Gonzales apparently not probing Cheney exemption.
Gonzales apparently not probing Cheney exemption.
After Vice President Cheney’s office refused to follow a presidential order on classification procedures, National Archives official J. William Leonard asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to have the Office of Legal Counsel help solve the impasse. Justice Dept. officials said last week that the matter has been “under review” for five months. But it appears that’s not the case:
[O]n June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had “no documents” on the matter… Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter “puzzling and inexplicable” — especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response “was and remains accurate” because Leonard’s letter had generated no “substantive work product.”
House oversight chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) now says he will investigate Gonzales’ handling of the issue.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
297 Responses to “Gonzales apparently not probing Cheney exemption.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
(Gonzales, responding to Cheney...)
"Is this where you want me to stand, lord Dick?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pmIn this corner, facing the back?
This is a really small closet you know, do you have to shut the door, too?
Oh, no, please don't lock it...."
Impeachment on the table is the only thing thugs understand, because it's the fear that they understand. Put it back. Now.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pmOF COURSE HE ISN'T!!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:52 pmOF COURSE HE ISN’T!!
Comment by Zooey — June 24, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Because Cheney won't give him permission to do so! :D
June 24th, 2007 at 12:58 pmThe only "moral" imperative that remains to this gang of thugs is holding on to power. Nothing else. Truth, justice, the good of the people, forget it.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pmWhether they had any moral imperatives to begin with is a hard argument to make.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:01 pmOk, so the Vice President says he's above the law. The Loyal Bushie Department of Justice does not, after 5 months, have anything substantial to show for its investigation.
And impeachment is still off the table. Which means, of course, that the Vice President is right.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pmGum it to death.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pmNothing will be fixed untill Nancy Pelosi gets over her Table Phobia, and allows impeachment to move forward.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pmIs there a law compelling him to investigate everything that some non-entity like National Archives official asks him to investigate? No.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:09 pmIs there a law compelling him to investigate everything that some non-entity like National Archives official asks him to investigate? No.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
No, but there's a law compelling him to investigate when government officials violate the law. Or did you not know that?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pmUntil they're impeached, they will continue to get away with anything they want to do, regardless of any laws to the contrary.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:15 pmThat's the way it is.
The Founding Fathers must be spinning like lathes in their graves.
#11: But it's up to him to decide if there is sufficient evidence, right? So, what's your point. He's just decided that there's no sufficient evidence to pursue a case.
If such screening was not performed routinely, our courts would be full of cases brought up by the likes of "ace" on this site. People who actually believe that the burden of proof is on us to falsify their insane 9/11 conspiracies.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pm"Waxman (D-CA) now says he will investigate Gonzales’ handling of the issue."
Waxman has his hands full. I think it may be time to create a sub-committee for all of the Gonzales investigations.
Next week is going to be interesting with the release of both the CIA' "Family Jewels" and Paris Hilton. I suspect that these events, along with all of the subterfuge like that above, is an attempt to distract us from something bigger:
The Art Of Misdirection
Stay alert.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm#9: And where do you think impeachment would lead to? President Cheney? Oh, I get it. You're so ambitious that you'd like to see President Pelosi instead? Not elected by the people, but taking over the presidency by a fancy legal move like that. Cool.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd where do you think impeachment would lead to? President Cheney? --- pedophile MAF54
The only impeachment papers drawn so far is for Cheney, with 8 co-sponsors, dumbass.
Maybe you are that stupid......
June 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pmGonzales:
"I don't seem to recall that I am part of the Justice Department"
June 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#16: So, even if Cheney is impeached, indicted and convicted, where does that leave you? You've still got President Bush to deal with. Don't tell me that your grand plan involves elevating Speaker Pelosi to the presidency by impeaching both the President and Vice President.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pmThe Representatives of each state need to hear from us "the people" otherwise - they can't call on impeachment by themselves when there hasn't even been a poll asking the American People how many support impeachment and most people who get their news (if any) from TV do not know what is going on in Washington. Everyone should be calling their representatives (sorry, I left the white house general number for calling your reps at work -- but I'll try to post again in here or call Thom Hartmann from Air America Radio (airamerica.com) and ask for the phone number).
June 24th, 2007 at 1:31 pmWe should be jamming with phone calls (believe me, they count) asking for impeachment. IT'S UP TO US -- WE THE PEOPLE! - -
Don’t tell me that your grand plan involves elevating Speaker Pelosi to the presidency by impeaching both the President and Vice President.
Comment by MAF54
The grand plan, Frank Matthews, is to get rid of, and convict, Bush and Cheney.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHey #15: "Not elected by the people, but taking over the presidency by a fancy legal move like that." Yeah, kinda like the 2000 election and probably 2004. I see what you mean, but let's get President Cheney first.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pmOh. It's so endearing to see you refer to "the people".
The plebs are a dangerous thing to deal with. You may get some votes, but soon after they'll be after your blood - unless they fear you. Just witness the bind the Democrats are now in after the elections. They didn't stop the war or impeach the President, and now the lunatic left is going for the jugular.
It's much better to marginalize them. They never get the big picture or understand political necessities.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:35 pm#20: And, in the process, give Pelosi the presidency. Thanks for confirming that.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:36 pmOr call to ask these two mafia thugs to resign! Whatever! Call! Write letters to your newsapers! Pass the news on to anyone you know, specially those who don't like to read! Information is key.
My dog would be a better president than these two. Who cares who it is, there will be elections again in 2008 -- but only if we get rid of this mafia now!
June 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pm"I am the Lizard King, I can do anything."
June 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pmDon’t tell me that your grand plan involves elevating Speaker Pelosi to the presidency by impeaching both the President and Vice President.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
You're projecting again, there is no "grand plan" except to protect the U.S. Constitution from the attacks on it by this administration. That's the oath that all of these PUBLIC OFFICIALS took.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pmAnd, in the process, give Pelosi the presidency. Thanks for confirming that.
Comment by MAF54
Who cares, Frank? This administration is CRIMINAL, in case you hadn't noticed. But you don't care, you think you're protected from harm or consequences because you support the criminals, but remember this: There is no honor among thieves.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:39 pm#20: And, in the process, give Pelosi the presidency. Thanks for confirming that.
Comment by MAF54
You're probably not old enough to remember, and clearly incapable of research, but Spiro Agnew resigned his position as VP in order to avoid the indignity of being impeached and convicted. President Nixon appointed a replacement to Agnew, who subsequently became President when Nixon left by the back door. There is no procedure by which the Speaker succeeds to the Vice Presidency if it's vacated.
Anyone paying attention for the last six years would know that Cheney has been the de facto ruler, while the Deciderer followed orders and was insulated from any real opposition to Cheney. It's not entirely clear to me that booting Cheney would prevent him from continuing to run things for the next 18 months but it's possible that merely getting him out of the building would allow some change.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pmBut it’s up to him to decide if there is sufficient evidence, right? So, what’s your point. He’s just decided that there’s no sufficient evidence to pursue a case.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
You enjoy being obtuse, don't you?
Okay, I'll try to explain the flaw in your "reasoning".
The people who work in our government are supposed to be working on behalf of the people, not on behalf of the president. Even though the president picks the person for the job (in this case AG), that person must still be confirmed by the peoples' branch, the Legislature (in this case, the Senate).
The foundation of our system of government is honesty, not blind loyalty to the person "in charge". That is just the authoritarian mindset we fought a revolution to get out from under. It is presumed that the people in our government will "do the right thing". It is absolutely, crystal clear from the evidence that has emerged since the Dems started the oversight hearings (that the Repub's were unwilling to do) that Gonzales has operated as if he served the president, not the people.
They are not "honest" people. If the AG "decide[s] that there’s no sufficient evidence to pursue a case," it's supposed to be because there really isn't enough evidence. And he isn't supposed to "decide" that fact, he is supposed to "conclude" that fact from looking at said evidence. (He's also supposed to actually look at the evidence). The ONLY reason Gonzales is not pursuing this is because it’s clear Cheney is guilty as hell. That or Cheney ordered him not to investigate. Nevertheless, the decision to investigate is supposed to be an objective one, not a political one. By refusing to investigate Cheney's obvious crimes, Gonzales has violated his oath. That oath was to support and defend the Constitution, not support and defend the president. He is no longer the president's lawyer (WH Counsel), he's the people's lawyer. He works on our behalf, not the president's.
Is that so difficult to grasp?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pmprotect the U.S. Constitution
Come on. We're smart people here. We all know that such rhetorics is just that - rhetorics - meant to rally up the plebs.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:50 pm#29: Awww... they're not honest people? That's a newsflash. Of course they're not. Do you really believe that people of power can afford to be honest?
June 24th, 2007 at 1:52 pmHmmm, let me make my allegation based many seconds of scientific deduction: Cheney told Gone-zo not to investigate his office!
June 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pmCrime solved.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
I'm...I'm...what's the word I'm looking for?...oh, yeah, GOBSMACKED!
June 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pmUuuuh.... we've got such a RAGING clue right now.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:57 pmYou don't mind if I share this, do you Frank aka MAF54? Maybe all the people who want to communicate with you can write you directly.
matthews.frank@gmail.com
June 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pmprotect the U.S. Constitution
Come on. We’re smart people here. We all know that such rhetorics is just that - rhetorics - meant to rally up the plebs.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Have you ever taken an oath to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic"?
I have! And I took that oath very, very seriously. In fact, I still feel bound by it as a citizen.
You, sir, clearly have no respect for the Constitution of the United States.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pmOh no, Zooey!
Why did you have to do that? I gave you my e-mail address in the strictest confidence. Just you and me, engaging in intelligent and polite exchange of political ideas. That was the deal!
Oh, woe is me! Now I am going to get mail from all the hothead liberals who will, no doubt, track me down and give me what I deserve for supporting this evil administration. How could you do this to me, Zooey?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pmprotect the U.S. Constitution
Come on. We’re smart people here. We all know that such rhetorics is just that - rhetorics - meant to rally up the plebs.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
MAF54 just showed his revulsion for the Constitution for the United States of America. You traitorous, worthless piece of $hit. No wonder you support this Administration. You are completely anti-American, unpatriotic and you can go crawl back under whatever rock you crawled out of.
Write whatever you want. You're invisible in my book.
/MAF54
June 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWhy did you have to do that? I gave you my e-mail address in the strictest confidence.
