Cheney flips out

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow - 20 people are reading this thread right now.

[Portlander 0]

Why is it, when someone questions the executive branch...be they democrat or republican, they get labeled "wacky." Last time I checked our president was not a king with all encompassing authority. I think that is why we are supposed to have checks and balances no?

Cheney didn't want to do it and Bush backed him up. That is the bottom line. There does not need to be a written exception unless the wacky left insists. Bush could do that and make it retroactive if he wants. Would it make you feel better if he did that? Lefties, jeez!

Apparantly not. Bush and Cheney can do whatever they want without regard to what it says in the Constitution, and without impunity from those whiny leftists.

We just gotta realize that someone people WANT a King. A lot of people really believe that people are stupid and can't govern themselves. Gotta tell them what to do and when and how often. Don't need to bother with the why. Gary seems to be one of them. BushCo can keep as many secrets as they want, interpret the Constitution however they see fit - no matter if they are clearly and indisputably ignoring it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We just gotta realize that someone people WANT a King.

Coming right up:

[GaryC 7]

Meet

I think it is sad and funny at the same time. All the dems seem to want to do is focus on as much scandal as they can. When one isn't available they make one up! The pettiness from our own elected officials is very sad. It seems the dems have an ax to grind and they are grinding it in favor of doing what they promised to do. When the Reps impeached Clinton that planted the seed of revenge in the dems. When Bush won the very tight election in 2000 that tore it for some. Revenge is what they want and it is all they have accomplished since taking office. They promised to get us out of Iraq. What did you get? Hearings on whether Gonzoliz improperly fired some Federal prosecutors that Bush had full authority do fire for any reason and at any time. They promised you an immigration bill and what did you get? Then they promised you they would set a "date certain" for getting the troops out and what did you get? More accusations of minor infractions with the required crys of "he is destroying the country!!" Stop and think about it. What has the dems given you since they got power? Are 20% approval ratings just another Rep dirty trick? They have nothing on the table so scandal is all they have left to distract with. I say let them. Bush is out next year and the people are watching. They are not as dumb as the dems think they are. Even hard left dems that I know are b!tching about the non-job the congress is doing. Your watching a slow motion shot of them shooting themselves in the foot!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary:

Gary - how do I qualify as a "lefty" just because I ask a reasonable question about the vice president being outside the remit of the executive branch of government. It essentially means that Cheney can do his own thing on his own dime - which in addition to giving Cheney Carte Blanche to do whatever he likes (like exert a heavy big-business favouring influence over the White House energy policy) also gives GWB plausible deniability for anything he does or gets caught doing.

You ducked out of the question I asked BTW - do you think ####### Cheney's office should be outside the remit of the executive? Do you think this is democratic and/or good for the country as a whole? Two questions the bare minimum answer to which is either a 'yes' or a 'no'. I don't know about you - but a Vice President who uses a legal technicality to keep the running of his office, secret from any public accountability - and even from his own political partner - I would have to say 'no' on both counts.

[GaryC 7]

Gary:

Gary - how do I qualify as a "lefty" just because I ask a reasonable question about the vice president being outside the remit of the executive branch of government. It essentially means that Cheney can do his own thing on his own dime - which in addition to giving Cheney Carte Blanche to do whatever he likes (like exert a heavy big-business favouring influence over the White House energy policy) also gives GWB plausible deniability for anything he does or gets caught doing.

You ducked out of the question I asked BTW - do you think ####### Cheney's office should be outside the remit of the executive? Do you think this is democratic and/or good for the country as a whole? Two questions the bare minimum answer to which is either a 'yes' or a 'no'. I don't know about you - but a Vice President who uses a legal technicality to keep the running of his office, secret from any public accountability - and even from his own political partner - I would have to say 'no' on both counts.

My answer is this. Who cares about this???? If Cheney didn't want to fill out a form that hasn't been missed from 2002 until now so what? He never said he wasn't part of the executive. Just like any good politician he is interpreting the order in his own way. It's been done since Roman times and will continue for the foreseeable future. The comedy behind this is spelled out in my previous post.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My answer is this. Who cares about this???? If Cheney didn't want to fill out a form that hasn't been missed from 2002 until now so what? He never said he wasn't part of the executive. Just like any good politician he is interpreting the order in his own way. It's been done since Roman times and will continue for the foreseeable future. The comedy behind this is spelled out in my previous post.

