PDA

View Full Version : V.P Cheney NOT in executive branch ??



Ian McColgin
06-21-2007, 06:03 PM
The President should have thought of this.

Published on Thursday, June 21, 2007 by ABCNews.com
Cheney Says White House Rules Don’t Apply to Him

by Justin Rood

Vice President Dick Cheney has asserted his office is not a part of the executive branch of the U.S. government, and therefore not bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information by government agencies, according to a new letter from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to Cheney.

Bill Leonard, head of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), told Waxman’s staff that Cheney’s office has refused to provide his staff with details regarding classified documents or submit to a routine inspection as required by presidential order, according to Waxman.

In pointed letters released today by Waxman, ISOO’s Leonard twice questioned Cheney’s office on its assertion it was exempt from the rules. He received no reply, but the vice president later tried to get rid of Leonard’s office entirely, according to Waxman.

Leonard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a statement e-mailed to the Blotter on ABCNews.com, Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn said, “We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law.”

As director of the tiny, 25-person Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard is responsible for keeping track of the nation’s secrets and making sure they are properly protected.

For the first two years of the George W. Bush administration, Cheney’s office complied with a presidential order that requires officials to report statistics on the number of documents it classifies and declassifies.

Since 2003, however, Cheney’s office has refused to submit the data to ISOO. And when ISOO inspectors tried in 2004 to schedule a routine inspection of the vice president’s offices, they were rebuffed, Waxman’s letter claims.

Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, did not object to similar inspections, according to Waxman.

“Serious questions can be raised about both the legality and advisability of exempting your office from the rules that apply to all other executive branch officials,” Waxman said in his letter to the vice president, and asked him to explain why he felt the rules didn’t apply to him and his staff and how he was protecting classified information in his office.

Former Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was recently convicted on several counts of perjury and obstruction of justice stemming from the leak of the identity of former covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Waxman noted, and in 2006, former Cheney aide Leandro Aragoncillo pleaded guilty to sharing classified U.S. documents with foreign nationals. Aragoncillo also worked under former Democratic Vice President Al Gore, who complied with ISOO’s requests.

Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures

John of Phoenix
06-21-2007, 06:06 PM
I've thought for a long time that cheney should be impeached.
The more I consider it, he should be commited.

JimD
06-21-2007, 06:10 PM
Here's a branch for him:

http://www.geocities.com/twodogs05/hangman-2.jpg

glenallen
06-21-2007, 06:36 PM
One of the duties of the Executive Branch is to strengthen the Branch.
It's the duty of the other Branches to monitor and restrict the movements of the Executive Branch. It's called Branch Control, or something like that.

The current band of desperados in the Executive Branch has seen that they can usurp powers and assume powers at will without any consequences.
Frankly, it's too late in this administration to stop them. It should have been done a few years ago, but our gutless Congress and brainless electorate missed the opportunity.

Uncle Duke
06-21-2007, 06:50 PM
OK - if the VP's office is not part of the Executive Branch, doesn't that mean that he can't use 'Executive Privilege' to withhold details about meeting which he's been asked about - like with energy company execs?

Vince Brennan
06-21-2007, 07:11 PM
OK - if the VP's office is not part of the Executive Branch, doesn't that mean that he can't use 'Executive Privilege' to withhold details about meeting which he's been asked about - like with energy company execs?

Only if he's not asked about them. If he's asked about them, then the "Capitol Hill Ground Rule Double" applies, in which they get to apply whichever doubled standard covers their asses best.

Y'know, I think this adminstration will go down in history as making U.S. Grant's look like Jimmy Carter's, and W.G. Harding's look like a Pop Warner league game.

The catastrophic tenure of Cheney and his stooge will be felt for decades to come.

That's if the manage to leave anything statutory standing when they go. We'll be repairing the damage for years. If it's even possible.

If I remember aright, Woolsey told Moore, "Never tell the King what he CAN do, but rather what he OUGHT to do". Politicians have recently found out that they not only CAN do it, but that Congress will probably either not notice or not object.

I'm disgusted with the whole thing.

glenallen
06-21-2007, 07:21 PM
"I'm disgusted with the whole thing."

I think that speaks for 90% of us!
It certainly does for me.

seanz
06-21-2007, 07:47 PM
The percentage is not 90 percent

Erster is quite right.......the correct percentage of disgusted Americans is 74%.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=nw20070621220814675C261254

Mrleft8
06-21-2007, 07:57 PM
"Cite" .....Not "Sight"..... Donn seems to be on vacation, so......Anyway, carry on.... :D

Nicholas Carey
06-21-2007, 08:02 PM
One of the duties of the Executive Branch is to strengthen the Branch.
It's the duty of the other Branches to monitor and restrict the movements of the Executive Branch. It's called Branch Control, or something like that.I prefer to use a tool like thise for "branch control" :D


http://www.stihl.us/graphics/chainsaws/MS200T.gif

Mrleft8
06-21-2007, 08:07 PM
I am correct. Its just that you cannot see correctly.:p
Bad eyes from visiting this site too often I guess..... :D

Nicholas Carey
06-21-2007, 08:11 PM
OK - if the VP's office is not part of the Executive Branch, doesn't that mean that he can't use 'Executive Privilege' to withhold details about meeting which he's been asked about - like with energy company execs?This is a wild stretch on the shrubbery's part :rolleyes:

They must be making the [lame] argument that, since the the Vice-President's only official job is to President of the Senate, running the Senate and casting votes to break ties -- the V-P's sole constitutional responsibility -- the Vice-President is therefore a part of the legislative branch.

Of course, if he's actually part of the legislative branch -- e.g., congress -- it's going to be awfully hard for him to hide anything from Congressional oversight. Maybe Congress should accept his argument :D -- it would make for some entertaining court proceedings at any rate :p

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-21-2007, 08:34 PM
The same people that did not vote for Bush and Cheney from the very beginning, are the same ones that express your thoughts. The percentage is not 90 percent unless you want to take some poll in some of the northern states or inner cities. If you feel that the United States is a much better country when being attacked as was done and the economy is taken down, yes there are folks that are included in the percentages that you sight, of course purely for political reasons. The country has been exposed the the lack of backbone of the democrat party since the election in Nov. 2006. We know what we get when we look back on the 90s and now with the congress being run by the democrats and their approval rating lower than president Bush now.

What in the devil are you talking about? The man said, "I think XXXXX...".
He was just stating a generalized opinion not delivering a message from God.
And who taught you spelling. "Democratic" should be capitalized when used as part of a title. I always try to be a good neighbor and capitalize "Repugican" like my 6th grade nun taught me.

"If you feel that the United States is a much better country when being attacked as was done and the economy is taken down, yes there are folks that are included in the percentages that you sight, of course purely for political reasons."

What does this mean? And shouldn't there be some periods and some capital letters in there somewhere to show where one sentence ends and another begins?
Your comments are harder to straighten out than a cross-threaded spark plug!
Nice to know you read the "Los Angles Times" now and then. Of course, it would be more ethical if you went out and paid for a copy instead of grabbing their stuff off the net for free.

Your buddy in Ahia,
Charlie

LeeG
06-21-2007, 10:51 PM
This is a little like Bolton trying to get intel analysts fired because they wouldn't allow him to use incorrect intel in a speech to AEI buddies while working at the State Dept. So he got appointed to a higher office by GW in that recess appt.

