Dick Cheney.. is apparently not part of the executive branch

[Crapshoot]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...-power-gr.html

heney Power Grab: Says White House Rules Don't Apply to Him

June 21, 2007 12:57 PM

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

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

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

Leonard did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Crapshoot]

Dola, am I missing something here? If he's not part of the executive branch, what branch is he part of? Legislative?

[Flasch186]

I think we've already determined that it is the Figment branch.

[miked]

It's the branch of none of your damn business apparently.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dola, am I missing something here? If he's not part of the executive branch, what branch is he part of? Legislative?

Possible, since he casts a vote in Senate to break a tie, it might technically be part of the Legislative.

[sabotai]

http://www.evgschool.org/three_branc...government.htm

According to that, the Executive, so it looks like Cheney must be smoking something pretty good.

[Ksyrup]

heney Power Grab



Keep your hands away from my butt, mister!

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

heney Power Grab



Keep your hands away from my butt, mister!

Hahahaha!

[cartman]

So, if he isn't part of the Executive Branch, does that mean his claims of protecting information under Executive Privilege are now invalid?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Possible, since he casts a vote in Senate to break a tie, it might technically be part of the Legislative.

More than that, he is the President of the Senate and could sit there every day if he wanted.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, if he isn't part of the Executive Branch, does that mean his claims of protecting information under Executive Privilege are now invalid?

Not from Cheney's position -- he's saying that in some cases (such as "protecting information"), his office operates with Executive Branch authority, and in other cases, Legislative. The Bush Administration does what it wants, and lets the lawyers and politicians complain about it afterwards with no consequence. He's trying to have it both ways, and he should be able to get away with it since action won't be taken before the end of his tenure. Not sure which odds are better -- that Cheney will be stymied in his power grab, or that even a single one of the posters who've defended this administration's actions over the past six years will admit that people like me were right about those criminals, and refuse to support them any longer.

It makes me sick that people continue to defend Cheney (as well as the other current and former criminals in the administration, such as Libby, Gonzalez, and Rumsfeld). And sicker that it won't change the fact that in the future, those same people will continue to attack those of us who've been trying to alert everyone to the tragedy this administration continues to perpetrate on our country. This is what, the 40th scandal or so of this magnitude or greater that has occurred under the Bush Administration?

It is no mystery why we find ourselves in the crisis we are in. The mystery is how we'll be able to dig ourselves out before our country reaps what it's sown.

[molson]

Most social and legal progress in our country has started with a wacky legal theory. Not saying this is one of those times, just that I'm a fan of wacky legal theories in general.

[JPhillips]

Crapshoot: Go fuck yourself.

[ISiddiqui]

My lord... Worst. Administration. Ever.

They make up so much BS it's incredible.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It makes me sick that people continue to defend Cheney (as well as the other current and former criminals in the administration, such as Libby, Gonzalez, and Rumsfeld). .

Rumsfeld may be a jerk, and depending on your opinion, a terrible sec of defense ... but he's hardly the criminal type.

[dbd1963]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Crapshoot: Go fuck yourself.

Cheney? Is that you?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Rumsfeld may be a jerk, and depending on your opinion, a terrible sec of defense ... but he's hardly the criminal type.

His fingerprints are all over Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo. At a minimum his criminality is an open question.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Crapshoot: Go fuck yourself.

That's the 4th branch of government?

SI

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Hey, he's just bringing honor and integrity back to the White House.

[Toddzilla]

heney? Describes the VP quite well IMO

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His fingerprints are all over Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo. At a minimum his criminality is an open question.

As he said.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His fingerprints are all over Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo. At a minimum his criminality is an open question.

[JPhillips]

So Taguba's revelations this week matter not at all to you?

And even if you want to believe that Rumsfeld is completely innocent in the US, it's likely that he'll face criminal charges somewhere in Europe before the decade is over.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His fingerprints are all over Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo. At a minimum his criminality is an open question.

His lapse of control may have allowed it to happen ... but as far as I know no one has any shred of proof that he encouraged/requested it.

If you're saying criminal neglect, maybe I'll agree.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So Taguba's revelations this week matter not at all to you?
.

I may have missed that. Please enlighten me.

Edit: I should say I'm familiar with the comments, but please enlighten me on where he claims Rumsfeld was responsible for the abuses. At worse he appears to say Rumsfeld tried to downplay it / spin it in the press which (albeit crappy) isn't a crime.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So Taguba's revelations this week matter not at all to you?

And even if you want to believe that Rumsfeld is completely innocent in the US, it's likely that he'll face criminal charges somewhere in Europe before the decade is over.

Well, there's no way in hell any country will get their hands on Rumsfeld, even if they tries criminal proceedings.

And there's no direct evidence linking Rumsfeld to Abu Grahib, and the Prisoners in Cuba are just that -- Prisoners of War, and as such may be held indefinately. No laws are being broken.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

and the Prisoners in Cuba are just that -- Prisoners of War, and as such may be held indefinately. No laws are being broken.

The administration has gone out of its way to make sure that they are NOT classified as POWs. Some of the conditions and tactics used at Guantanamo are not allowed for POWs per the Geneva Convention. Hence the emphasis on calling them "enemy combatants".

[JonInMiddleGA]

NoMyths, you looking for a gig on The View or something.

Not much better in terms of content, but you were at least arguably funnier than Rosie.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

NoMyths, you looking for a gig on The View or something.

Not much better in terms of content, but you were at least arguably funnier than Rosie.