Comment by Frank M — June 24, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
You posted that e-mail address last night on a public thread! How much "confidentiality" did you expect?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pmHow could you do this to me, Zooey?
Comment by Frank M
Shit happens to creepy perverts, don't it?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pmShit happens to creepy perverts, don’t it?
Comment by Zooey — June 24, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Well...not enough - remember Foley? Whatever became of him - oh yeah - nothing.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pm"I gave you my e-mail address in the strictest confidence."
Comment by Frank M
you gave everyone your e-mail on a thread about 5 weeks ago
June 24th, 2007 at 2:10 pm#40: Indeed it does, my sweet onion ring. Oh have mercy on me.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:11 pmWillful ignorance fits you well!
June 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm"#40: Indeed it does, my sweet onion ring. Oh have mercy on me."
Comment by Frank M — June 24, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Ewww.
BTW, I don't think that's really MAF54.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm“I gave you my e-mail address in the strictest confidence.â€
Comment by Frank M
You posted on an open thread....
And why do you like to be known as a pedophile supporter, MAF54?
Come on. We’re smart people here. Comment by MAF54
Some of us are smart, but you have shown you definately are not.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pmSorry, 22 -- if you don't like "the people" you should go and live in Cuba or China, Venezuela, or any dictatorship of your flavoring, where "The people" has no voice and they can't elect their presidents. Left is EVERYBODY right now who is not with the oil mafia who took over the White House in 2000 and 2004, because anyone who stands side by side with this radical extreme right in power, has no other way to go but LEFT.
The People is not a reference to lower classes but 'plebs' is, and that's the term you preferred to use. I can tell you are very hurt by my posting which reflects an irrational instinctual fear of the "masses" who are going to take away your "castle and riches." and your are not a Progressive. I can bet you like this oligarchy --meaning, you would be pleased with a banana republic style third-world country government. But we are there already, don't worry. And this is the plan of this PNAC and Federalists members. There is a huge difference between a healthy capitalist society and a corrupt one --- don't forget that.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWTF? So typical....
Roxanne: You're right in the sense that I prefer a strong leader and weak government.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThe Democrats are too hung up on finding that a specific law, regulation or executive order was violated. More important is the management and policy purposes behind such oversight. They apply just as much to the President and his staff.
1. The purpose of reviewing classification decisions is to ensure that information is not improperly classified when it should be available to the public and to ensure that top secret information is appropriately classified to prevent damage to national security. The logical question: DOES BUSH/CHENEY BELIEVE THAT THEY OR THEIR STAFFS ARE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS RATHER THAN THE EXPERTS WHO REVIEW THESE MATTERS THROUGHOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? A COMPETENT EXECUTIVE WOULD RECOGNIZE THE NECESSITY OF THE ISOO EXPERTISE.
2. Do the President and his Vice-president believe that they know proper security arrangements better than the experts? Who reviews the procedures and practices within the WhiteHouse and to ensure that adequate security measures are taken on the use and distribution of classified documents?
3. Does not the President or Shotgun Dick understand that by exempting themseves that they undermine security efforts across the goverment by essentially demonstrating that these rules are only for the peons.
4. Does not the dynamic duo remember the PLAME affair. Even granting that the disclosure of Plame's identity was inadvertent, an agent was compromised and (more importantly) her cover company outed. Yet there has been no internal review. DOES THIS INDICATE A CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS GUARDING OUR NATION'S SECRETS?
Next we can go to the legal arguments such as the fact that if the Vice-president has no constitutionally defined duties under the executive branch, then the president delegated executive branch responsibilities that brought him under the appropriate executive orders.
THE KEY IS TO FOCUS ON THE POOR (IF NOT INCOMPETENT) MANAGEMENT SKILLS SHOWN IN WAIVING THESE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESIDENT, VP AND THEIR STAFFS.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMr. Vise Poli-Dent, sir?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:35 pmThe Surgeon General nominee,
Dr. Hole-singer,
is here to probe your exemptions... sir.
Roxanne: You’re right in the sense that I prefer a strong leader and weak government.
Comment by MAF54
Huh? Yeah, that's always worked so well. For the leader and his pals.
What an idiot.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pmRoxanne: You’re right in the sense that I prefer a strong leader and weak government.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
So you admit that you prefer a dictatorship?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm#51 + #52: The people who are allowed to participate in political decisions should be severely limited. At present, people who do not have the intelligence or inclination to understand the big strategic picture are voting in people who should not be there. The power of people who're putting political grandstanding before the actual governing (Congress) should be cut down and the Executive should be given more power, because they're the people who actually run the country.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pmNo one has told Gonzales to investigate, so of course, it is not being done.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThat should come as no surprise.
The Dems have their plates filled with oversight hearings -- I am glad that Waxman and Leahy are tenacious.
They will need all the stamina and tenacity they can muster.
Cheney/Bush have set themselves up for a complete autocracy, not unlike a dictatorship -- not like a monarchy, because kings are often fair to their people -- but dictators who satisfy only themselves and their own purposes.
Enter Cheney/Bush and signing statements, revisions of law, reinterpretations of the Constitution, declarations of supreme command when they decree a "crisis" is at hand.
Posse comitatus has already been disregarded, along with habeas corpus, so the stage is being set.
Gonzo is there merely as a facade of legality.
MAFoley54 is pimping you all!!!! He does this all the time, just to get your goat.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm"Gonzo is there merely as a facade of legality."
Comment by Marie
I agree, he is like the stooge a bank robber places on the corner, who, when asked by the police,
June 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pmpoints in the opposite direction.
WTF country are YOU living in? Because it sure can't be the United States of America.
An informed electorate is the best kind to choose their leaders. Sadly, the party YOU support (Republicans) have been trying to do anything and everything they can to keep people as ill-informed as possible, including flat out lying to the American people. (See just about any WH Press Conference. Snow and Perino have been lying through their teeth.)
And you really should read the Constitution. I have, probably hundreds of times over the years. Have you? Here's a quote from one of the people that YOU think should still be in power:
Care to guess who used to carry that quote around with him in his pocket?
None other than Donald Rumsfeld.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:50 pm"Gonzo is there merely as a facade of legality."
Comment by Marie — June 24, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
And a crumbling, obscene-graffiti-covered facade at that.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:51 pm#55: "get your goat"?? LOL!
June 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pmHe does this all the time, just to get your goat.
Comment by Upside00 — June 24, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
I'll thank you to leave my goat out of this. :D
June 24th, 2007 at 3:01 pmAnd sometimes we get HIS goat too, when he is called on his bullsh!t.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:01 pmWayne, didn't mean to offend your goat, I am sure he/she is a great one.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pmGive me a couple of minutes with this MAF guy. I can make him talk.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pmGoats and monkeys!
June 24th, 2007 at 3:04 pmJack Bauer, we aren't even sure of MAFoley54's sex or his/her sexual preference. It might be that he/she is gay for goats.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm"I agree, he is like the stooge a bank robber places on the corner, who, when asked by the police,
points in the opposite direction."
Comment by heyzeus —
Or, like the space-shuttle's heat shield. But as the (political) missions pile up with no repair, he's not so effective as he once was.
If Bush's "firewall" goes, he'll be like the shooter on Space Invaders, running and firing wildly between ever-shrinking bits of political cover.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pm#55: “get your goat�? LOL!
Comment by MAF54
Fixing a horse race... cheating...
June 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pmRather apropo, with regards to your contributions here...
Nancy Pelosi is not the only democrat against impeachment. "It's hard" they whine as they refuse to do the will of the American people and THEIR DUTY!!!! "People won't like us", "Bush might get angry".
If these were prosecutors, they would be Gonzales brand of prosecutors!!!! Bushies!!!! They will not prosecute (impeach) him even though he and Cheney have blatantly committed crimes and overstepped their authority time and time and time again.
They are no different than the republicans. NO ONE in our government is willing to bring the law breakers to justice.
Cheney believes he is above the law. Why shouldn't he. As long as the congress and the senate refuse to do their duty and impeach these people, then HE IS above the law, and will remain above the law and do whatever the hell he wants.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:06 pmUpside: All the more reason to give me a chance to make him talk. You know we have no alternative, sir. We must know where his/her goat is hidden.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pmJack,
I concede your point, have your way with him/her. Report back in 24 hours.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:09 pm“People won’t like usâ€, “Bush might get angryâ€.
You forgot: "We don't have an air-tight case"
June 24th, 2007 at 3:10 pm#53 You should move to North Korea or some other benighted nation where personality cults and beloved leaders rule; you'll be much happier. In China, strong leaders shoot people when necessary to harvest their organs for international commerce, you could probably get behind that too. Whatever your thinking is it would find much greater favor from Kim Il, Mao, or Stalin.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:11 pmFrank: A democratic Republic is based on a well informed citizenship -- that is why these thugs are dominating the media. Anyways, You're forgetting:
1- They did not win in 2000 nor 2004 elections.
2- There is a reason why the founding fathers decided to have 'check and balances' -- haven't you heard on the phrase "power corrupt absoutely"?
3- You're saying you believe in a 'strong executive" -- that means an "unitary executive" which is a fancy word for "Dictatorship" -- you probably adore Ayn Rand too, and the philosophy of Leo Strauss.
Imagine that you talk about the intelligence of the people. Does the intelligence of the President counts at all?
Are you saying the American people are less intelligent than the rest of the world? Are you an American?
I think you've been hearing too much Rush Limbaugh and I wonder what are you doing here. Are you some sort of a in-training secret privitized militia who will be sending us all to the gas chambers?
Another Question: Did we bomb New York in order to get rid of the mafia? So...how could bombing a country help getting rid of a small group of terrorists? Did it help getting rid of Osama? Why has the lawyer of the Saudi Royal family his office INSIDE the White House? This from Greg Palast - Armed Madhouse. You should read his book, specially when he is very well respected in Britain and works for the BBC. I know, I know you all rightist worms would like to get rid of him. ...We know.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:13 pmComment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
You do not need an airtight case. Just beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what they already have.
There is no reasonable doubt that this administration is full of lying, thieving traitors!
See how easy that was!