It's time for Cheney to resign to spend more time with his family.

LeeG
06-21-2007, 11:07 PM
the imperial vice presidency. Yep, he needs to spend more time with his family. Before something really wingnutty happens.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=507

3) Is it the official position of the Office of the Vice President that your office exists in neither the executive nor legislative branch of government?

a. If so, when and why did you adopt this view?
b. Has your office asserted in any other contexts that its nonexistence in the executive branch justifies avoiding oversight or accountability?

LeeG
06-21-2007, 11:11 PM
Hey Ian,,you aren't a Cheney hater too are yee?

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-21-2007, 11:34 PM
I also think and clearly understand exactly what I typed.

Thank the Lord somebody understands it. But, you got to realized once you put stuff on the internet it ain't just in your head any more. Once your ideas get loose they can cause a lot of folks to scratch their heads and say. "huh?"
Do you, really, want to cause consternation among the masses? Can you imagine the watercooler conversations about your postings?
"That guy wrote six paragraphs and only used one capital and one period." "And, he says he understands all that stuff he writes." "You think, maybe, he's under the control of aliens?" "What's with them little colored circles with the faces?" "Could they be some kind of secret code to pass messages to terrorist agents?"
Well, that's enough of that. Now that you have been duely informed I guess you won't be giving any 5th grade English teachers cat fits any more.

your buddy in Ahia,
Charlie

LeeG
06-21-2007, 11:42 PM
you know,,when Erster posts the poll about confidence in Congress being so low it makes me feel better about Cheney. It's like when Abu Ghraib came out,,we didn't cut off anyones heads. The nose hairs in my right nostril are growing faster than my left nostril. Gotta go bark at the moon. brb

LeeG
06-22-2007, 07:37 AM
hey Erster, should Cheneys office follow the protocols concerning classified material as mandated by Bush in Executive Order 12958 or should he pick and chose oversight so as to be better able to leak classified material. Like he did in summer of '03.

Which is it, does Cheney claim executive privelege OVER the president or is he exempt because he's a part of the Legislative Branch, or is he a whole new f*cking branch of gov't? Why not, he and Rumsfeld did end-runs on the intelligence community to put Powell up in front of the UN spouting total bs about Iraqs WMD programs.

Come on old man, if you're going to play with the kids in the sand box you have to be able to catch the ball, otherwise go sit in front of the cb good buddy.

Mrleft8
06-22-2007, 07:57 AM
... Maybe..... And this is just a thought..But..... Maybe Cheney doesn't actually exist.... Maybe he died back in 2001 when he was in "An undisclosed, secure location" (Mt. Weather...Like nobody knew...), and what we're seeing now is either holograms, or a <<<<SHUDDER>>>> clone.....

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:05 AM
maybe Rome didn't fall

huisjen
06-22-2007, 08:05 AM
Oyster looks pretty verbose in this thread. But I just look at his general quantity of output (or as we would say with the livestock, throughput) rather than actually trying to read his jibberish.

Anyway, at this rate, we soon ought to be able to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:09 AM
Yr a special guy Erster.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:12 AM
Nope, no impeachment. Cheney and GW will drive off the cliff like Thelma and Louise. The base will clap enthusiastically. Congress will take the long route.

elf
06-22-2007, 08:12 AM
I don't know whether the shrub is actually intelligent, but his inability to manage the language really conceals his intelligence if he has it.

Oyster appears to have the same problem.

In the shrub's case it really shows when he's improvising with the language, his speech writers fix the mistakes when he's on a podium. Unfortunately in both cases he seems to lack content.

I guess Oyster needs a speechwriter, or at least a good editor.

Nicholas Scheuer
06-22-2007, 08:17 AM
Would that make him a Dictator who could disband the rest of the Government?

I agree with "Impeachment" as suggested above.

Moby Nick

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:18 AM
we've all been down this path with Mike before. It's obvious that he only has one shelf for storing abstractions while communicating an idea. It's an error on our part to attribute meaning where there isn't any.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:20 AM
Would that make him a Dictator who could disband the rest of the Government?

I agree with "Impeachment" as suggested above.

Moby Nick

by the time it's announced the deed was done long ago. "oops, bad intel,,my bad"

WillW
06-22-2007, 08:25 AM
Technical question: Is it possible to impeach the Vice-President?

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:47 AM
My PHD is in boats.

.

think of the country as a boat. A big boat. Bigger than a 16' skiff. Bigger than a 100t. fishing boat. Real big.

Think of the president as the captain. And he pushes the rudder over a few degrees and the ship travels on this course for six years with the assistance of his very, very loyal officers.

Smart and loyal officers. So smart, they know all about engines, they know all about the weather. Of course they've never worked in the engines or traveled in these waters but they are smart,,they KNOW.

They know so much and are so loyal they can make this ship do things it never did before.

They know so much, they even know what they didn't know.

"...."

except when they say they didn't know.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 08:50 AM
Technical question: Is it possible to impeach the Vice-President?


I think so.

But Congress can't even overide a veto on stem cell research.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 09:34 AM
My PHD is in boats. .

back to this very,very BIG ship of state. It takes awhile to change course. Some of the officers on deck have been changed. It took the 2006 elections for the captain to remove Secretary Rumsfeld. It wasn't a mutiny but GW held on to Rumsfeld as long as he could.
This new Secretary is a nuts and bolts guy, pragmatic. If he sees that the ship can't make it to port on this course with the amount of fuel on board he'll tell the captain.

But who is the captain, is it GW or Cheney?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aqyVudQqbWf4



``Bob Gates is a very realistic guy,'' said Adelman, who backed the 2003 U.S. invasion but now says the war has been mismanaged. ``He will look at the situation and ask himself, `Can we win this?' If the answer is, not really, he won't be interested in sacrificing more American lives.''

Some analysts, such as Michael O'Hanlon of Washington's Brookings Institution, say Gates will move cautiously, given the fierce commitment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the Iraq enterprise.

`Hard for the President'

``I think he's going to be careful,'' O'Hanlon said. ``He knows it will be hard for the president to modify this strategy.''

Vince Brennan
06-22-2007, 09:34 AM
(Not to offend the Atheists/Theists here, but)

God, how I just love when someone makes a a point here and everyone suddenly discovers the joys of ad-hominem argument!

The initial post and my revulsion have NOTHING to do with the fact that the administration is Republican... I would be just as outraged if it were the Democrats, the Socialists, the Greens or the Purples in power... it has to do with Cheney and his stooge (and all their little stooges) doing this country right in it's (censored) and stuffing their pockets with the resultant cash, it has to do with the rape of the Constitutional Process, the complete disregard for the process of checks and balances and the resultant damage to the entire governmental process that we so jejunely think is democratic.

We are in a time of flux and people persist in making this a partisan exercize instead of seeing the present crisis for what it is: a paradigm shift in the perception of elected and appointed officials that THEY are somehow more capable of deciding what is best for the country and the hell with all those silly rules which are preventing them from accomplishing their goals.

What is even more damaging is that this mindset is being ingrained in every minor appointee and junior legislator (Well, Hell, THEY got away with it! Why shouldn't we try to do THIS? Against WHAT law? They managed to ignore it, so we can too!) and we're going to be dealing with that fallout far longer than we will the present administration.

