Vice President Cheney says his office is not subject to monitoring by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Cheney claims that ISOO has no authority to check on how well his office does at classifying, handling and protecting secure, classified information.

Section 1.3 of the EO enumerates who has the authority to classify information. It says nothing about who is subject to monitoring or oversight by ISOO.

Section 5.3 grants ISOO “have the authority to conduct on-site reviews of each agency’s program established under this order.” It also states any agency disputing such access “shall submit a written justification recommending the denial of access to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs within 60 days of the request for access. Access shall be denied pending the response.”

Cheney’s office submitted nothing. They did not dispute access to specific document or documents; they denied all access, submitted no documents and essentially ignored ISOO. After several years of being pestered by ISOO Cheney’s office responded to the ISOO’s request for access by asking President Bush to amend the executive orders to close the ISOO.

In effect, Cheney doesn’t like the law so Cheney ignores it. After sufficient pestering, Cheney tries to get the law changed after the fact so he can remain exempt.

And this is the ‘Law and Order’ Party? Don’t make me laugh.

At worst, Olbermann can be condemned for glossing over the irrelevance of section 1.3, but he did not lie.

So why don’t you go and check his facts on this issue then, if he is so bad at fact checking? Come on, back up what you say – or are you just another RW BS artist?

Comment by Joe Blow — June 24, 2007 @ 7:21 am

We definitely need to clean up the mess the president left.

All of those pardons of fugitives, criminals, terrorists and cronies. We’ll have to look into the FBI files on his political opponents that he illegally pilfered.

Then we’ll have to really scruntinize the firing of all 93 US attorneys (93 is more than 8, right?) And when that’s concluded, we’ll look into the illegal firing of the Travel office employees.

And when we’re done with that, we’ll have to start looking into all of those accusations of sexual assault. You know, the assaults that the media aggressively, thoroughly and studiously covered, demanding to know if the president was guilty of assaulting, attacking and even raping women.

And of course, we’ll have to look into the National Security Advisoer for stealing and destroying classified national security documents.

And on and on and on.

Yes, there’s certainly plenty of incomplete investigative work left to be done on this administration.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 23, 2007 @ 11:23 pm

Yeah! Only Bill Clinton gets to determine which laws he gets to follow and which ones he doesn’t.

What an outrage!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/24/the_i_word/

You could not dream up stuff this good even if you tried. After the Bush administration leaves the white house congress is going to have to explain why this was allowed to go on for so long. I can not wait for that show to start, the finger pointing will go on for years. We should take bets on the excuses we will hear. Bring ‘em on!

Comment by veritas — June 23, 2007 @ 9:45 am

The Democrats don’t yet have sufficient votes to do as you demand. And they haven’t yet sufficient votes because of foot-dragging Republicans.

So who do you bash? The Democrats. Pro-Bushit troll.

There is no justice in the world and he proves it, yet here you are, typing away. Must be highly amusing for his Lowness.

(b) “Agency” means any “Executive agency,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any “Military department” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

Now, daleyrocks, unless the President and Vice President are not each an “entity within the executive branch”, it looks like the EO must apply to them, too.

For Bush’s spokesperson to say that the president never meant it to apply to himself and Cheney is absurd! It would be another case of him deciding which laws and rules he wants to follow and which ones he doesn’t. And he constitutionally DOES NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE! (Check Article II, Section 3 of the constitution.)