June 24th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#16: So, even if Cheney is impeached, indicted and convicted, where does that leave you? You’ve still got President Bush to deal with. Don’t tell me that your grand plan involves elevating Speaker Pelosi to the presidency by impeaching both the President and Vice President.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
The "grand plan" is to restore the Rule of Law to this country, and to the government. The "grand plan" is to get Cheney and Bush, who are war criminals, out of office, and in to prison for the rest of their lives for treason, conspiracy, high crimes and misdemeanors. The "grand plan" is to have a government that is transparent, fulfills its Constitutional responsibilities, and has employees who face actual, threatening consequences ifthey do not uphold the responsibilities of the oaths of office the took when we allowed to work for us. The "grand plan" is to restore this country to a democratic republic, and pull back from a fascist future, where the Will of the Corporation is the law of the land, rather than the Will of the People. If that means We the People end up with President Nancy Pelosi, so be it. Anyways, actively attempting to get who we want in office by breaking the laws is your modus operandi, not ours. Why, you've even said as much, when you admitted that "your side" would ignore the law and do what they wanted if it meant staying in (or acquiring additional) power.
You've flat out admitted that you believe that we need to move away from democracy, and towards an "alternate form of government". The form of government you've espoused is a fascist government, where the corporations, and the aristocracy that controls those centers of Capital, have all of the money and power, built upon the backs of the slave-class of Labor (who are wrongfully given a lesser share of the Market in such a state). Labor has a far more fundamental and important impact on the Market than Capital does. Labor can exist without Capital in the Market, but Capital absolutely cannot exist without Labor.
You are a traitor, sir! Not in some vague, ephemeral sense, either. You are the actual, textbook definition of a traitor to this country. A mere 50 years ago, you would have been hanged from a streetlight or tree, publicly, with loud acknowledgments of your treasonous activities, and with a picture of your hanging on the front page of your local paper.
You deserve to rot in prison for the rest of your life, you treasonous bastard.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pminvestigate, investigate, investigate...
why not save time and just impeach?
June 24th, 2007 at 3:19 pmI’ll thank you to leave my goat out of this. :D
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
better hide that goat while MAF54 is around.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:21 pmEspecially if it is a boy page goat
Really?
He's not investigating it?
And here I thought he would have gotten "right on that".
June 24th, 2007 at 3:29 pmMaybe we should have had Heinrich Himmler investigate the nazi abuse of the Jews?
June 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pmEspecially if it is a boy page goat
Comment by Wayne
Goat? Sounds delicious! Where's the line start?
June 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pmMAF54 isn't even man enought to stand up for what he believes in. He is too chicken to say that he supports the Untied States of America having a dictator. Worthless piece of crap.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pmMAF54 has gone on this site labelling those who would take direct action to defend freedom as "hotheads" and "radicals", but he drops his pants here. Those labels apply to himself; MAF54 is a tory, who would rather adoringly obey authority than live in freedom, as long as he agrees with the authority- you won't hear this unitary philosophy if or when Hilary, Obama, Gore or Edwards move in. Then it will all be about abuse of executive power and the need to limit it. And if repubs take back Congress we'll hear about the primacy of the Legislative Branch as well.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pmOh crap, sorry about the "pants" analogy. Nevertheless, in 1776 you would have found MAF54 passing notes to King George's redcoats.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pmPet My Goat
June 24th, 2007 at 3:35 pm"He is too chicken to say that he supports the Untied States of America having a dictator." Comment by Spudge_Boy
And Chicken too?
Stop it, you guys; this damn tofu diet has me thinking of nothing but M-E-A-T.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWell MAF54 nailed his brownshirt to the mast on May 31st, Spudge:
He is the commander-in-chief and we (and you) will obey him. Otherwise you’re traitorous scum. - Comment by MAF54 — May 31, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Achtung!
June 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pmModeration and Marlow, excellent posts!
June 24th, 2007 at 3:43 pmImagine, if you will, a President Pelosi, or a President Hillary Clinton, having the same Unitary Executive, Commander in Chief powers enjoyed by the Bush Administration.
Imagine a Department of Justice staffed with zealous leftists, whose sole goal is to bring down members of the Republican Party, and the Corporate big-wigs behind the scenes.
Imagine a Federal take-over of the Engergy Industry and the Health industry.
Imagine a guaranteed living wage for all, health care for all, housing for all.
Imagine an economy where the children of the rich and the children of the poor have exactly the same opportunities.
These are the NeoCon's greatest fears. Yet they have put in place the very machinations to bring those fears into reality.
May their fears be realized.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:53 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire
Hold onto your dreams!
June 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire — June 24, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
If I weren't an agnostic, I'd say, "From your mouth to God's ears."
June 24th, 2007 at 3:56 pmYou forgot: “We don’t have an air-tight caseâ€
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
--------------
Cheney had no problem with the classification procedures up until the year 2003, the year in which Valerie Plame was outed and we invaded Iraq.
Find the "why" and we have our airtight case. I'd wager that the "why" is nowhere near being legal.
I'll say it again: if everything Cheney (and Bush, for that matter) has done in regards to national security (warrantless wiretapping, etc., and now trying to get away with oversight regarding the storage of classified info) is legal, and they can prove it's legal, then what the hell are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
June 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pmCorrection: "...get away FROM oversight..."
June 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pmYou forgot: “We don’t have an air-tight caseâ€
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
I suppose if she were more accurate in her phrasing, she would have added "at this time." They have an air-tight case now.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pmSaw this on dailykos last night. These are the questions that need to be asked (trolls, feel free to jump in; I'm dying to see you cover Cheney's and Bush's asses):
Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?
Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch?
Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?
When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?
In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist?
The White House insists, "There's no question that [Cheney] is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?
In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?
June 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
---------------
Wayne, I wanted to compliment you on an excellent post @1:48pm.
If it's OK with you, I'd like to add it to my archives (I've been keeping a record of news articles and links and other info such as quotes from the administration to use as needed).
June 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWhile I am all for impeachment and have written all my reps and Pelosi, the fact remains that there are not the votes to accomplish this. If you go to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm , you will see near straight up Left/Right votes (look for the one on railway security, a most fascinating look at the GOP's take on actually making America safer).
June 24th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWith a narrow majority, we can't even get bills veto-proofed. How are we to accomplish impeachment?
Comment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
By all means, you have my complete permission to use it, especially if it's to help educate people. (Or smack down trolls.)
And thank you for the compliment.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:13 pmBy all means, you have my complete permission to use it, especially if it’s to help educate people. (Or smack down trolls.)
Oh, it is! It is!
And thank you for the compliment.
You are most welcome!
June 24th, 2007 at 4:16 pm#51 + #52: The people who are allowed to participate in political decisions should be severely limited. At present, people who do not have the intelligence or inclination to understand the big strategic picture are voting in people who should not be there. The power of people who’re putting political grandstanding before the actual governing (Congress) should be cut down and the Executive should be given more power, because they’re the people who actually run the country.
Comment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Now as everybody knows, I am kind of a stickler for precision sometimes. The above quote, by the pedophile pretender, is the precise reasoning behind FASCISM.
I am not exagerating here when I state that anybody who calls him a fascist is not engaging in ad-hominem attacks, he has outright declared himself a fascist.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pm#98 Bruce Gorton
He also doesn't really believe much of what he posts.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWith a narrow majority, we can’t even get bills veto-proofed. How are we to accomplish impeachment?
Comment by MsJoanne — June 24, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Hopefully by putting together a case so compelling for impeachment and removal from office, that members of Congress would have to publicly disavow their oaths before voting against it. There should be nothing in the charges that is even remotely refutable, which should be no problem since there is virtually nothing this administration has done that is justifiable. The "preponderance of the evidence" (as the lawyers like to say) should be overwhelmingly against letting these guys get off the hook. They should also use shame on the republicans who would vote against impeachment or removal, especially the ones who voted for it on Clinton.
Removal from office is the only legal mechanism we have to stop the mind-numbing abuses of power committed by these people. I would really not want to have to consider the ones that are not legal.
Good post, BTW.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pmLooking back at MAF54's responses, Wayne, I see that he hasn't responded to the main thrust of your post at 1:48. Typical. They just can't handle it.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pmComment by MAF54 — June 24, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
----------
In Cheney/Bush World, perhaps. But that is not what America is about.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pmComment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Well, considering that he not only accepts dishonesty from his public officials, he expects it as the only way to govern, I'm not surprised he couldn't refute what I said. And while my words were wasted on hiim, I'm pleased that you intend to put them to good use. Good luck with that.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pmI was thinking it might be a good idea in the future to have only the mafia investigate the mafia. After all, who knows more about the mafia then they do?
And lets also have resturaunts use their own chefs to perform their health code inspections.
Also, when a murderer is arrested, lets appoint their moms as the prosecutors in the trials.
I think we're onto something here.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:35 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
------------
Well, we can hope that your words weren't wasted on him, if he truly believes what he says (er, posts) and is not here to just yank our chain. In the short term it may seem a wasted effort, but if there is even the slightest chance that your words, and those of others, will make him think about things over the long term, then it was all worth it.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pmAfter all, mr Gonzales has clearly demonstrated his impartiality in the past, right?
What's wrong with letting him investigate the crimes of his best friend?
What makes more sense than that?
June 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Brilliant! The logical extension to the idea of letting an administration investigate its own alleged wrongdoings.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWhose interpretation of an executive order is what matters? The executive, of course!
Another nonscandal.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:38 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Perhaps we need to have a new position in government chosen by the people equivalent to an Inspector General. I know that's imperfect, but it's certainly less ridiculous than having the president pick the people who will be investigating themselves. That ONLY works when you have honest people (with nothing to hide) picking who does the inspecting.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:41 pmAnd where do you think impeachment would lead to? President Cheney? Oh, I get it. You’re so ambitious that you’d like to see President Pelosi instead? Not elected by the people, but taking over the presidency by a fancy legal move like that. Cool.
Naturally. Liberals were rejected by the people, so they want to resort to stealing the Presidency.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:42 pmm12
The same people who not only gave them a landslide victory in 06, but also gave them a victory where they didn't lose a single seat?
Those people who oppose a Democrat president?
June 24th, 2007 at 4:45 pmAnother nonscandal.
Comment by m12
Wait until a democrat does it, then m12 will be leading the mob.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:45 pm#111
The President was elected in 2004, for a 4 year term, not in 2006, as you well know.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pmWait until a democrat does it, then m12 will be leading the mob.
A democrat does what? Makes an executive order? Carter and Clinton made plenty of those.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pmA democrat does what? Makes an executive order? Carter and Clinton made plenty of those.