The urge to push the envelope and feather one's nest in the process has been with us since the founding of this country (why do you think the Federalist controversy was such a "hot topic"?) but the system of check, balances and law has been sufficient to at least pull things back onto a (somewhat) even keel until the last forty years or so... then someone figured out that they could claim one "privilege" or another to scoot around this or that roadblock and we've been off to the races ever since.

The question is NOT one of partisanship... it is a question of criminal malfeasance and potential destruction of this country's method and logic of governmental practice.

If you think that we should invest the office of the President with Imperial powers and the ability to rule by fiat, then the present course of things should please... if you do not (and I am one who does not) than it is time to raise your voice in protest and opposition.

("Sure, lads, and we're after takin' names in the back of the hall...")

Aside: The forum as a whole WAS created for boats and boat topics, but THIS forum department was specifically created for the expression of ANY opinion on ANY subject. I would no more start a discussion HERE of the proper way to sand teak than I would start in B&R a discussion on whether Paris' skirts are too short.

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

PatCox
06-22-2007, 10:04 AM
erster's posts are perfectly understandable to me; I learned illiterate when I lived in the south. I will translate to English: "Anyone who voted against Bush and Cheney is a commie liar, and therefore, anything they say about Cheney is a lie. And besides, northerners, liberals, and innner city dwellers (that means blacks and browns and such other people) are not real americans, and their opinions don't count. Therefore, the administration's low approval ratings mean nothing, because real Americans, southern rednecks, still approve of him and they are the only people who matter. On the other hand, the low approval rating of congress is entirely the fault of the democrats in congress and it proves that everything bad is the democrats fault and not Bush and Cheney, who would be the bestest administration in history if not for the intereference of traitorous democrats, liberals, yankees, and welfare-sucking minorities.

Tell me if I got anything wrong, erster.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-22-2007, 10:08 AM
Erster,
My sixth grade nun thinks you are trying to dodge the main issue of this thread.
It is:
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney,
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney,
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney,
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney,
Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, Cheney, etc.

Memphis Mike
06-22-2007, 10:10 AM
I'm sorry but I don't recall. I have no idea what you are talking about. This is surely a right wing conspiracy again the left. All we can do is just laugh it off and go about our days of doing the peoples work.

It's black but the font needs to be larger. I can't hear you.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 10:18 AM
I'm sorry but I don't recall. I have no idea what you are talking about. This is surely a right wing conspiracy again the left. All we can do is just laugh it off and go about our days of doing the peoples work.

That shelf in your head is only big enough to hold one tool at a time. The rest are cluttered all over the floor.

When you use actual tools with actual materials they all stay where you left them.

Here if the tool is ridicule that's all you you have. There's no room on the shelf to hold an idea. So now you're holding ridicule.

Other folks show you an idea called "Vice President rejects oversight" and there's no room for ANYTHING on your shelf, there's no room to work with this idea and be Oyster, the boat builder, the cb listener.
So this idea falls to the floor with all those other tools. All jumbled up.

I show you a model ship, but you don't make models, there's no room on your shelf for models. It falls to the floor with reason and metaphor.

"I don't recall, I have no idea what you're talking about"

You have always been honest.

Osborne Russell
06-22-2007, 10:18 AM
What is even more damaging is that this mindset is being ingrained in every minor appointee and junior legislator (Well, Hell, THEY got away with it! Why shouldn't we try to do THIS? Against WHAT law? They managed to ignore it, so we can too!) and we're going to be dealing with that fallout far longer than we will the present administration.

Then they insist that Bill & Monica was an equal failure of moral leadership.

As you say, regardless of which one was Democratic or Republican is irrelevant. It's a stupid argument.

The only explanation I can think of is along the lines of "sex sells."

Joe (SoCal)
06-22-2007, 10:26 AM
Now that you have been duely informed I guess you won't be giving any 5th grade English teachers cat fits any more.

Tess just graduated the 3rd grade TODAY with a NYS reading, writing and comprehension in the top 1% scoring a perfect 800 out of 800.

I just had to brag :D

LeeG
06-22-2007, 10:28 AM
Fear and sex. Fear has been beddy, beddy good for this WhiteHouse.

Joe (SoCal)
06-22-2007, 10:32 AM
As two ships in the middle of the night, we both go our ways, smooth sailing, cept I am actually going sailing today while you navigate your way through the wrinkled up and tired articles of partisanship

I'm going sailing today too :D

And I have to say Oyster you should re read Lee's metaphor again it is wonderfully well written and dead on accurate.

PatCox
06-22-2007, 10:33 AM
"The same people that did not vote for Bush and Cheney from the very beginning, are the same ones that express your thoughts. The percentage is not 90 percent unless you want to take some poll in some of the northern states or inner cities."

This means that northerners and minorities are the only ones who disapprove of Bush and Cheney.

Joe (SoCal)
06-22-2007, 10:35 AM
Congratulations, and Will she be tutoring you now?:D :D[That was a big red traget feller]

The best a parent can hope for is for their children to do better them.

traget???

traget??? :rolleyes: ;) :p

Vince Brennan
06-22-2007, 10:36 AM
Gournish Helfen

LeeG
06-22-2007, 10:45 AM
here is the letter starting all this.

Cheney is both executive AND legislative.

Therefore he's extra special. More than just a part of the executive branch, more than just a part of the legislative branch.

If he needs to leak something to bolster the case for Saddams WMD programs,,then he can declassify it outside of channels.

If he needs special intel linking Saddam with Osama he's got David Wurmser ready to find those links in the adhoc intel groups under Rumsfeld and fellow neocons. When the OSP closes up Wurmser bounces from DOD to assitant to Bolton in the State Dept. back up to Cheneys office.

When Cheney needs to attack critics of the administration he can use anymeans. The CIA is fair game.

Come on,, he announces national policy in front of NRA crowds and shoots a friend but doesn't tell the Whitehouse spokesman. He continues the line about wmd long after the invasion and intel is coming back from Iraq.

He comes to power using Christian fundies but has the resources to protect his gay pregnant daughter.

He puts his other daughter in the State Dept. massaging intel against Iran.

He's got the whole world, in his hands, he's got the whole wide world, in his hands..

GW and Cheney,,pedal to the metal and straight towards the cliff.

The base keep clapping.."ooh" "oh",,"pretty" and those not brain dead are thinking,,"damn,,maybe there's a problem,,well at least no one lied about a blow job"

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095027.pdf

'This has been reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to The Office of the Vice President, which has both legislative and executive functions.'"

PatCox
06-22-2007, 10:46 AM
Ah, the heck with it. Blame the fire department (the democratic congress) for being unable to put out the fire that the arsonists (the Bush administration) started. That seems to be Rush, Hannity, and O'Lielly's latest mantra.

PatCox
06-22-2007, 10:47 AM
He put two daughters to work. And all the while still collecting yearly cash payments from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar defense contractor.

Osborne Russell
06-22-2007, 10:49 AM
Will it change Cheney and Washington?

Now there's a standard of citizenship. Very pragmatic. Absolves you of practically any responsibility. And isn't freedom the idea? What more important freedom than the freedom from responsibility?