So in other words - you see a lack of accountability in government as being justifiable. Sorry - you really can't respond to this question merely by attacking the other side as pointing out that they are 'as bad or worse' to justify the original unethical behaviour.

Here is another angle on the same story. This is quite telling don't you think?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, peppered with questions about the dispute today, called it "a little bit of a non-issue" and asserted that Cheney is "exempt" from the reporting requirement in the executive order.

President Bush is the "sole enforcer" of the executive order and "did not intend for the vice president to be treated separately from how he would treat himself," Perino said. She maintained that Bush and Cheney "are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material."

The vice president's office is "not subject to such investigation" by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, the spokeswoman said. But she could not explain why Cheney's office initially complied with reporting requirements, then stopped in 2003.

Perino was hard-pressed to explain the vice president's contention that his office is not strictly part of the executive branch. She called that argument "an interesting constitutional question that legal scholars can debate."

As the "author" of the executive order and "the person responsible for interpreting" it, Bush "did not intend for the vice president to be treated as an agency," Perino said.

Cheney's office filed annual reports in 2001 and 2002 describing its classification activities but stopped filing in 2003, according to internal administration letters released yesterday. Cheney's office made the case that it is not covered because the vice president under the Constitution also serves as president of the Senate and therefore has both legislative and executive duties.

And the crucial point (see bolded)

In an interview yesterday, Steven Aftergood, who directs the federation's Project on Governmental Secrecy, said the dispute concerns "a very narrow bit of information" but indicated a broader disregard for following the same rules observed by the rest of the executive branch. "By refusing to comply with these trivial instructions, the vice president undermines the integrity of the executive order," he said. "If it can be violated with impunity on a trivial point, then it can also be violated on more important matters."

I'm not sure why you think the lack of an explicit statement from Cheney is important - seeing as all these stories allude to is that his staff (presumably with his approval) are the ones who have done it - passive-aggressively, which is the best way of stalling; rather than outright admit that he is a law unto himself. I don't know about you - but I find it hard to believe that anyone but a completely impotent president would willingly cede power to the Vice President without at least wanting to know exactly what he's up to...

BTW - Nothing to do with this but in Roman times - certain senators who felt slighted by their rivals actually used their private armies to declare war on the state.

[GaryC 7]

My answer is this. Who cares about this???? If Cheney didn't want to fill out a form that hasn't been missed from 2002 until now so what? He never said he wasn't part of the executive. Just like any good politician he is interpreting the order in his own way. It's been done since Roman times and will continue for the foreseeable future. The comedy behind this is spelled out in my previous post.

So in other words - you see a lack of accountability in government as being justifiable. Sorry - you really can't respond to this question merely by attacking the other side as pointing out that they are 'as bad or worse' to justify the original unethical behaviour.

Here is another angle on the same story. This is quite telling don't you think?

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, peppered with questions about the dispute today, called it "a little bit of a non-issue" and asserted that Cheney is "exempt" from the reporting requirement in the executive order.

President Bush is the "sole enforcer" of the executive order and "did not intend for the vice president to be treated separately from how he would treat himself," Perino said. She maintained that Bush and Cheney "are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material."

The vice president's office is "not subject to such investigation" by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, the spokeswoman said. But she could not explain why Cheney's office initially complied with reporting requirements, then stopped in 2003.

Perino was hard-pressed to explain the vice president's contention that his office is not strictly part of the executive branch. She called that argument "an interesting constitutional question that legal scholars can debate."

As the "author" of the executive order and "the person responsible for interpreting" it, Bush "did not intend for the vice president to be treated as an agency," Perino said.

Cheney's office filed annual reports in 2001 and 2002 describing its classification activities but stopped filing in 2003, according to internal administration letters released yesterday. Cheney's office made the case that it is not covered because the vice president under the Constitution also serves as president of the Senate and therefore has both legislative and executive duties.