Comment by m12
Fine. Show where Clinton issued an executive order exempting himself. And while you're at it, one for Carter as well.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI'm not picky, just an executive order by Clinton, exempting himself or Gore from ANYTHING they enacted for the rest of the administration.
Just one.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:55 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
-------
Well, then, WH spokesperson Dana Perino could have saved herself the effort at bullshitting during the press conference the other day, simply stating "The president can do whatever he wants to."
Much easier that way, don't you think?
Instead, she has refered us to three sections of the executive order that have nothing...NOTHING...to do with the VP and the issue in question.
Oh, and nice to know that you support a fascist government. Why do you hate America so?
June 24th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWhose interpretation of an executive order is what matters? The executive, of course!
Another nonscandal.
Comment by moron12 — June 24, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Sure genius.
The king gets to just declare laws that set him above any law. Then nothing he does is against the law.
You make a good serf. You deserve a king.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:55 pmFine. Show where Clinton issued an executive order exempting himself. And while you’re at it, one for Carter as well.
Comment by barfly — June 24, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Oh, and furthermore, find an executive order that any other President in U.S. history has made exempting himself, without expressly put such in writing in the EO in question! It's never friggin' happened, because no other President would have the sheer audacity, or stupidity. Or perhaps a little from column A, and a little from column B.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm"You make a good serf."
Comment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
He probably thinks that you're complimenting him on his "surfing" abilities.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pmJune 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Even on a party-line vote, there are enough Democrats in the House to impeach.
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of telling a grand jury to not bother indicting someone, since the prosecutor cannot guarantee a guilty verdict in the subsequent trial.
At the onset of the impeachment hearings for Nixon, there was not enough votes, on a party line, to convict him in the Senate.
When the House impeached Clinton, there were not enough votes on a party line, to convict him in the Senate.
But, since there are not enough votes, on a party-line vote, to convict in the Senate, the House shouldn't even bother. Thus, the only time a President, or any one, for that matter, will be impeached will be when the opposition has a super majority in the Senate and at least a majority in the House. Failing that, the President can commit any crime whatsoever, up to and including embroiling this country in a war of aggression based on lies and he will not be impeached.
High crimes and misdemeanors is no longer the criterion for impeachment. The new criterion for impeachment is 67 votes in the Senate. Thus sayeth the Democratic Party.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pmm12
Come off it m12, you know what 2006 was about and it was not about health care or the enviroment.
The Democrats won on a ticket of getting America out of Iraq and people assuming that they would introduce some oversite when it came to the legislative branch.
With the way that Bush has ignored Congress and the Senate, and with how it has become a habit with him, that oversight means impeachment. Americans in 2006 in all reality voted in favour of impeachment - and they realised that at the time.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pmWould that m12 multiply itself by 6.666667 then ignite its fuse.
June 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pmYou make a good serf. You deserve a king.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
And these paragons of liberty are continually crying about the coming caliphate, and how little we value our freedoms.
Sheesh!!
June 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pmAll we are asking is that Cheney's exemption be probed.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pmOr in lieu of the exemption, his rectal cavity. With some rusty barbed wire, if you will.
m12, maybe you can explain this "non issue" as well:
In July 2006 it was revealed that the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department — the office "responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys" — repeatedly attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President's warrantless eavesdropping program, but finally stopped their investigation because the President refused to give them the security clearances they needed to conduct the investigation.
Yet the President had no problem giving clearance to individuals, some who where civilians, when he wanted to find out who had leaked information regarding the warrantless wiretapping program to the public.
What do you think Bush was trying to hide? Maybe the fact that, as we have recently learned, there was quite a bit of disagreement in the administration over the warrantless wiretapping program when up to that point, Bush and Gonzales insisted there wasn't? Gosh...this might lead to revelations that the program wasn't all that legal after all. Ya think?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:01 pm#117
He already did that. The President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn't like that explanation.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pmChrist, for how long has this once-proud nation been rotting, with toadstools like MAF54 and M12 crowing in the dark places? I've thought it smelled bad for a while now, but this is unbelievable.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pmEveryone expert in the country is up in arms over this presidents bastardization of his office, and the dismantling of our constitution.
If you can believe it he even called it "an interesting document".
His pig of an attorney general called it "quaint".
These people are scum. The same filthy, dirty scum our fathers fought in WW2.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pmHe already did that. The President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn’t like that explanation.
Comment by meatball12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
You're wrong punk.
The Executive branch is only one equal partner branch and is subject to the laws of the land. They don't get to change the constitution, or much worse, ignore or dismantle it.
You're scum, but you're not the devil.
You're just the little worm who runs into the liquor store to get the devil a pack of smokes.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:04 pmComment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
If the President does, that means it is legal.
End of story.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:05 pmHe already did that. The President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn’t like that explanation.
Comment by m12 —
And you would be fine with a democratic admin. doing the same thing?
Right.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe king gets to just declare laws that set him above any law. Then nothing he does is against the law.
Congress did the exact same thing with social security taxes.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pmIf Constitution haters like m12 and its ilk are fine with the way the Bushit administration has played loose with the laws, they'll not mind a bit when the next president, a Democrat, has them rounded up and forced into labor camps to pay the rest of the world back for the crimes they supported.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pmOops.
Comment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
That is, If the President does it, that means it is legal.
End of story.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pmAnd these paragons of liberty are continually crying about the coming caliphate, and how little we value our freedoms.
Sheesh!!
Comment by barfly — June 24, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I know. Remember a few years back when the big tough talk line was "you can't be free if you're dead"?
Remember that line people?
They tried to tell us that freedom is something we put aside to be "safe", and that being dead is not being free.
Well I've got news for them.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:06 pmAnd you would be fine with a democratic admin. doing the same thing?
Right.
Interpreting an executive order in the way he sees fit? No problem.
Who better to decide what an executive order means than the guy who signed it?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pmSweet Baby Jesus!
Impeach them NOW!
Start with Gonzales OR Cheney but START IT!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pmThe President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn’t like that explanation.
Comment by m12 —
Precedent, please. We all know you would never sit still for this unprecedented action, were it a democratic administration. So, just provide a precedent, and we'll be on your side!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pmIf the President does, that means it is legal.
End of story.
Comment by WORMUS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
No.
Thats the end of your story pal.
You're a punk, and judgements coming punk.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pmHe probably thinks that you’re complimenting him on his “surfing†abilities.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Good one, Jane!
Your post reminded me of something from a few years back. I was working as a collections rep and called a customer, "John." A female answered, and I asked to speak with John.
She replied, "He's out hanging 10."
I asked myself, "Surfing? In east Tennessee???"
It took me a few minutes to realize that he was on the roof...hanging "tin."
Off topic, I know, but I just had to share.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pmOr can't you?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWho better to decide what an executive order means than the guy who signed it?
Comment by maggot12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
You're an idiot.
The President doesn't get to legislate dickhead.
But you'll figure that out soon.
See, he should not have been as public as he was with those "signing statements".
He's going to jail. So are all his people. Watch and see pal. We're coming for ya.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pmHe already did that. The President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn’t like that explanation.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Hey m12, remember that constitution we've been encouraging you to read?
THAT'S why we don't like his answer. It's wrong! And one would have to be woefully ignorant not to understand that. Is that what you consider yourself? Ignorant?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pmBNF, actually, I told my congressmen, Feingold (who is not my rep - but I would so love it if he ran for president!), and Pelosi (both on the phone and in writing) that they suck at marketing and even if the votes aren't there they need to show the American people that they are doing something for the country, that they need to let people who run for office know that this kind of behavior isn't going to be tolerated, and show that they give a $hit about what's going on. (OK, I didn't exactly say it like that, but you get my drift. :)
I was just stating the fact that there are not enough votes to accomplish this - which remains true.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pmIf the President does, that means it is legal.
End of story.
Comment by WORMUS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
You'd be pretty delusional if you thought this doesn't set the precedent for a democratic president to do the same thing. Sticking up for Bush now, means you forfeit any right to bitch when a democrat does it, later.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:12 pmHe already did that. The President has stated that he is the decider, namely, that he decides what happens in his branch.
You didn’t like that explanation.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
-------------
That's not what I asked. Dana Perino is not the president. Why all the bullshitting and lies from Dana? Oh wait...we are talking about the Bush Administration. As my 6 year old daughter is fond of saying, "My bad."
June 24th, 2007 at 5:12 pm#144
He's not legislating. He's issuing a directive to his subordinates.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pmYou’re a punk, and judgements coming punk.
Comment by FART&PEE — June 24, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Hey Fart&Pee, what is a "judgements coming punk"?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pmSigning statements actually have no basis in law. Bush has used them as line item vetoes without actually realising that its for the *ahem* COURTS TO INTEPRET THE LAW.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pmWait and see, wimp.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:14 pmWayne, obviously we need to change the constitution to say that the Decider Guy makes all the laws. And of course, once a dem is elected, they, too, will make all laws. I am sure all the GOPers out there would be fully on board with that, right?
/snark
June 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pmYou’d be pretty delusional if you thought this doesn’t set the precedent for a democratic president to do the same thing. Sticking up for Bush now, means you forfeit any right to bitch when a democrat does it, later.
Comment by barfy — June 24, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Why would I care, after all, it's not like there is a difference between Dems. and Reps., they both abuse their power.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pmTHAT’S why we don’t like his answer. It’s wrong! And one would have to be woefully ignorant not to understand that. Is that what you consider yourself? Ignorant?
Are you trying to claim the President is not the head of the Executive Branch?
He is absolutely correct! This is his order and he decides who it applies to.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pmMaybe if you're lucky, you guys will be sharing a cell.
Of course you're lucky its not me deciding your sentence.
I'd just order you all to be handed over to the Iraqi people for trial.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pmAre you trying to claim the President is not the head of the Executive Branch?
.
Comment by masturbatedsincehewas12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
You've got it wrong zipperhead.
It was actually Cheney who claimed the Vice President is not even a member of the executive branch.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:18 pmBartlebee, my friend, attempting to have a discussion with a pinhead is an exercise in futility. I so love when people discuss the constitution without ever having read it.
It's all CLINTON DID IT! He was obviously the busiest president in US history. God bless him!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:20 pmSigning statements actually have no basis in law. Bush has used them as line item vetoes without actually realising that its for the *ahem* COURTS TO INTEPRET THE LAW.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 24, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Thats right Bruce. But these little worms don't want to consider anything factual. They are too busy licking the dingleberries off of Bush's ass to worry about our laws or Constitution.