LeeG
06-22-2007, 11:00 AM
He put two daughters to work. And all the while still collecting yearly cash payments from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar defense contractor.

my favorite image is Mary Cheney going into a gay bar to sell Coors.
The Coors brothers fuel the religious right in the 70's, get smacked down and here comes the Cheneys to ride the gravy train of religious hypocrisy. Ted Haggard and Jerry Fallwell, just amateurs.

Brings back memories of my volunteering for the republican party when I was 16 in 1971 for CREEP.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43375-2004Oct18.html

Before she became a public enigma, she used to earn a nice living as a corporate liaison for Coors Brewing Co., going into gay bars (sometimes with Mr. International Leather 1999, who would wear his chaps and straps, according to the Advocate) to convince everyone that Coors had changed. For a long time, gay people were implored by activists to boycott Coors, based on its funding of anti-gay causes. Mary got in there, talked about Coors's new domestic-partner benefits for employees. Mary said, here, try a Coors. She was good at that, and the boycott wafted away, and you didn't see as much Bud Light in gay bars.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 11:08 AM
Trojan horse politics,,like what, the most powerful vice presidency in history that came in on small business, small gov't, Christian values conservatism?
oh yeah


http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/29/mary/index1.html

Much of Cheney's work involved outreach to various gay subcultures, from drag queens to cowboys on the gay rodeo circuit. She spent a great deal of time trying to learn about the leather phenomenon, because it has a tight national network of aficionados who maintain close links through the Internet as well as annual events like the International Mr. Leather competition.

Cheney spent months researching the leather phenomenon, attending events some would find distasteful and carting home stacks of books from the library and bookstores. "My partner wants me to get rid of all these books," a friend quoted her as saying. "I'm so tired of looking at hairy men in leather!"

....
Mary Cheney's emergence will force the spotlight onto those issues and embarrass the campaign with intolerant positions, Smith said. "It presents all sorts of difficult questions." He scoffs at the notion that voters will accept what he calls "Trojan horse politics -- all those hard-right positions, packaged as conservative."

Joe (SoCal)
06-22-2007, 11:20 AM
Will it change Cheney and Washington? ;) Later

Temp 70º F
Wind WSW at 24-mph gusting to 28-mph :eek:
Pressure 29,83 in / 1010 hp STEADY

LATER INDEED
IM GOING SAILING :p

John of Phoenix
06-22-2007, 11:33 AM
After the Chicago Tribune reported last year that Cheney failed to report classification data [since 2002], the Federation of American Scientists filed a complaint. J. William Leonard, director of the Archives' oversight office, sent two letters to Cheney's chief of staff, David S. Addington, requesting compliance with the executive order but received no replies. Leonard then wrote Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in January asking him to render a legal ruling on whether the vice president is violating the order. Gonzales has not replied.
Gonzales has not replied? How could THAT be?

So cheney now wants two things -
Have dubya amend the Order to exclude the veep from reporting what he has declassified.
Eliminate the pesky National Archives Information Security Oversight Office.

cheney thinks he's above the law becuse he's allowed to be above the law.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 11:52 AM
the ,,what?

Refer to Neoconservative doctrine.
The law is for people who need laws. The ruling elite guide the law makers. Cobble together a garbage NIE justifying Iraqs WMD? no problem, pull together the right people and there you go. "law makers do your stuff".
And they did, and he did.
The docrines of unilateral action see no higher law. The doctrines of pre-emptive war see no other force than their own. The docrines of neoconservatism believe in signing statements negating congressional oversight. The actors in this opera speak,,and it is the only voice in the house.
How could it be otherwise. We elected them. To protect us. From big gov't. Moral decay. Foreign contagion. Dark skinned people. Perversion...but most importantly we elected them to protect us from lying politicians and the evil within. Between the evil from within and the evil from outside,,sheeit,,we need protection. Sure don't wanna be for the terrists, cuz if you're with us, you're agin us.

ljb5
06-22-2007, 12:02 PM
I began by showing the democrats on here that other democrats disapprove of the direction that their leaders have taken since the 2006 election.

You've been hacking away at that point for a while, Erster.... and not very successfully.

Let's make this clear: a poll showing dissatisfaction with Congress is not the same as showing dissatisfaction with the Democrats....

and it sure as hell is not the same as showing satisfaction with the Republicans!

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-22-2007, 12:06 PM
Tess just graduated the 3rd grade TODAY with a NYS reading, writing and comprehension in the top 1% scoring a perfect 800 out of 800.

I just had to brag :D

Good for Tess!
Would she consider going South for the summer and tutoring Erster on the construction of a proper simple sentence?

ljb5
06-22-2007, 12:10 PM
Erster, did you know that beloved Republican Senator Ted Stevens is being investigated by the FBI for having his house remodeled by an oil and gas company?

Of course, he's in Congress.... so I am very dissatisfied about his corruption... and it makes me dissatisfied about Congress.

But not dissatisfied about the Democrats.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 12:21 PM
You've been hacking away at that point for a while, Erster.... and not very successfully.

Let's make this clear: a poll showing dissatisfaction with Congress is not the same as showing dissatisfaction with the Democrats....

and it sure as hell is not the same as showing satisfaction with the Republicans!

If ones standards are relative to the alternative then a low satisfaction with the Congress means a low satisfaction with the Executive is ok. Like,,it's all low. Even at low tide we all get to go sailing. Except for that poor sucker on the edge of the mooring field stuck in shallow water. But screw him,,he shoulda known better anyway.

No ones being tortured are they?..and if they are,,well they deserved it because 1. they're not dressed like soldiers 2. their terrists. 3. they're like on that movie 24 and the bomb could be going off with someones daughter chained to a chair so we have to do something, do something, please for the love of God do ANYTHING!

LeeG
06-22-2007, 02:17 PM
yes Mike.

Joe (SoCal)
06-22-2007, 02:22 PM
Erster did you change your mind about going out ?

I sure did I headed down to the dock about 12:30 and man it was BLOWING I got the sail cover off and the motor started when I just looked at the whitecaps on the Hudson and said to myself this is going to be a stressful sail am I really up for a stressful sail. Besides the old sail is held together with too much sail tape ;) . I just did not feel like blowing out the sail for good this early in the season. Look at the raw data :eek: Blowing 25 mph with gusts in the 40 mph range :eek::eek::eek:

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/histGraphAll?day=22&year=2007&month=6&ID=KSWF&type=3&width=500

So I'm home now after running some errands and thinking if it mellows out a bit later I might go out for a sail. Hows about you.

As for Polls and people changing opinions after the last mid term election and the presidents opinion polls I would say MANY americans have changed their opinions ;)

ljb5
06-22-2007, 02:53 PM
Its pretty bad when even the liberals detest the liberals operating congress in this current crop.

You still pushing that tired line?

You may not be aware of this, but there are more than 250 Republicans in Congress.

What makes you think that everyone detests the liberals? You don't think anyone noticed those 250 Republicans?

elf
06-22-2007, 02:53 PM
Jeez, Joe. It's only blowing 16 here. Why aren't your hills helping out down there??!!!!

Those whose opinions have changed still need to tell their representatives. Otherwise we're going to continue along this path.

elf
06-22-2007, 02:55 PM
In all of the US congress at this point I believe there are at most three liberals. All the rest are conservatives.