And the crucial point (see bolded)

In an interview yesterday, Steven Aftergood, who directs the federation's Project on Governmental Secrecy, said the dispute concerns "a very narrow bit of information" but indicated a broader disregard for following the same rules observed by the rest of the executive branch. "By refusing to comply with these trivial instructions, the vice president undermines the integrity of the executive order," he said. "If it can be violated with impunity on a trivial point, then it can also be violated on more important matters."

I'm not sure why you think the lack of an explicit statement from Cheney is important - seeing as all these stories allude to is that his staff (presumably with his approval) are the ones who have done it - passive-aggressively, which is the best way of stalling; rather than outright admit that he is a law unto himself. I don't know about you - but I find it hard to believe that anyone but a completely impotent president would willingly cede power to the Vice President without at least wanting to know exactly what he's up to...

BTW - Nothing to do with this but in Roman times - certain senators who felt slighted by their rivals actually used their private armies to declare war on the state.

Yeah, answer number 3, "It will endanger the order of the country!!". Expected. Go ahead and think it's important. Have some hearings. Make a big deal out of it. It just makes my previous point. And it will not due the Dems any good next year. I predicted it before and I will predict it again. We will have a clean sweep next year, rep and dem.

Oh, and the Roman thing? Don't think for a minute that Senators today don't have private armies. They just don't kill (yet) but they do go to war with their adversaries. They are called investigators.

[Portlander 0]

I'm not going to argue anything for the Dems - I think a lot of them are corrupt, too. Its not a R vs. D issue, no matter how desparately you try to frame any and all bad information you hear about BushCo, it just ain't about that. I agree the Ds are shooting themselves in the foot, but not on this issue. They traded war funding until September for an increase in minimum wage and some other things on their agenda, but they just need to get done what they said they will.

I have a couple of questions for you, though, because I'm curious exactly where you are coming from. Do you think Bush/Cheney ought to be able to do whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says at the time?

When Bush won the very tight election in 2000 that tore it for some.

What do you think about US soldiers in Iraq getting their right to vote revoked while they are deployed? Its called "vote caging" and its happening.

Hearings on whether Gonzoliz improperly fired some Federal prosecutors that Bush had full authority do fire for any reason and at any time.

Forget the question on whether or not he had the authority to do so for a second. Do you think that Bush ought to fire US Attorneys who are not pursuing corruption cases that have no basis? Those prosecutors had some of the top effectiveness ratings. They clearly got fired for not dropping the Abranmoff investigation and other similar politically motivated reasons. Should the Executive use it's power to keep only political Yes-Men in office? Clearly, they can, but should they? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Do you think that BushCheney SHOULD be able to do everything in secret? Do we have a right to know who is on Cheney's staff or not? Should there be oversight as to how the government uses information or not? I'm not asking CAN they, I'm asking what you think SHOULD be.

They have nothing on the table so scandal is all they have left to distract with.

They have nothing on the table because they are mostly bought and sold to the same people that own BushCo. They don't WANT to do anything. They're getting paid not to. Just like BushCo is getting paid to let the Energy companies write their own rules. Literally. They physicially get to write their own legislation. Is that good or bad, from your political set of beliefs?

[GaryC 7]

I'm not going to argue anything for the Dems - I think a lot of them are corrupt, too. Its not a R vs. D issue, no matter how desparately you try to frame any and all bad information you hear about BushCo, it just ain't about that. I agree the Ds are shooting themselves in the foot, but not on this issue. They traded war funding until September for an increase in minimum wage and some other things on their agenda, but they just need to get done what they said they will.

I have a couple of questions for you, though, because I'm curious exactly where you are coming from. Do you think Bush/Cheney ought to be able to do whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says at the time?

When Bush won the very tight election in 2000 that tore it for some.

What do you think about US soldiers in Iraq getting their right to vote revoked while they are deployed? Its called "vote caging" and its happening.

Hearings on whether Gonzoliz improperly fired some Federal prosecutors that Bush had full authority do fire for any reason and at any time.

