vice President presides over the Senate, the executive order does not apply to him.

The fact that the White House agrees and wants a do-over doesn't affect Cheney's ridiculous argument. It just makes it worse: "When we said the Executive Branch would co-operate we didn't mean Cheney."

The only people forgoing logic here are this administration.

[GaryC 7]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

You are all missing the point! This was an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That means the president just ordered it. When Cheney said it didn't apply to him and the white house backed him up then that is that! The white house made the rule and can say who it applies to! Jeez people, think!

The executive order, as written, applies to the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that because the Vice President presides over the Senate, the executive order does not apply to him.

The fact that the White House agrees and wants a do-over doesn't affect Cheney's ridiculous argument. It just makes it worse: "When we said the Executive Branch would co-operate we didn't mean Cheney."

The only people forgoing logic here are this administration.

Since it is an executive order then the executive can amend it anyway he wants. If Bush says Cheney isn't under the rule then he isn't. Squawk all you want, that is the way it is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you claim that you're not subject to an executive order because it applies to the Executive Branch, you can't b!tch when people conclude that you think you're not part of the Executive Branch. It ain't a witch hunt.

You are all missing the point! This was an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That means the president just ordered it. When Cheney said it didn't apply to him and the white house backed him up then that is that! The white house made the rule and can say who it applies to! Jeez people, think!

The executive order, as written, applies to the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that because the Vice President presides over the Senate, the executive order does not apply to him.

The fact that the White House agrees and wants a do-over doesn't affect Cheney's ridiculous argument. It just makes it worse: "When we said the Executive Branch would co-operate we didn't mean Cheney."

The only people forgoing logic here are this administration.

Since it is an executive order then the executive can amend it anyway he wants. If Bush says Cheney isn't under the rule then he isn't. Squawk all you want, that is the way it is.

So, when the President signs an executive order that says one thing and the Veep comes along and says that this doesn't apply to him then the President is just going to stand there and say "Oh yeah, that's what I meant" and that's the end of it? If that was indeed what he meant, then I suppose he should have issued the executive order correctly. But that would be asked too much of Bush, I suppose.

[GaryC 7]

So, when the President signs an executive order that says one thing and the Veep comes along and says that this doesn't apply to him then the President is just going to stand there and say "Oh yeah, that's what I meant" and that's the end of it? If that was indeed what he meant, then I suppose he should have issued the executive order correctly. But that would be asked too much of Bush, I suppose.

Clinton signed the order. Bush exempted Cheney. Get over it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, when the President signs an executive order that says one thing and the Veep comes along and says that this doesn't apply to him then the President is just going to stand there and say "Oh yeah, that's what I meant" and that's the end of it? If that was indeed what he meant, then I suppose he should have issued the executive order correctly. But that would be asked too much of Bush, I suppose.

Clinton signed the order. Bush exempted Cheney. Get over it.

How did Bush exempt Cheney? Verbally? Is that how it works these days? Probably comes in handy as that makes anything and everything easily adjustable to the situation du jour. Accountability? Who needs it? And why did Bush not exempt himself as well? Why just Cheney? Is that not somewhat odd?

ETA: I found the answer - we finally have a new structure in government:

Edited June 23, 2007 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

So, when the President signs an executive order that says one thing and the Veep comes along and says that this doesn't apply to him then the President is just going to stand there and say "Oh yeah, that's what I meant" and that's the end of it? If that was indeed what he meant, then I suppose he should have issued the executive order correctly. But that would be asked too much of Bush, I suppose.

Clinton signed the order. Bush exempted Cheney. Get over it.

How did Bush exempt Cheney? Verbally? Is that how it works these days? Probably comes in handy as that makes anything and everything easily adjustable to the situation du jour. Accountability? Who needs it? And why did Bush not exempt himself as well? Why just Cheney? Is that not somewhat odd?

ETA: I found the answer - we finally have a new structure in government:

Nevermind, if a new scandal makes you feel better then believe what you want. Have fun!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary - perhaps you would be willing to put politics and spin aside and just answer this simple question.

If this story is true - and if Cheney is for whatever reason outside the remit of the executive, is this something you agree with and think is good for this country?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or just answer how exactly Cheney was exempted from this written executive order. Typically, to change something that's been executed in writing, it takes something in writing to amend it. Is there a properly executed written exception that dates back to 2002 that has been produced yet? I haven't seen it. Nor has Bush or Cheney claimed that said exemption exists in writing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tee hee...

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel

issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding

for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the

executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of

the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal

case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive

branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot

ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President

should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice

President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have

worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue

to pursue this measure in the coming days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/06/23/c...-e_n_53479.html