LeeG
06-22-2007, 03:03 PM
Speaking of Congress the Senate Energy Bill passed with the provisions to raise mpg standards.
Now all that's needed is a veto.
I want GW to slam down every frigging bill that Congress comes up with untill they decide to work together,,or go out in 2008 with George and Dick.

High C
06-22-2007, 03:18 PM
....there are more than 250 Republicans in Congress....What makes you think that everyone detests the liberals? You don't think anyone noticed those 250 Republicans?

:D Now that's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Congressional approval polls are a measure of the minority party! :D

Keep 'em coming! :D :D

LeeG
06-22-2007, 03:25 PM
no problem, smiley face, smiley face, smiley face

John of Phoenix
06-22-2007, 04:10 PM
Republicans had controlled Congress since 1994 and during that time they had dismal approval ratings. I expect most of Americans don't know reps got their asses kicked in Nov and that things changed (modestly) in Jan.

You have to remember, Nicole died, Paris got thrown in and out and back in jail, the Sopranos finished killing everyone and what's his/her name won American Idol.
Americans "had other priorities".

Wait til September. Everyone will be sick of reruns and they'll have half a clue that at least something has changed. Check the polls then.

High C
06-22-2007, 04:10 PM
Congressional approval is at its lowest ever. It means nothing. Avert your eyes. :D

"Not fascist enough".... :D

elf
06-22-2007, 04:14 PM
We have never seen a Democratic congress. Nobody in congress has been interested in democracy for as far back as I can recall. A congress interested in democracy would not have tolerated a cold war, a war in VietNam, the methodical trashing of the earth's environment, NAFTA and its extensions, under god in the pledge of allegiance, the industrialization of food production, the consolidation of the media and the stalemating of the US Congress - to name only a few of the undemocratic things which have happened in the US since I began to notice in 1960.

Compromise does not produce democracy, as anyone looking carefully can see.

elf
06-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Who's this Mr. William Ofthepeople (let's use proper names here now) you're talking about getting elected to congress?

Never heard of him.

High C
06-22-2007, 04:23 PM
....I expect most of Americans don't know reps got their asses kicked in Nov and that things changed (modestly) in Jan.....

:D The voters don't yet realize what they did? Is ljb5 writing your material? :D

Osborne Russell
06-22-2007, 04:24 PM
Gonzales has not replied? How could THAT be?

1. Maybe he did but does not recall.
2. Mistakes were made. Don't know what they were and don't care to.
3. He takes full responsibility.
4. He continues to serve at the pleasure of the President.
5. The President also takes full responsibility. He continues to serve because you can't impeach him. So bite me.

-- "The Chimp's Five Noble Truths"

John of Phoenix
06-22-2007, 04:32 PM
1. Maybe he did but does not recall.
I heard the AMA has named this - RCRS disorder - Republicans Can't Remember Sh!t.

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070621iii.gif
Best they ever had was during Watergate. (Hint, hint.)

Tanbark Spanker
06-22-2007, 04:38 PM
Richard 'Conflict of Interest' Cheney. Eveybody knows he contracted the 911 Twin Towers hit.

ljb5
06-22-2007, 04:46 PM
Well like I stated earlier, if the will of the people was elected and the will of the people allows congress to act on the wishes of the people, for some reason the message is also falling on the hearing impaired in Washington, even after the new folks came to town. Thats all that I am saying, which also includes any action against Cheney, which this thread is all about. I support a lot of changes in Washington. I see nothing including many of the forbidden fruit titled earmarks, pork and all that corrupt stuff, or something like that.


God, I wish you could express yourself clearly, because I'd love to address your comments.

In our system of government, Congress is not empowered to act on its own. Anything Congress passes must pass through the president, (unless Congress has enough votes to override a veto.) When you talk about nothing getting done, you're really talking about the President obstructing Congress.

Second, I find it humorous that you now talk about earmarks and corruption.

When the Republicans held all branches of government, you swore up and down that there was no such thing as corruption. Even as Republicans were being led away in handcuffs you swore they'd done nothing wrong.

John of Phoenix
06-22-2007, 04:49 PM
Republicans lost 6 Senate seats and 27 House seats in November.
Is that an ass kicking or an ASS KICKING?

Republicans went from strong majorities to very slight minorities in both House and Senate.
You expect what to change in a few months?

Tanbark Spanker
06-22-2007, 05:00 PM
You seem to forget the elections are rigged. The is no democracy in the US, only economic feudalism.

John of Phoenix
06-22-2007, 05:30 PM
How do you define conservative?

elf
06-22-2007, 05:50 PM
I guess Oyster's idea of having some say in DC is Tom DeLay. Otherwise he seems to think Repugs are mute.

John of Phoenix
06-23-2007, 12:06 AM
If I personally knew that there could be a legitimate discussion without the gang rape, I would share several comments from my point of view.
That's the standard cop out.
A simple question...once again...

How do you define conservative?
Just state your opinion.

LeeG
06-23-2007, 08:47 AM
back on topic. Anyone remember the missing 18minutes of tape?

Ok,,GW announces that he didn't intend the executive order for keeping oversight on records apply to him and Cheney,,everyone else but not them.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201809.html?nav=hcmodule

John of Phoenix
06-23-2007, 08:55 AM
The Imperial dubya...

"This is a little bit of a nonissue," Perino said at a briefing dominated by the issue. Cheney is not subject to the executive order, she said, "because the president gets to decide whether or not he should be treated separately, and he's decided that he should."

LeeG
06-23-2007, 08:59 AM
tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies. er,,Noble Lies
time to review the wonderful world of neoconservativism, it unites the divisioin of liberal/conservativism with the the amorality of power. It only gets bettter.


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/23/olbermann-fact-check-isoo/

Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Dick Cheney’s claim of existing outside the Executive Order (EO) that governs the preservation of classified data, a directive which applies to all Executive Branch officials.

Dismissing the topic as “a little bit of a nonissue,” Perino said President Bush “gets to decide whether or not [Cheney] should be treated separately, and he’s decided that he should.” She then suggested there was textual evidence in the 2003 Executive Order to support the claim that it was not applicable to Cheney:

PERINO: If you look on page 18 of the EO, when you have a chance, there’s a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency. And the President also, as the author of an EO, and the person responsible for interpreting the EO, did not intend for the Vice President to be treated as an agency, and that’s clear.

Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported that his staff fact-checked Perino’s claim, looked at page 18 of the order, and found Perino’s claim to be false:

OLBERMANN: No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 — which is about something else altogether — and 5.2 — which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.

elf
06-23-2007, 09:31 AM
Well now, ain't it nice that MSNBC is finally, after 6+ years, beginning to think that perhaps it should be doing some fact checking.

ljb5
06-23-2007, 08:31 PM
If Cheney isn't in the Executive Branch, who pays his bills and signs his paycheck?

Rham Emanuel proposes cutting funding to the VP's office. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014786.php)

Gotcha!

LeeG
06-23-2007, 08:35 PM
Darth Cheney has other needs than paying bills.