Forget the question on whether or not he had the authority to do so for a second. Do you think that Bush ought to fire US Attorneys who are not pursuing corruption cases that have no basis? Those prosecutors had some of the top effectiveness ratings. They clearly got fired for not dropping the Abranmoff investigation and other similar politically motivated reasons. Should the Executive use it's power to keep only political Yes-Men in office? Clearly, they can, but should they? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Do you think that BushCheney SHOULD be able to do everything in secret? Do we have a right to know who is on Cheney's staff or not? Should there be oversight as to how the government uses information or not? I'm not asking CAN they, I'm asking what you think SHOULD be.

They have nothing on the table so scandal is all they have left to distract with.

They have nothing on the table because they are mostly bought and sold to the same people that own BushCo. They don't WANT to do anything. They're getting paid not to. Just like BushCo is getting paid to let the Energy companies write their own rules. Literally. They physicially get to write their own legislation. Is that good or bad, from your political set of beliefs?

:lol: Oh please keep it up! Your paranoia is great!! Now the dems have been bought by the same people that own Bush??? This is too good! Please call CNN with this theory. Post it on your blogs! Spread the word! No wait, call Micheal Moore!!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah, answer number 3, "It will endanger the order of the country!!". Expected. Go ahead and think it's important. Have some hearings. Make a big deal out of it. It just makes my previous point. And it will not due the Dems any good next year. I predicted it before and I will predict it again. We will have a clean sweep next year, rep and dem.

Why are you so hung on the fact that the Dems brought this up? Just because the person raising this to the fore is objectionable to you, does that mean that the issue itself is invalid?

On the back of the rest of the ####### Bush et al have done - this is yet more dirty government. Actually its more than that - what it implies is 'secret government'.

If you read between the lines of that Washington Post story - the White House spokeswoman's statements are contradictory. It totally makes sense that the official line would be to defend Cheney, as it would be clearly rather scandalous to admit that the VP's office is pursuing its own agenda (again in part linked to the government's energy policy and approach to climate change) outside of any public accountability or scrutiny by his political partner.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

:lol: Oh please keep it up! Your paranoia is great!! Now the dems have been bought by the same people that own Bush??? This is too good! Please call CNN with this theory. Post it on your blogs! Spread the word! No wait, call Micheal Moore!!!!!

Why is it stupid? You don't think that the same corporate lobbyist types people who bankroll presidential candidates court any candidate they think will support their interests? Isn't that why nothing actually gets done in government - because these people have the ear of our elected representatives?

I point again to the government's energy policy and approach to climate change - which has been significantly influenced by the energy industry; with former lobbyists/corporate lawyers occupying key positions relating to the formation of government policy?

Edited June 25, 2007 by erekose

[Jamie76 0]

"Yeah, answer number 3, "It will endanger the order of the country!!". Expected. Go ahead and think it's important. Have some hearings. Make a big deal out of it. It just makes my previous point. And it will not due the Dems any good next year. I predicted it before and I will predict it again. We will have a clean sweep next year, rep and dem.

Oh, and the Roman thing? Don't think for a minute that Senators today don't have private armies. They just don't kill (yet) but they do go to war with their adversaries. They are called investigators."

Why are you making this a Dem vs Bush argument? Last time I checked, the Republican party hasn't been very supportive of the current administration.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Jamie76

[GaryC 7]

Why are you making this a Dem vs Bush argument? Last time I checked, the Republican party hasn't been very supportive of the current administration.

For the Dems it is a dem vs Bush argument. I think the pettiness of the whole thing funny. I am not a supporter of either side right now. In the primary I will be voting for anyone other than the incumbant. I don't give a damn about Bush or Cheney or if they have some sort of a private agenda. In 1 year they will be gone. In the mean time the dems are shooting themselves in the foot screaming about things that in the end mean nothing when they should be making points with the people that elected them. I think the fact that they gained control and are now pizzing it away is very funny!! The paranoid left is really fun to watch as they run around screaming "the sky is falling". We really don't have a functioning government now but at least it can be entertaining!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would you be equally unconcerned if the next administration was engaging in this kind of behaviour?

But I agree - this is petty; at least considering how Bush/Cheney have taken a big piss over the idea of public and jurisdictional accountability for the last 7 years.