They want a king. A republican king who will sit on the throne until Jesus takes over.
I hope they know it will be a cold day in hell before anyone lets them have any power again.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pmSigning statements actually have no basis in law. Bush has used them as line item vetoes without actually realising that its for the *ahem* COURTS TO INTEPRET THE LAW.
Off topic nonsense.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pmI hope they know it will be a cold day in hell before anyone lets them have any power again.
No $hit, amen, and hallaluleh! I have voted GOP in the past, I always vote for the best person, but I will never, ever again in my life vote for a republican even if they are the most apparently qualified person alive. Any qualifications they might have, to me, will have been manufactured and lied about. I have taken the thought that anyone associated with republicans are lying tools for whom I have nothing but contempt.
This administration has done more to divide the people of this country and everyone in the world. That is going to be one of their legacies, and a none too pretty one (not that any of them are).
Lies and hatemongering only takes the GOP so far. It's catching up with them in spades, thank god. More people are turning away from the church due to the fundamentalist right. More people are turning from the GOP due to the lies and deceipt.
I am actually enjoying watching them emplode. We will be rid of their ilk for a generation.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pmOff topic nonsense.
Comment by miserable12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
The Constitution?
Yea, to pigs like you I'm sure its nonsense.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pmWhy would I care, after all, it’s not like there is a difference between Dems. and Reps., they both abuse their power.
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
--------------
Because if the Dems and Reps both abuse their power, and block any and all attempts at any oversight while at the same time claiming they've done nothing wrong and their actions are perfectly legal, then you better damn well care.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pmFace it Maggot12. You want a king.
You want a king and not the American democracy.
So you need to move to a country that has a king. Theres not many left, but the ones that are left like mindless worms like you, so get packing.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:29 pm"Why would I care, after all, it’s not like there is a difference between Dems. and Reps., they both abuse their power." Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
So, who asked 'ya? Your "a pox on both their houses" rhetoric answers no questions, nor offers any solutions. You're like a guy standing in the middle of the road, screaming at drivers, telling them that they're all going the way...
June 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pmRegardless, the President cannot make Executive Orders that break the laws of the land. The PotUS and VP are both subject to the entirety of the laws of the land. If they are caught breaking the law, executive privilege does not protect their asses. Executive privilege is something that is very much borderline, and not fully defined under the law. The precedent, however, is that executive privilege may be necessary for national security reasons. To cover up lies? No, hell no, that is not what executive privilege is for. The Supreme Court specifically ruled in US v. Nixon that when it comes to criminal activities, the president may not, in fact, invoke executive privilege to protect themselves or others from criminal prosecution or criminal investigation.
Oh...and who was the last president to say, "If the President does, that means it is legal."? Wasn't that Richard M. Nixon? Huh. I wonder whatever happened to that guy.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:31 pmm12,
If the president is allowed to say that his Executive Orders mean something other than what they actually say, then they serve no useful purpose. He can just "decide" that anybody in his administration can do whatever they want, and no documentation need exist that he approved of their actions.
What if he implemented and Executive Orderthat said, "This administration will NOT stonewall the investigations and hearings by the Democrats," and then said that he meant for it to be interpreted without the "NOT" part?
You are, in essence, claiming that Bush is not bound by any laws or rules whatsoever, including the Constitution. Bush is already, in essence, claiming that.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#162
There is no signing statement here. Why bring it up?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:32 pmOff topic nonsense.
Comment by m12
Still waiting for that precedent, Emmy. Can't find one?
Not even one?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:32 pmI guess that's the wrong way.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pmOh…and who was the last president to say, “If the President does, that means it is legal.� Wasn’t that Richard M. Nixon? Huh. I wonder whatever happened to that guy.
Comment by Moderation — June 24, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Yes, it was Nixon who was the ONLY President to ever say such an unAmerican, unPatriotic thing.
But at least Nixon had the good sense to resign and save the country from his crap. Bush I doubt will show such decency, because in Bush, is not one good thing.
There is no good in George W Bush.
He is as evil and as corrupted as Hitler.
He has made the Arabs into the new Jews.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:34 pmOff topic nonsense.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
---------------
Au contraire. Like Bush's exemption of himself and Cheney from this EO, he has decided that he doesn't have to follow portions of the bills he otherwise signs into law, just because he "don't wanna." That's why we get idiots like Mike Brown running FEMA when they don't have one damned bit of experience.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:35 pmIf the president is allowed to say that his Executive Orders mean something other than what they actually say, then they serve no useful purpose. He can just “decide†that anybody in his administration can do whatever they want, and no documentation need exist that he approved of their actions.
No, they do serve a purpose. The executive branch is a large organization. Obviously, the President cannot direct every little thing himself, so he gives guidelines to his subordinates.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:35 pmAu contraire. Like Bush’s exemption of himself and Cheney from this EO, he has decided that he doesn’t have to follow portions of the bills he otherwise signs into law, just because he “don’t wanna.†That’s why we get idiots like Mike Brown running FEMA when they don’t have one damned bit of experience.
This isn't a bill, is it?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pmBush rounds the Arabs up by the thousands and herds them into transports for imprisonment and torture, just like Hitler rounding up Jews in cattle cars.
Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are our Dachau and Buchenwalds, and Bush is the der new Fuhrer.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#169
I'm still looking. But there are executive orders which give the President power to exempt whom he sees fit.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pmObviously, the President cannot direct every little thing himself, so he gives guidelines to his subordinates.
Comment by m12 —
Off topic nonsense.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
He's yankin' your chain, Bartlebee. :D
June 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pmWhy would I care, after all, it’s not like there is a difference between Dems. and Reps., they both abuse their power.
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Because if you don't care, you will end up living in a country like Zimbabwe one day - where if you hold the wrong views, or even look like you might hold the wrong views you will get beaten up, tortured and then murdered.
If you honestly believe both parties are corrupt, vote for a third party or independent candidate. If you think both parties are corrupt abusers of power, to vote for either of them is morally wrong, you should vote for a different party altogether - or perhaps simply an independent you like.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pmBut there are executive orders which give the President power to exempt whom he sees fit.
Comment by m12
That's not what you claimed; and if it doesn't mention the president specifically, it's not precedent to this issue.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pmNo, they do serve a purpose. The executive branch is a large organization. Obviously, the President cannot direct every little thing himself, so he gives guidelines to his subordinates.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
That is so lame! try again.
I’m still looking. But there are executive orders which give the President power to exempt whom he sees fit.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
I doubt you are looking and I doubt they exist. And if they do exist, the part about exempting himself must be contained within the EO, or else the EO is not really an EO.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThis isn’t a bill, is it?
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
-----------
No, it's a pattern of behavior, moron.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm#177
If you say so. I do enjoy how you think you know about Bush's own written policy better than he does!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pmOr the Vice President, I would add.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pmSo, who asked ‘ya? Your “a pox on both their houses†rhetoric answers no questions, nor offers any solutions. You’re like a guy standing in the middle of the road, screaming at drivers, telling them that they’re all going the way…
Comment by barfly — June 24, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Who indeed!!!
Why... it was, in fact, YOUR comment #147 to me that I was responding to!!!!!!!
Your like a mental patient who screams and then askes himself "Who said that"?
HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pmIf you honestly believe both parties are corrupt, vote for a third party or independent candidate. If you think both parties are corrupt abusers of power, to vote for either of them is morally wrong, you should vote for a different party altogether - or perhaps simply an independent you like.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — June 24, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
That's right, Bruce!
GIVE 'EM THE BIRD!
VOTE FOR A THIRD!
(See my blog on which I have posted links to all Secretaries of State's election information sites. Explore who might be running in your district.)
June 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pmI doubt you are looking and I doubt they exist. And if they do exist, the part about exempting himself must be contained within the EO, or else the EO is not really an EO.
Says who?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pmI do enjoy how you think you know about Bush’s own written policy better than he does!
Comment by m12
I don't enjoy your embrace of an imperial presidency. It doesn't bode well for our country, to have such syncophants ready to defend every questionable decision, and every clearly illegal act, with no thought to the damage they do to the country.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:46 pmSays who?
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Says me. How far back have you looked so far?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pmSo, hypothetically speaking, if Clinton had issued an EO stating that no one in his administration could have any type of sexual relations anywhere in the White House, then, after having been caught with Monica, said, "Obviously I meant it for everybody else but not ME!", he wouldn't have been impeached?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
------------
You still haven't explained all the obfuscation from Dana Perino in the press conference the other day.
And if you are confused by that big word I used, here are a couple of definitions:
- to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
- to make obscure or unclear.
Now that I think about it, I think she threw those references out to the press knowing that they wouldn't follow up. As far as I know, Olbermann is the only one who has fact-checked it and shown that she is a f*cking liar. The no-balls press likely said, "Gosh, if she says it's in the EO, then it must be!"
June 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pmWho indeed!!!
Why… it was, in fact, YOUR comment #147 to me that I was responding to!!!!!!!
Your like a mental patient who screams and then askes himself “Who said that�
HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Try sticking to one name. That's not the handle I was replying to.
Pinhead.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pmLook, Bush's own order says they're ALL under its requirements.
The White House referred us to Sec. 6.1(b) for Cheney's exemption.
Unfortunately section 6.1(b) says NOTHING about the Vice Presidency.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pmTry sticking to one name. That’s not the handle I was replying to.
Pinhead.
Comment by barfly — June 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Actually, you were duped by FART&PEE, she changes the name of handles when she responds to people.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pmTry sticking to one name. That’s not the handle I was replying to.
Pinhead.
Comment by barfly — June 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
LOL. BUSTED
June 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pmActually, you were duped by FART&PEE, she changes the name of handles when she responds to people.
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Don't drag me into your bullshit punk.
As TP can attest I have posted by Bartlebee in here and only Bartlebee.
Better come up with another song and dance wimp.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pmThis isn’t a bill, is it?
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
———–
No, it’s a pattern of behavior, moron.
Comment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
-------------
And another pattern is Bush's interpretation of the AUMF to give him permission to use warrantless wiretaps. Several members of Congress specifically said that their vote for the AUMF did not specifically give him authority to use warrantless wiretaps.
But I tell you what...you probably disagree with me and those Congressmen (who should know better than anyone, I'd say). While you are using the Google, I want you to find quotes from 10 Congresspeople who said, yes, my vote for the AUMF included using warrantless wiretapping.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pmAs TP can attest I have posted by Bartlebee in here and only Bartlebee.