LeeG
06-23-2007, 08:46 PM
Mike, you are very funny.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-23-2007, 10:23 PM
I seriously doubt that Cheney is really worried about the money. I bet some of those mega oil guys would be more than happy to forgo their coffee fund jars to help the impoverished Cheney with his loss of his paycheck. I also bet that the dems in congress has no spine to cut the funds for the Cheney, either. The scenerio is right in line with the lip service of cutting the war money, playing to you and many of your close buddies, both on here and in real life.;)
Heck I bet some on this forum could scrape together some used clothing and some day old fish that would carry him over for a few days until he gets his Social Security checks started or get his dividend checks from Haliburton delivered to the UAE banks..
I never ignore your comments and inquiries when humor is involved, only your CB static, 10-4 good buddie material, anyone out there that goes on and one and on and on and on and on for years.:p

Back up.
The question you are responding to concerns funding for the EXECUTVE BRANCH not the pin money Cheney gets from the US Treasury.
The real dough is in the no-bid contracts given to folks close to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Dub'ya. Cheney's share of the Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater lucre will be waiting for him when the coast is clear. Talk about the "Merchants of Death"!

LeeG
06-24-2007, 01:13 AM
Here's the first of the four part series about Cheney. It's finally happening. The dots are being connected. Only took $500billion and 3500 soldiers .

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

On Nov. 14, 2001, the day after Bush signed the commissions order, Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not "deserve to be treated as prisoners of war." [Read Cheney's full remarks]

The president had not yet made that decision. Ten weeks passed, and the Bush administration fought one of its fiercest internal brawls, before Bush ratified the policy that Cheney had declared: The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this book would be worth reading again

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Vulcans-History-Bushs-Cabinet/dp/B000EPFVIC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6746907-1482259?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182667043&sr=1-1

LeeG
06-24-2007, 06:35 AM
pretty picture

LeeG
06-24-2007, 07:05 AM
remember when Cheney shot his friend? He didn't call the Whitehouse to get the pr. machinery working for him. He had his host call a local reporter.

Cheney has the portfolio on intelligence. Way smart guy, he undermines checks and balances everywhere then the consequences of dysfunction (oops, bad intel) play out and an intelligence reorganization is announced to solve the intelligence communities supposed failure.
When it was Cheney who did the end-run with Rumsfeld catching the ball.
Then ends justifies the means.

from the WaPo article:

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.

...
On Oct. 25, 2001, the chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees were summoned to the White House for their first briefing on the eavesdropping and were told that it was one of the government's most closely compartmented secrets. Under Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, officials said, a conversation of that gravity would involve the commander in chief. But when the four lawmakers arrived in the West Wing lobby, an aide led them through the door on the right, away from the Oval Office.

"We met in the vice president's office," recalled former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.). Bush had told Graham already, when the senator assumed the intelligence panel chairmanship, that "the vice president should be your point of contact in the White House." Cheney, the president said, "has the portfolio for intelligence activities."

High C
06-24-2007, 09:04 AM
...It's finally happening. ...Cheney took the next big step. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that terrorists do not "deserve to be treated as prisoners of war."...The Geneva Conventions would not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters captured on the battlefield.....

Yawn.

I expect that the vast majority of Americans agrees that terrorists should not be accorded the rights of POWs.

What's yer next bombshell? :rolleyes: That the VP plays an active role in the administration? I remember that the same folks who are now foaming at the mouth over Dick Cheney were all aglow when Al Gore took on a similar level of involvement in the Clinton administration.

More yawns.... :rolleyes:

elf
06-24-2007, 09:07 AM
Clinton was not a puppet being operated by his vice-president. Mr. Gore never had anything like the role and power that Mr. Cheney has exercised.

Joe (SoCal)
06-24-2007, 09:30 AM
I also recall another group that ended up on the "street" with no job and no place to go in 2001. I also understand through the media that their darlings made out pretty well, with a group of friends getting together and got those two homeless folks a nice starter home in New York. Those folks really got back on their feet, worth in the millions now. Ain't America grand what they do for the jobless and homeless folks living under the stars and stripes of Old Glory?:cool: People sit around and whine each day about folks flying the colors, wearing lapel pens of old glory and chest thumping about how grand this country is, while folks worth a lot less in dollars continue to do this and are proud to be part of those folks going about their days. Some of you guys should at least step away from the puter as time be a wasting with nothing to show for it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Bateau1/DSC01763.jpg

Even this registered Independant, liberal thinking, finacialy conservative, has patriotic sailing shots just like you :D


http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid209/pae8221c6502dd5fb7484d558f33629c4/ee34bce7.jpg

Psssst and I even think my flag is bigger than yours ;)
Oh and if you look close you will see Im flying TWO Flags :D

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid209/p92a2a2b469036937ed7fb29c90c43bfc/ee34bc76.jpg

Gee it feels good being back in the fray of it posting photos again :D

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-24-2007, 09:47 AM
"I also recall another group that ended up on the "street" with no job and no place to go in 2001. I also understand through the media that their darlings made out pretty well, with a group of friends getting together and got those two homeless folks a nice starter home in New York. Those folks really got back on their feet, worth in the millions now. Ain't America grand what they do for the jobless and homeless folks living under the stars and stripes of Old Glory?:cool: People sit around and whine each day about folks flying the colors, wearing lapel pens of old glory and chest thumping about how grand this country is, while folks worth a lot less in dollars continue to do this and are proud to be part of those folks going about their days. Some of you guys should at least step away from the puter as time be a wasting with nothing to show for it."

Is Dick Cheney somewhere in this little monolog? If not, why not? I always thought Dick Cheney was the delight of RED America. How come you always alter course when discussions of his activites come up? For better or worse he will be the icon of RED America in the history books. The man behind the throne.
Some of us see him as the Rasputin of American politics but, what do we know?

elf
06-24-2007, 09:51 AM
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

Amazing - the 4th estate is finally getting around to it.

Osborne Russell
06-24-2007, 10:00 AM
Yawn.

I expect that the vast majority of Americans agrees that terrorists should not be accorded the rights of POWs.

I doubt it’s an informed view.

As I understand it, a person in custody can be:

1. charged with a crime
2. a prisoner of war
3. an unlawful enemy combatant

If you go the criminal route, you have to bring the charge to trial and have it decided one way or the other.

People reject the POW route as you say.

The only remaining alternative is UEC. Why is that the preferred alternative?

LeeG
06-24-2007, 11:22 AM
Yawn.

I expect that the vast majority of Americans agrees that terrorists should not be accorded the rights of POWs.

What's yer next bombshell? :rolleyes: That the VP plays an active role in the administration? I remember that the same folks who are now foaming at the mouth over Dick Cheney were all aglow when Al Gore took on a similar level of involvement in the Clinton administration.

More yawns.... :rolleyes:

The vast majority of Americans thought Saddam had a role in 9/11.
Even during the 2004 election a significant percentage still thought as much.

The important thing is making decisions using accurate information. Not using disinformation to support a prefered decision.

Once you made the statement "terrorists shouldn't.." you determined identity, culpability and actions all in one easy sentence without proof.

Imagine rednecks from Louisiana being dispatched without trial and stuck for years because they were suspected of being terrorists?

Oh right, if they ARE terrorists they aren't suspects anymore.

Got it.

re. your comparison with Gore,,it's no comparison.

High C
06-24-2007, 05:09 PM
...Imagine rednecks from Louisiana being dispatched without trial and stuck for years because they were suspected of being terrorists?....

Do you think that would work? I'm willing to give it a try. Come get 'em! :eek: ;)

POWs are stuck for years, too, you know. No lawyers, no trials, no habeas corpus, and no "culturally sensitive" meals.

Osborne Russell
06-24-2007, 05:15 PM
POWs are stuck for years, too, you know. No lawyers, no trials, no habeas corpus, and no "culturally sensitive" meals.

So why do Americans oppose holding terrorists as prisoners of war, as you say?

High C
06-24-2007, 06:22 PM
So why do Americans oppose holding terrorists as prisoners of war, as you say?

Because soldiers stop fighting once the war is over. Terrorists have sworn to never stop.

George Jung
06-24-2007, 06:33 PM
This thread seems to be all over the place; as good a place to post this as any.
CNN had a story this week about corruption in Congress (both houses, eh? And both parties, fwiw....). Did you know that, no matter the infraction, our Senators and Reps. receive their pension after they leave office? Went to prison? No problemo;..... we'll have your check waiting for you. Embezzled funds/took bribes and stuck 'em in the freezer? Same answer.
The comment was made that legislation has been introduced to address this. The Dems campaigned on this issue too, according to the report. But it seems that now, in the majority, the Dem controlled congress won't even let the bill come up for a vote.
And lest you think this is biased, the Rips did the same thing, a few years ago.
I just think it's fascinating how the whole damned bunch is so corrupt. You can throw 'em out, but the replacements look cut from the same cloth.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-25-2007, 12:32 AM
Yawn.

I expect that the vast majority of Americans agrees that terrorists should not be accorded the rights of POWs.

Trial by mob, eh? Got to admit that's quick and dirty.


What's yer next bombshell? :rolleyes: That the VP plays an active role in the administration? I remember that the same folks who are now foaming at the mouth over Dick Cheney were all aglow when Al Gore took on a similar level of involvement in the Clinton administration.

More yawns.... :rolleyes:

Interesting comparison. Can you site such an occurance? Preferably something of immediate import like the declaration above that had us bumping into the US Constitution and numerous treaties we are party to.

pcford
06-25-2007, 01:05 AM
I am still confused to the reasons that people homestead this boat forum and waste every awaking hours discusing such nonsense and replying to childish insults. Oh well...

I like the way that you sometimes portray yourself as above the fray and distain the muck in the bilge. Yet you are one of the most prolific authors down here....and exude your own distinctive flavor of bilge water.

LeeG
06-25-2007, 05:24 AM
High isn't a detail man, he looks at the big picture.

LeeG
06-25-2007, 05:43 AM
Part II, Pushing the envelope,Cheney series. Maybe the next administration could push different envelopes.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html

On June 8, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell learned of the two-year-old torture memo for the first time from an article in The Washington Post [Read the article]. According to a former White House official with firsthand knowledge, they confronted Gonzales together in his office.

Rice "very angrily said there would be no more secret opinions on international and national security law," the official said, adding that she threatened to take the matter to the president if Gonzales kept them out of the loop again. Powell remarked admiringly, as they emerged, that Rice dressed down the president's lawyer "in full Nurse Ratched mode," a reference to the ward chief of a mental hospital in the 1975 film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Neither of them took their objections to Cheney, the official said, a much more dangerous course.

......................

In the summer and fall of 2002, some of the Bush administration's leading lawyers began to warn that Cheney and his Pentagon allies had set the government on a path for defeat in court. As the judicial branch took up challenges to the president's assertion of wartime power, Justice Department lawyers increasingly found themselves defending what they believed to be losing positions -- directed by the vice president and his staff. One of the uneasy lawyers was Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative stalwart whose wife, Barbara, had been killed less than a year before when the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Olson shared Cheney's robust view of executive authority, but his job was to win cases. Two that particularly worried him involved U.S. citizens -- Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi -- who had been declared enemy combatants and denied access to lawyers.

................

Bush said last September that he would "work with" Congress to review "an alternative set of procedures" for "tough" -- but, he said, lawful -- interrogation. He did not promise to submit legislation or to report particulars to any oversight committee, and he has not done so.

Two questions remain, officials said. One involves techniques to be authorized now. The other is whether any technique should be explicitly forbidden. According to participants in the debate, the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.

If Cheney advocates a return to waterboarding, they said, they have not heard him say so. But his office has fought fiercely against an executive order or CIA directive that would make the technique illegal.

"That's just the vice president," said Gerson, Bush's longtime chief speechwriter, referring to Cheney's October remark that "a dunk in the water" for terrorists -- a radio interviewer's term -- is "a no-brainer for me."

Gerson added: "It's principled. He's deeply conscious that this is a dangerous world, and he wants this president and future presidents to be able to deal with that. He feels very strongly about these things, and it's his great virtue and his weakness."

High C
06-25-2007, 08:27 AM
...Interesting comparison. Can you site such an occurance?....

When he was VP, Gore reinvented government. Just ask him, he'll tell ya.

ljb5
06-25-2007, 09:23 AM
When he was VP, Gore reinvented government. Just ask him, he'll tell ya.


Not quite the same.

If you can't name five differences, you're not prepared to have this discussion.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-25-2007, 10:07 AM
When he was VP, Gore reinvented government. Just ask him, he'll tell ya.

The precision of your response is about on a par with the usual fom that overly defensive mob called "Neocons". And it's about on the level of what Cheney puts forth to defend his empirial view of the office he holds.
It may take some time but, historians will, eventually, cut that man and his vice-presidency to pieces. Also, I'm curious about what perjorative will be coined to describe the Bush-Cheney years. So, much has gone wrong thest last seven years that it may require a litany complete with an index to characterize it all.
Fear not! Democracy is waiting in the wings. Even for those of us who feel threatened by it.

High C
06-25-2007, 10:07 AM
High isn't a detail man, he looks at the big picture.

Lee isn't a big picture man. He can't see the forest for the trees.

High C
06-25-2007, 10:08 AM
The precision of your response is truely amazing!

Easily amazed?

Actually, Al didn't really do much of substance, aside from a great deal of illegal fund raising, but they sure talked the good talk about how unprecedented the partnership was between Bill and Al. Of course Hillary eventually put a stop to that talk.

No substance of course, just lots of talk. Hey, it was the Clinton administration! The Dem faithful sure lapped it up at the time. But if a Republican VP does what Bill and Al pretended they were doing, look out! The Constitution is being shredded! :D

You guys! :D

Osborne Russell
06-25-2007, 10:26 AM
I see it suggested -- for some reason the journalists can't nail this down -- that Cheney's claim is not that the VP is not "excecutive branch", but that the directive applies to executive agencies, and the VP is not an agency of the executive branch.

But why quibble? Why wouldn't the problem be solved if the President simply amended the directive to state whether or not it applies to the VP? I doubt the administration would claim that it doesn't have the authority. So what's the hang-up?

Osborne Russell
06-25-2007, 10:34 AM
Because soldiers stop fighting once the war is over. Terrorists have sworn to never stop.

When our soldiers stop being soldiers, what are they? When they stop fighting a war, what are they doing?

You're trying to have it both ways. It's a "war" on terrorism only when it suits you.

If, by "war", you mean something other than what the word meant before the current administration, remember, it's not just politics. Bottom line, we owe the troops an explanation, and a good one. The troops are nineteen years old. The explanation is an essential part of their equipment, not a matter of personal opinion.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-25-2007, 11:10 AM
Easily amazed?