Better come up with another song and dance wimp.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Did you or did you not change my handle to "WORMUS INTER PARES"?
You know FART&PEE, you're a little bitch.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pmPIP, don't make me tell them what you smell like!
June 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pmJane, come on... don't be sore at me. I'm just havin' a little fun.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:56 pmHere you go, m:
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.
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.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:56 pmStill waiting for those citations Emmy.
What's the matter? If ever there was an issue where "Clinton did it too" was relevant, this one is it.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pmHold the fort, guys and gals. I'm off to a cookout but will return soon.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pmDid you or did you not change my handle to “WORMUS INTER PARES�
You know FART&PEE, you’re a little bitch.
Comment by WHOREUS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Yea wimp. I did. I was quoting you and mocking you at the same time. Like I always do.
But I never changed my handle, if thats what you were implying.
Either way, your moms over here right now and she's not quite finished, so can I get back to you?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pmBut I never changed my handle, if thats what you were implying.
Either way, your moms over here right now and she’s not quite finished, so can I get back to you?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — June 24, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
No... that is not what I was implying... and sure, in fact, tell her to take her time!!!
June 24th, 2007 at 6:00 pmComment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 24, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
As Homer Simpson said to what was left of thethe spoiled, dirty 6-foot wedge that made him ill, "I can't stay mad at you!" :)
June 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pmShe always does boy, she always does.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm"thethe" - D'OH!
June 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pmSays me. How far back have you looked so far?
Ok. Why exactly is your opinion more important than the President's?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:03 pm#180
Of course it does. If the President has the power to exempt whomever he wants from his executive orders, and the President is not in compliance with the order, clearly, he has exempted himself.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:05 pmOk. Why exactly is your opinion more important than the President’s?
Comment by motley12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Because the president is a liar and a criminal.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pmm12, don't change the subject again. How many EOs have you looked through to find the answer you were asked to privide?
And if you must know, my opinion is more important than his because I am an American citizen, and I pay his salary. He works for ME, not the other way around. (That's the way his father viewed the people - as his bosses.)
Now, are you going to go away and come back find that proof you claim exists?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pmAnd he, and the pigs who follow him are going to jail.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pmHere are some laws that Congress has exempted itself from:
Family and Medical Leave Act
June 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pmAge Discrimination in Employment Act
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Americans with Disabilities Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Fair Labor Standards Act
Equal Pay Act
National Labor Relations Act
And if you must know, my opinion is more important than his because I am an American citizen, and I pay his salary. He works for ME, not the other way around. (That’s the way his father viewed the people - as his bosses.)
Thankfully, the rest of America, and the entirety of the executive branch, does not really care about the opinion of Wayne. A. Scheider. It is the opinion of George W. Bush that counts.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
These "examples" are not EOs. Try again.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pmmoonbat 12.
A. The rest of the country does care about Waynes, and all of our opinions here in the democratic United States. Its yours and that pig you supports that they don't care about.
B. He asked for examples of PRESIDENTS, not congress, you inbred hick.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm#216
I haven't been able to find any, since there is no reason why the President needs to exempt himself in writing from his own executive orders.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm#216
I haven’t been able to find any,
Comment by madebooboo12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Yea. How bout that?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pmm12: Besides which, have any of us defended Congress, be it as a whole, or individuals within it, should they choose to break or "exempt" themselves from the law? I think not. At the least, I can certainly speak for myself in that regard.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pm#216
since there is no reason why the President needs to exempt himself in writing from his own executive orders.
Comment by mostlywrong12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Really,
Then why did you bother looking in the first place?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pmAs Homer Simpson said to what was left of thethe spoiled, dirty 6-foot wedge that made him ill, “I can’t stay mad at you!†:)
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Yes, I've reached rotten hoagie status!!!
June 24th, 2007 at 6:27 pmm12: Besides which, have any of us defended Congress, be it as a whole, or individuals within it, should they choose to break or “exempt†themselves from the law? I think not. At the least, I can certainly speak for myself in that regard.
You don't have to defend them. But they are clearly in their power to do so.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:27 pmListen to the troll pig.
Listen to him trying to turn America into a monarchy. Listen to him try to make us all the subjects of kings and lords.
Well, he's just crying, because he knows judgements coming. Soon, they'll all be behind bars, and crumbs like him will crawl back under the rocks that they crawled out from.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pmI haven’t been able to find any, since there is no reason why the President needs to exempt himself in writing from his own executive orders.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
WRONG! If an EO has, for all intents and purposes, the effect of law on the people working in the Executive Branch, then the president, who must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", must also comply, unless the EO specifically exempts him (or his co-president.)
I can only imagine that you believe that the president does not have to follow his or any other laws because you are a right-wing authoritarian follower, and you believe that the person in charge must NEVER be questioned.
It almost breaks my heart that the rights I and others here fight so hard for would still apply to undeserving sheeple such as yourself.
Since you can't support your claims with anything even remotely resembling facts, I would suggest that you give yourself a DRE with a cattle prod.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pmI haven’t been able to find any
Comment by mistaken12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
So you were WRONG.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pmAt the least, I can certainly speak for myself in that regard.
Comment by Moderation — June 24, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
You can speak for me, too. I think it's despicable that Congress exempts itself from any laws.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pmI haven’t been able to find any,
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
:D
June 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pmIf you don't find any within the next 5 minutes we're naming you Al Quaida.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:36 pmWhy would a yesman like Gonzocchio actually bring about charges against someone who is probably spying on him?? He'd be a blathering idiot to do so. However, our buffonic congress doesn't have the balls to stand up to this clown and even give him a vote of no confidence?? I say that EACH AND EVERY Congressman who either voted "NO" on the cloture vote needs to be swept out of office....as well anyone who was a "no show" for this symbolic vote needs to never be placed in office if they are a candidate.
To the rest of the world, this country is beginning to look like a third world country where the biggest criminals are in the highest offices in the government. How can we expect the rest of the world to ever respect us again?
June 24th, 2007 at 6:38 pmWRONG! If an EO has, for all intents and purposes, the effect of law on the people working in the Executive Branch, then the president, who must “take care that the laws be faithfully executedâ€, must also comply, unless the EO specifically exempts him (or his co-president.)
Nice assertion! Prove it.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pmYou're the one who has to "prove it" nancy.
And you've got 2 minutes left before being named Al Quaida.
Now hurry little rat. Find your Executive Order.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:41 pm#21 Who's on first??? Abbott & Costello must be rolling in their graves with laughter at seeing our president exempt himself from his own executive order.....hahaha! Is this some sick kind of joke?
It's becoming patently clear that there is no one with any honor or respect running the Executive Branch. If King George now exempts himself from the Executive Branch, then let's Emmanuel to press for non-payment of salary to both of these buffoons-in-chief. I think it's only fair.
If they are not in the position of President and Veep and do not comprise the Executive Branch according to our Constitution, then they can be ousted very easily - and held in contempt of our Constitutional law. I think they've shot themselves in the foot on this one. In their slimey attempt to wrangle the letter of the law, they've just talked themselves out of their jobs.
Oh well....as I say....don't let the door slam you in the ass on the way out, guys!
June 24th, 2007 at 6:42 pmNow they can be fired instead of impeached as I see it....AND held in contempt of the constitution of this country.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:43 pmYa' know these signing statements will come back and bite them all on the butt in the future. Here you have attorney-doofus Gonzocchio telling King George "go ahead - it's okay under the law" when Gonzo clearly doesn't even know the law. What a jokester!
Many bar assns. are weighing in on the legality of these signing statements which, ostensibly, exempt Bush from the laws of this country - which he then breaks and often. Once these signing statements are determined to be totally illegal, then the charges of these crimes can be brought against both bush and cheney.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:45 pmIf King George now exempts himself from the Executive Branch, then let’s Emmanuel to press for non-payment of salary to both of these buffoons-in-chief. I think it’s only fair.
I see your point, but...
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The Vice President, however, is not mentioned in this article. They can choose to compensate him any way they want. I suggest they pay him in bat guano.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:45 pmClearly, this latest weekend charade of cheney's and bush's will drop his numbers even lower....from 26% to 24% until the outing of his next criminal act. How does this nitwit look at himself in the mirror and realize that only 26 out of 100 americans believe he has any credibility and is capable of doing his job?? Other than suffering from a psychiatric disorder where his ego is pathologically compromised, I can't imagine how this guy is able to continue to deceive himself.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:47 pmBat guano would be too good for either of them. Actually, it may be fair then to not address them with the moniker of President or Vice President as that would imply that they are members of the Executive Branch?? If they are exempting themselves from the position, then they also lose the title I would suspect.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pmI think thats a good call Veritas. I would be looking for Bush to go down even more this week.
We're getting to the point where the only people who'd still support him are the White Supremists.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThis administration has the patent of devious behavior. One lies and the other swears to it. I can't wait to see these fools brought to the justice they so rightfully deserve. It can't come a moment too soon for this country as they are taking it down faster than the descent of the Titanic.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:50 pmBartlebee: Yes, bigots, war profiteers and his "holy trinity"....that is, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Oil. They're the only ones left holding the bag at this point.....or holding up the bag as the case more accurately may be....(bag/bush/birthday soon....turning 61 but looking 79 on a good day).
June 24th, 2007 at 6:51 pmWe're so lucky to have a member of the few fringe poticial terrorists who still support the dismantling of our country, right here in TP.
We should thank him.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:55 pmIt's clear that Bush is also tanking his own GOP - certainly that fact was prevalent all over the circuits today. If I were a candidate taking the job seriously (but how could they really when they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of EVER being elected now).....
Also, the "Bloomberg Factor" is really taking both parties by storm. They'd better "look alive" and get to work doing something in the next few weeks or they will both be left holding the bag.....the Dems are dropping in their ratings each week since knuckling under to Sir George on war funding; the Rethugs are finished when they voted against the "no confidence" vote for the Attorney General; and it's beginning to look like the only true voice of the people may be with an Independent candidate....several biggies are looming on the horizon getting ready to throw their hats into the ring...so watch out! It will keep all of these crooks on both sides of the aisle on their toes.
On another note....it just occurred to me that probably cheney was spying illegally on Bush and, of course, bush was spying constantly on cheney and they both were spying on gonzales...the first one to step out of lockstep and the $hit hits the fan. No doubt other hackers were spying on each of them as well....can't wait for them to dish soon.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pmWe’re getting to the point where the only people who’d still support him are the White Supremists.
I don't think Robert Byrd supports the President, even though he's voted for our Judicial Nominees.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pmAnd you know that there are electronic wizards out there who know all of the juicy details on George and Laura, the Cheney's and the Gonzo's....
June 24th, 2007 at 6:57 pmHere's the chant for the day: Don't elect another turd, Vote for A Third!! Love it and it's so apropos.
June 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pmYou don’t have to defend them. But they are clearly in their power to do so.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
They are not "in their power" to do so. They are breaking the law, but they have not brought...themselves...up on charges yet. Funny thing, how a move from politician to career politicians changes a person quite significantly. They become far more entrenched, and far more likely to pander to lobbies and other interests. Until election time, that is, then they pay someone to find the swiftest means of garnering the most votes possible, oftentimes regardless of the price-tag.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Neither the Executive or Judicial have exercised any oversight, or ruled these exemptions as illegal, and nullify the loophole/exemption/crap law/other garbage. And the fourth estate has been bought and paid for. They no longer answer to the facts, they answer to the Market. That is not how the fourth estate is meant to function, for it prevents them from digging in to the real stories, as they fill the time with entertainment instead.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pmI don’t think Robert Byrd supports the President, even though he’s voted for our Judicial Nominees.
Comment by mascot12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Better be nice to Byrd. He's 3rd in line for the Presidency.
But you're right. He's none too fond of Bush the turd.
So maybe you guys are losing the white supremist vote too.
Uh oh.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:13 pmHere are some laws that Congress has exempted itself from:
Family and Medical Leave Act
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Americans with Disabilities Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Fair Labor Standards Act
Equal Pay Act
National Labor Relations Act
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
1. Identify the context in which Congress exempted themselves from these laws.
2. Identify how this relates to members of Congress exempting themselves from these laws to avoid oversight by another government agency in regards to national security and classified information.
Geez...talk about a non-issue.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pmI haven’t been able to find any, since there is no reason why the President needs to exempt himself in writing from his own executive orders.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Well I'm sure that Clinton did it too, so why don't you run over to FoxNews.com's archives and play for a couple of days. There are over 6000 hits when searching on "Clinton." You can probably narrow that down to, oh, 3000 or so if you are more specific with your search. If anybody would have reported on Clinton excluding himself from one of his, or another president's, EOs, then Fox would have all the dirt.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm#249
Congress simply decided that all the regulations don't apply to it. Here's how it ended up in practice.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html
-- By one count, only 61 of the 2,500 senior policy staff members working for the Senate are black. There are, however, no exact records -- because Congress has exempted itself from equal-opportunity and affirmative-action laws.
-- House Speaker Jim Wright's office catches fire, but there are no sprinklers. The laws requiring them do not apply to the Capitol or other federal buildings.
-- A controversy erupts over dangerous working conditions in the Capitol's mail-folding room, where newsletters are processed. Congress does not fall under the occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations that bedevil other employers.
2. Key words: another government agency. The President is not overseen by his own agencies, as the ultimate authority of national security and classified information, he does the overseeing!
Non-issue is correct. That's what the White House said at the start.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pmm12:
Still waiting on an explanation of Dana Perino's bullshitting the press.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pmm12:
I'm curious on your take of Wayne A. Schneider's post @ 1:48 pm.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pmas the ultimate authority of national security and classified information,
Your effing wrong. Congress passes laws directing the executive to comply with national security issues and classified information. The executive faithfully executes those laws.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThis is per a thing called the constitution.
We are not at war, since no declaration of war was issued by the Congress, so don't give me the CINC crapola.
I'm12 has decided to became a HMO executive on the Michael Moore thread.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pmm12:
I'm reposting this from earlier today. I'd like your response.
Cheney had no problem with the classification procedures up until the year 2003, the year in which Valerie Plame was outed and we invaded Iraq.
I’ll say it again: if everything Cheney (and Bush, for that matter) has done in regards to national security (warrantless wiretapping, etc., and now trying to get away with oversight regarding the storage of classified info) is legal, and they can prove it’s legal, then what the hell are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Comment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
June 24th, 2007 at 7:48 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
-----------
You did not answer the question.
Again, I ask you, how does Congress' exemption from certain laws that have not a damn thing in common with national security and classified information relate to Bush's exemption of himself and Cheney from oversight, and Cheney's move to eliminate the agency charged with providing oversight regarding the storage of national security secrets?
Your attempt to pull this out of your ass (Google not working too well for you, eh?) as a way to label the issue of this thread as a "non-issue" doesn't wash.
We are talking about a president and VP refusing to allow ANYONE to practice oversight to make sure they are following procedures for the safekeeping of national security and classified information.
You want to trot out Congress exempting itself from installing water sprinklers. Yes, that definitely rises to the seriousness of what Shrub and Dick are doing. Moron.
Again...if a Democratic president gives away national secrets to a foreign government and then issues him or herself an EO exempting themselves from any oversight, the kind of oversight designed to prevent the action they just took, and then moves to eliminate entirely the department charged with conducting that oversight, then you are OK with that, right???
June 24th, 2007 at 7:58 pmm12:
Maybe you'd like to take a stab at the questions I posted at @ 4:04 pm.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:22 pmCheney had no problem with the classification procedures up until the year 2003, the year in which Valerie Plame was outed and we invaded Iraq.
The fact that he decided to act in a certain way at a certain point in time doesn't compel him to continue acting in that way, without an order from his boss.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pmYour effing wrong. Congress passes laws directing the executive to comply with national security issues and classified information. The executive faithfully executes those laws.
And by those laws, who has the power to classify and declassify information? The President!
June 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pmAgain, I ask you, how does Congress’ exemption from certain laws that have not a damn thing in common with national security and classified information relate to Bush’s exemption of himself and Cheney from oversight, and Cheney’s move to eliminate the agency charged with providing oversight regarding the storage of national security secrets?
Your attempt to pull this out of your ass (Google not working too well for you, eh?) as a way to label the issue of this thread as a “non-issue†doesn’t wash.
We are talking about a president and VP refusing to allow ANYONE to practice oversight to make sure they are following procedures for the safekeeping of national security and classified information.
There is no oversight regarding the President's office and classified information/national security, nor is there supposed to be.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pmAgain…if a Democratic president gives away national secrets to a foreign government and then issues him or herself an EO exempting themselves from any oversight, the kind of oversight designed to prevent the action they just took, and then moves to eliminate entirely the department charged with conducting that oversight, then you are OK with that, right???
I wouldn't be OK with it. But if we were in a position where the President himself decided to commit treason, it is foolish to believe that one of his subordinate agencies could stop him. Such is the duty of Congress.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:38 pmClassification Authority.
(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register...
But if the vice president is not part of the executive branch, he can't be performing executive duties...
June 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pm#260
An addendum:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.
....
Sec. 6.2. Effective Date. This order shall become effective 180 days from the date of this order.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 17, 1995.
This, and Bush's later order, govern classified information.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:42 pmBut if the vice president is not part of the executive branch, he can’t be performing executive duties…
He actually said that the VP is not an entity WITHIN the executive branch.
within- in the compass or limits of; not beyond: within view; to live within one's income.
at or to some point not beyond, as in length or distance; not farther than: within a radius of a mile.
at or to some amount or degree not exceeding: within two degrees of freezing.
which is true. The Vice President has some legislative function in the Senate.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:01 pmThe fact that he decided to act in a certain way at a certain point in time doesn’t compel him to continue acting in that way, without an order from his boss.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
And you aren't even the least bit curious as to why Dick had no problem cooperating up to that point. I guess you take the Britney Spears viewpoint that we should just all shut up and trust our president. Funny...a previous president got impeached and nearly removed from office because he couldn't be trusted. If he would lie under oath, sayeth the Republicans, how can he be trusted to uphold the office of the presidency. Oh dear God! He lied about a sexual act with a consenting adult. How can he be trusted with national security secrets!
But I'm sure you remember that.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:04 pmThere is no oversight regarding the President’s office and classified information/national security, nor is there supposed to be.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Oh really? Not even from Congress? I think Dana Perino and the Congressional Research Service disagrees with you:
Ms. Perino: "We understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch."
And...
The claim that Congress has no oversight responsibilities is of course plainly false. As the Congressional Research Service states in its Congressional Oversight Manual, “The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities.â€
Search the TP archives for "oversight" and you'll find the source.
Again, Bush and Cheney had no g-damned problem with oversight of national security/classified info prior to 2003.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pmBut I’m sure you remember that.
Comment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Maybe he does, but I doubt he'll ever admit he does. And if does admit it, he'll find some way to weasel out of the blantant inconsistency of his posts. Face it, WC, He's too much of a coward to admit that what I posted at 1:48 completely contradicts his arguments that he made before and since. He has no answer because there is none consistent with his views. But you're welcome to try if you think you can break through that titanium skull he has on.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:12 pmI'd like M12 to consider this, which I posted earlier:
"So, hypothetically speaking, if Clinton had issued an EO stating that no one in his administration could have any type of sexual relations anywhere in the White House, then, after having been caught with Monica, said, “Obviously I meant it for everybody else but not ME!â€, he wouldn’t have been impeached?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 5:47 pm"
June 24th, 2007 at 9:21 pmOh really? Not even from Congress? I think Dana Perino and the Congressional Research Service disagrees with you:
Ms. Perino: “We understand that the Congress has a role to play, which is oversight over the executive branch.â€
And…
The claim that Congress has no oversight responsibilities is of course plainly false. As the Congressional Research Service states in its Congressional Oversight Manual, “The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities.â€
Yes, general activities, to ensure things are running smoothly, not specifics on classified information! Clinton thought the same when he issued EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958.
535 members of Congress with this information is a national security disaster.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:25 pm#269
He wasn't impeached for his sexual relations. He was impeached for perjury, which is a law of Congress.
All he had to do was tell the truth.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pmI wouldn’t be OK with it. But if we were in a position where the President himself decided to commit treason, it is foolish to believe that one of his subordinate agencies could stop him. Such is the duty of Congress.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Sure you would be OK with it. Because so far you have argued that no one has the authority to oversee the activities of the president or VP for any reason in regards to nat'l security or classified info. Tough shit if the pres is conducting illegal activities. You don't want to know about it, and you are telling America that it's none of their business.