Actually, Al didn't really do much of substance, aside from a great deal of illegal fund raising, but they sure talked the good talk about how unprecedented the partnership was between Bill and Al. Of course Hillary eventually put a stop to that talk.

No substance of course, just lots of talk. Hey, it was the Clinton administration! The Dem faithful sure lapped it up at the time. But if a Republican VP does what Bill and Al pretended they were doing, look out! The Constitution is being shredded! :D

You guys! :D

You been drinking out of Lake Ponchetraine (sic)again?
If Al Gore did what you claim, it is, of course, a violation of some statute. Just like robbing a bank or peddling dope. But it is nowhere near an assault on the United States Constitution.
The Vice President has made a claim that he is immune from obeying a presidential order aimed at the executive branch because his office is not in the Executive Branch. Nor, he says, is it in the Legislative Branch. According to my calculations no one has made such a claim since the US Constitution went into effect in 215 years ago. If anyone has standing to challenge his assertion in court the case will go immediately to the Supreme Court because it falls into a special classification called "constitutional questions".
I, for one, hope the case is brought, but it is not likely given the time constraints. It would be the perfect test for those on the court who have artfully wrapped themselves in the cloak of "original intent". Could they, indeed, find a constitutionally defined office that is neither fish nor fowl and, therefore, immune from normal legal scrutiny?
Nothing that this Neocon mob does surprises me any more. But, I find it hurtfull that 30% of the voting public is still supportive of this regime even after all it's grabbing for imperial perogatives.

LeeG
06-25-2007, 11:11 AM
Lee isn't a big picture man. He can't see the forest for the trees.

what's the big picture in Iraq?

Is terrorism increased or decreased?
The Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan,tent camps within Iraq, 50% flight of doctors, reduced gas, electricity, clean water, sanitation. Does that increase or decrease pro-western sentiment? Does that increase/decrease the breeding ground for terrorism?

Your forest and trees are word bytes.

The big picture is that Cheneys accumulation of power under the guise of the Unitary Executive Theory deluded him and others into believing checks and balances are for those without power. The neoconservative doctrine is based on an articulated amorality.

LeeG
06-25-2007, 11:20 AM
Nothing that this Neocon mob does surprises me any more. But, I find it hurtfull that 30% of the voting public is still supportive of this regime even after all it's grabbing for imperial perogatives.




41% still think Saddam had a direct role in 9/11.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/


so if we have had an insanely high voter turnout of 80% where folks were sure that Saddam was connected to 9/11. You'd win peddling that fiction.

golly. I think them foreigners hate us because we're free. Certainly it's not that we have the power to destroy half the world while mired in ignorance.

hey, lets start a manned mission to Mars!!!
or,,drill for more oil!!!

High C
06-25-2007, 12:06 PM
You been drinking out of lake Ponchetraine again?

Why, no I haven't, Kiahoagga Chuck.

ljb5
06-25-2007, 12:17 PM
Hey LeeG... did you see this story (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/24/MNGIUQKUID1.DTL)?

Man, that's just too bizarre to be believed!

LeeG
06-25-2007, 12:32 PM
dang, the CPA could have used him.

ljb5
06-25-2007, 12:38 PM
dang, the CPA could have used him.

Seriously, how do you think he got hired?

He's got nothing on his resume which would make him seem qualified for the job. He had no previous experience in California or in the field of political finance. Apparently they didn't check his references.

Surely, he couldn't be the only applicant for the job, could he?

I suspect someone short-circuited the normal employment process because they had a "personal" relationship with him.

He's already married twice for non-romantic reasons... obviously he's not above pimping himself to get ahead.

Who's pulling the strings?

Kaa
06-25-2007, 12:41 PM
We have never seen a Democratic congress. Nobody in congress has been interested in democracy for as far back as I can recall. A congress interested in democracy would not have tolerated a cold war, a war in VietNam, the methodical trashing of the earth's environment, NAFTA and its extensions, under god in the pledge of allegiance, the industrialization of food production, the consolidation of the media and the stalemating of the US Congress - to name only a few of the undemocratic things which have happened in the US since I began to notice in 1960.

You are not confusing democracy with your own personal political views by any chance, are you?

Kaa

elf
06-25-2007, 12:52 PM
Nup.

Kaa
06-25-2007, 01:23 PM
Interesting. How do you define democracy, then?

Kaa

LeeG
06-25-2007, 07:31 PM
Seems to me this is a yes/no question. Wish I heard it. Ok gang,,can we NOW say the emperors clothes are lacking?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070625-5.html

Q Dana, as long as we're talking about branches of government, can you go back to Vice President Cheney again, the argument that he's not part of the executive branch. Does the President believe he's part of the executive branch?

MS. PERINO: I think that that is an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it. ....So these are -- that's an interesting constitutional question
..
MS. PERINO: I'm not opining on it,
...
MS. PERINO: I'm not opining on it either way
....
MS. PERINO: Victoria, go ahead.

Q We should get someone out here who can answer our questions
...

Q Can I just rewind to the executive order one more time? I'm trying to see, is the White House saying that you disagree with the argument the Vice President's office is making?

MS. PERINO: No, I didn't say that.

Q I know, but what are you saying? I don't get it, really. Is the White House at odds with what the Vice President is saying the reason he's not --

MS. PERINO: I'm not opining on that, and I'm not going to comment on it
....
Q Okay. And just lastly, it's a little surreal -- I mean, how is it possible --

MS. PERINO: You're telling me.

Q Well -- that you can't give an opinion about whether the Vice President is part of the executive branch or not?

MS. PERINO: All I know is that --

Q It's a little bit like somebody saying, "I don't know if this is my wife or not." (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: I think it's a little bit more complicated than that.

Q No, but honestly, I mean, there's no --

MS. PERINO: No, honestly, I think it's more complicated than that. I do.

....

Q Dana, for 200-plus years, everybody from civics class on up has had a certain understanding of the way our government works. And this EO clarifies more than 200 years of constitutional scholarship about the way our system works?

MS. PERINO: Maybe it's me, but I think that everyone is making this a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. The President writes an executive order; he says --

Q I'm talking about the part where the Vice President says that there's a question about whether or not he's part of the executive branch.

MS. PERINO: And the point I was trying to make to you before is that I --

Q This really falls into "sky is blue" stuff.

....
Q He can argue he's part of both, but he can't possibly argue that he's part of neither. And it seems like he's saying he's part of neither.

MS. PERINO: Okay, you have me thoroughly confused, as well.

Figment
06-25-2007, 07:57 PM
I just read the full length of Lee's link.
Wow.

Maybe I don't watch enough c-span, but I'm near speechless.
Is that a typical white house press briefing? Is that pathetic dance really the best the administration can do?

She actually fell back on "I mentioned before, this President was President during the time of 9/11 when 3,000 of our citizens were killed by terrorists. We have not had another terrorist attack on our soil. And that, as the Vice President has said, is not an accident." when asked about the mess coming out of Cheney's office.

Grasping at the finest of straws! :rolleyes:

LeeG
06-25-2007, 09:48 PM
I miss Jeff Gannon

Tom Montgomery
06-25-2007, 11:33 PM
I like Rahm Emanuel's idea: agree with Vice President Cheney and 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.

It will be very interesting to see who supports Emanuel's amendment. This administration has lost many friends in Congress.

Let Cheney's office survive on the money he receives for serving as the President of the Senate.