Your words, not mine: There is no oversight regarding the President’s office and classified information/national security, nor is there supposed to be.
Again, if they are not conducting anything illegal, why the hell are they exempting themselves from Bush's EO?
The Repubs accused Clinton of giving national secrets to China (nuclear technology, I believe, which they said damaged our national security) yet apparently did nothing. Was he impeached over it? Hell no. He was impeached over a damned blowjob.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:32 pmHe was impeached for perjury, which is a law of Congress.
All he had to do was tell the truth.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I'm talking hypothetically, in the context of this thread. Re-read my scenario, it has nothing to do with testimony in a Grand Jury.
BTW, then, by your argument, shouldn't Gonzales be impeached? And don't tell me that this has nothing to do with the topic, you've been all over the place topic-wise on this thread today.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pmI wouldn’t be OK with it. But if we were in a position where the President himself decided to commit treason, it is foolish to believe that one of his subordinate agencies could stop him. Such is the duty of Congress.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
Yes, exactly. See, you aren't entirely dense. Yes, it is Congress' duty to conduct oversight on, and bring the hammer down upon a president that broke the law, repeatedly. Especially when the law being broken is also an act of treason. Spying on American citizens without warrants is most assuredly an act of treason. As is falsifying intelligence to start a preemptive "war" against any sovereign nation.
Not only did the Hussein dictatorship pose no threat, they actively kept the enemies we were hunting down in check in their country, for Saddam Hussein loathed terrorists like Al Qaeda, ordering them to be killed on sight. Terrorism breeds anarchy, and Saddam liked order, and fear of that order, to reign in his regime. Furthermore, time has borne out the predictions of the naysayers, for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have had their ranks swollen with new recruits since our occupation of Iraq. The Iraq policy has put our nation at grave risk in more ways than one, between the crippling of our armed forces, placing our country in debt to the Chinese for 50+ years, bolstering the recruitment drives of the lead terrorist groups, and more!
Whereas not helping the people of New Orleans because they are "brown people" or "poor folk", ordering the use of torture, removing the right to habeas corpus from any human being, and countless other evils this group has been a part of, are just plain crimes against humanity. Such a charge (of crimes against humanity) carries with it severe, often lethal penalties. Moreover, a scarlet letter is blazoned on your chest in all of the history books, your name forevermore associated with horrible acts of cruelty and evil against your fellow man.
Incidentally, this "war" has only benefited the President, the Vice President, their friends in the energy industry and the military industrial complex, and has exclusively furthered the agendas of an extraordinarily tiny number of people working in "think tanks" on the Hill that represent an extraordinarily tiny minority of the people in this country (who, coincidentally, I'm sure, just so happen to own most of the wealth in this country), at the cost of everybody else's agenda. Oh, and Al Qaeda. It has definitely benefited Al Qaeda. War profiteering is also horribly illegal, and I dare say an act of treason, for you purposefully risk the lives of our young men and women to fill your own pockets. Traitors, all!
So yes, you are right, if we were in a position where the President himself decided to commit treason (which we are), it is foolish to believe that one of his subordinate agencies could stop him. Such truly is the duty of Congress. Which is why we love to see the oversight we are seeing, and want more, for we all know there is far, far more yet to find.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:36 pmAgain, if they are not conducting anything illegal, why the hell are they exempting themselves from Bush’s EO?
The President has decided that exempting himself is in the best interest of national security. A President clearly cannot violate his own Executive Order, since he decides what it means! That is the power and duty that he was given by the people.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
---------------
So now we are playing with words. Yes, I know what you are talking about.
Kinda like when General Motors created the Saturn brand of cars and introduced them in 1991. Built a brand new factory and invested about $5 billion into the brand.
However, the General couldn't bring itself to consider Saturn as one of its divisions. Oh no. Saturn was a "subsidiary" of GM.
See, it all had to do with image. GM was building crappy cars back then and for more than 10 years had failed to design and produce a compact car that could take on the imports. The Chevette didn't do it. The X-car (Citation, etc.) didn't do it. The J-car (Cavalier, etc.) didn't do it. So they created Saturn, which for all intents and purposes was a revelation for the company, a true clean sheet design.
But they had this image problem, so they wanted to put some distance between Saturn and the home corporation. They didn't want people to immediately realize that Saturn was a part of GM. You know..."within" GM.
Maybe that's what Bush is doing with Cheney. Putting some distance between the OVP and the office of the president. Cheney is to Bush as GM is to Saturn...Cheney is going down and Bush wants him at a distance. As Bush would say, "Heh heh."
June 24th, 2007 at 10:09 pmThe Repubs accused Clinton of giving national secrets to China (nuclear technology, I believe, which they said damaged our national security) yet apparently did nothing. Was he impeached over it? Hell no. He was impeached over a damned blowjob.
I don't know anything about this, so I cannot say.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI’m talking hypothetically, in the context of this thread. Re-read my scenario, it has nothing to do with testimony in a Grand Jury.
BTW, then, by your argument, shouldn’t Gonzales be impeached? And don’t tell me that this has nothing to do with the topic, you’ve been all over the place topic-wise on this thread today.
Probably. Gonzalez is useless; he made the same mistake.
All he had to do was state the power clearly given to him by the Patriot Act.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:11 pmYes, general activities, to ensure things are running smoothly, not specifics on classified information! Clinton thought the same when he issued EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958.
535 members of Congress with this information is a national security disaster.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
535 members wouldn't have access to the classified info, you idiot. You do remember the 8 members of the Senate who Bush informed about his warrantless wiretapping program, who were sworn to secrecy? Bush claims he "informed Congress" of his intentions, but you and I know that is patently false. 8 members of a select group of Senators, who are otherwise sworn to secrecy and could tell NO ONE about Bush's activities, do not comprise Congress. As well, we know what happened when Jay Rockefeller contacted Cheney in what I imagine was an attempt at oversight in that he expressed concerns with the program...Cheney ignored him.
The whole point of this is to safeguard national security issues and classified info. Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney support that, and why don't you give a damn about it? Why would they have no problem with it up through 2002, and then do everything in their power to prevent it from 2003 on? You apparently support a president and VP who are an entity unto themselves, who are untouchable by anyone.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pmComment by WC — June 24, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
-------------
In the above post, I apologize for not closing the tag.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:33 pmThe President has decided that exempting himself is in the best interest of national security. A President clearly cannot violate his own Executive Order, since he decides what it means! That is the power and duty that he was given by the people.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
And you know this for a fact. I didn't think anyone could know what the president was thinking in taking his actions.
You still haven't answered why Dana Perino went off on a bullshitting trip during the press conference the other day, sending reporters to three sections that had not a damn thing to do with exempting the VP.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:37 pmComment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 24, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
-------------
Well, if nothing else, I'm having a hell of a lot of fun. Plus, I'm improving my typing speed!
June 24th, 2007 at 10:38 pmI don’t know anything about this, so I cannot say.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Then Google it and get back with us.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pmThe whole point of this is to safeguard national security issues and classified info. Why wouldn’t Bush and Cheney support that, and why don’t you give a damn about it? Why would they have no problem with it up through 2002, and then do everything in their power to prevent it from 2003 on? You apparently support a president and VP who are an entity unto themselves, who are untouchable by anyone.
That's about the time the war started. The President then decided that the most dire information was to remain within his office and the Vice Presidents'. Hence, he decided to exempt himself. That is his job.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:59 pmComment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
You know, your arguments are getting more and more pathetic as the day drags on. You are aware, are you not, that it is illegal to classify information just to keep it out of the public domain if it does not relate to national security? Hiding evidence of law-breaking is not a national security concern. They classified and hid information because if it were revealed, it would have shown that they were nothing but a bunch of goddamn liars.
And there is NOTHING credible you can point to that proves me wrong.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:08 pmThey classified and hid information because if it were revealed, it would have shown that they were nothing but a bunch of goddamn liars.
What a ridiculous assertion. Prove it!
June 24th, 2007 at 11:14 pmDon't worry mary12.
It will be proven at his trial. Along with a great many other things.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:22 pmHey, didn't we label you Al Quaida?
What are you doing running around free?
June 24th, 2007 at 11:31 pm#287
You mean like how John Kerry will win the Presidency? I heard that a lot back a few years back.
Good luck!
June 24th, 2007 at 11:50 pmFun with selective editing:
Gonzales apparently...probing Cheney
June 25th, 2007 at 12:16 amIf you say so. I do enjoy how you think you know about Bush’s own written policy better than he does!
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Gee...the same could be said of you...
That’s about the time the war started. The President then decided that the most dire information was to remain within his office and the Vice Presidents’. Hence, he decided to exempt himself. That is his job.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 11:18 amThat’s about the time the war started. The President then decided that the most dire information was to remain within his office and the Vice Presidents’. Hence, he decided to exempt himself. That is his job.
Comment by m12 — June 24, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
Bullllllshit. They had no problem with allowing oversight regarding other nat'l security/classified info, especially considering all the intelligence and data the VP and pres would have received AFTER 9/11 related to both al Qaeda, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and other terrorist organizations. And you want us to believe that all of a sudden it's time to close the door simply because we are getting ready to go to war? It's not as if we instigated a surprise attack on Iraq. Saddam new months in advance that we'd invade if he didn't do what Bush demanded.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:28 amm12, you still have failed to explain why Dana Perino referred reporters to 3 sections of the EO that had nothing to do with the VP's exemption.
You have also failed to explain how Congress' exemption from the laws you listed earlier rises to the level of the Pres and VP excluding themselves from oversight in regards to the maintenance of nat'l security/classified info.
I'd wager that had the ISOO made a visit to the VP's office, and found either info that didn't belong there (say, info on Valerie Plame), or found missing info that should have been there (again, Valerie Plame), there would have been a lot of 'splainin to do.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:37 amLook, M12 thinks they actually "won" the presidency.
To a dirtbag like him, I imagine caging votes and other forms of cheating are winning.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pmPlease look at 32 CFR 2800, showing OVP has specific security handling requirements.
DoJ Staff need to explain why they have not reviewed OVP compliance/non-compliance with 32 CFR 2800. [See link under "Anon" for 32 CFR 2800. Kw="Vice President" and you'll see the OVP has reporting, documentation, and security handling requirements.]
June 25th, 2007 at 4:35 pmSo Gonzo is doing Darth Cheney's work as well as the Chimp's ? Nice.
June 25th, 2007 at 4:39 pm