Remember when the conservatives on the board would actually defend their position instead of resorting to juvenile ad hominem attacks? That was back when Bush was popular. Heady days, those were.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Remember when the conservatives on the board wasted their time & energy trying to get simple reality across to people who display an utter lack of a clue? Wasted days those were.

Fixed that for you Biggly.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Remember when the conservatives on the board would actually defend their position instead of resorting to juvenile ad hominem attacks?

No.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

NoMyths, you looking for a gig on The View or something.

Not much better in terms of content, but you were at least arguably funnier than Rosie.

Yeah, I got a little ranty and felt bad about it. I think I'm beginning to figure out how it all fits together.

But I appreciate your generosity in not dismissing me more coldly.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Remember when I would actually argue with every single viewpoint that is different than mine just for the sake of arguing?

Yeah, like, yesterday.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

But I appreciate your generosity in not dismissing me more coldly.

No problem. I figured light hearted was all that was required in this instance to be honest.

But, predictably I guess, somebody had to bitch anyway.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It is no mystery why we find ourselves in the crisis we are in. The mystery is how we'll be able to dig ourselves out before our country reaps what it's sown.

Crisis? You have recently become a well-respected published author. Many here have recently gotten married or had/having a new child. Many here are in very nice jobs and are respected in their fields. Almost none of us have been victims of violent crimes, let alone terrorist acts. Sports, that most of us love, continue to grow in popularity. Let's see, what else? We finally pay more for gas than we did in 1981 but that had long been expected (like, since the 70s). I have a very nice equity in my house and I think you probably do too. Computers are much powerful, allowing us to play games that were unimaginable 10-15 years ago. I think we are better at staying connected with each other. I grew up having to do the "duck and cover" drills in the hallways. My point? Humans alway love to identify good and evil, especially when they can do so in the comfort and safety of their own existence.

[JPhillips]

I'm not saying it's a clear cut case, but there's enough evidence to make a circumstantial case that Rumsfeld knew much of what was happening that was at a minimum on the edge of the law.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/index.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true

[Chubby]

Cheney a 'tard? Nooooooooo

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not saying it's a clear cut case, but there's enough evidence to make a circumstantial case that Rumsfeld knew much of what was happening that was at a minimum on the edge of the law.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/index.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true

I don't think it's possible for you to pick MORE biased websites. Might as well quote from moveon.org.

The New Yorker? You honestly think there's gonna be balanced reporting from the New Yorker or Salon.com?

C'mon now.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips, you forgot one

http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/...ews.cfm?ID=328

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The New Yorker? You honestly think there's gonna be balanced reporting from the New Yorker or Salon.com?

Yeah, remember when that New Yorker guy Seymour Hersch broke that story about how prisoners were being tortured by US troops in that one Iraqi prison, what was it... Abu Ghraib. As if. I wonder what other bogus stories he's concocting these days. Why can't they get a real reporter who doesn't hate America?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I don't think it's possible for you to pick MORE biased websites. Might as well quote from moveon.org.

The New Yorker? You honestly think there's gonna be balanced reporting from the New Yorker or Salon.com?

C'mon now.

Look out for the black helicopters!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Yeah, remember when that New Yorker guy Seymour Hersch broke that story about how prisoners were being tortured by US troops in that one Iraqi prison, what was it... Abu Ghraib. As if. I wonder what other bogus stories he's concocting these days. Why can't they get a real reporter who doesn't hate America?

Yeah, I mean he's only a Pulitzer Prize winner. I mean c'mon, can't they do better than having a hack like that write for them.

[WVUFAN]

Again,

I'm talking about the overall viewpoint of the magazines in question. If you don't think the Salon and the New Yorker do not have a distinct liberal bias, then you're blind.

Liberals are bitching constantly how Fox News cannot be considered a valid source of news because of its conservative bias, but it's perfectly ok to quote the New Yorker. Riiight.

As for Hersch, I have very little respect for him. He's been consistantly anti-military since the 1970's, and the numerous statements he has made about US Troops make me sick. The fact that they gave him a Pullitzer makes me overall very suspicious of the quality of the prize in today's society.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Yeah, remember when that New Yorker guy Seymour Hersch broke that story about how prisoners were being tortured by US troops in that one Iraqi prison, what was it... Abu Ghraib. As if. I wonder what other bogus stories he's concocting these days. Why can't they get a real reporter who doesn't hate America?

How about the one where he claimed in 1995 that the US was "just months from a full-on invasion of Iran" quoting "secret" sources, just like he does for virtually every story he writes?

Or, how about the one where he says that "There has never been an Army more violent or murderous than the US Army in Iraq"

Or how some say he was the first "Legit" reporter to call the US Army in Vietnam "Baby Killers".

So, Hersch is not a good example of a non-biased reporter. Try again.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Crisis? You have recently become a well-respected published author. Many here have recently gotten married or had/having a new child. Many here are in very nice jobs and are respected in their fields. Almost none of us have been victims of violent crimes, let alone terrorist acts. Sports, that most of us love, continue to grow in popularity. Let's see, what else? We finally pay more for gas than we did in 1981 but that had long been expected (like, since the 70s). I have a very nice equity in my house and I think you probably do too. Computers are much powerful, allowing us to play games that were unimaginable 10-15 years ago. I think we are better at staying connected with each other. I grew up having to do the "duck and cover" drills in the hallways. My point? Humans alway love to identify good and evil, especially when they can do so in the comfort and safety of their own existence.

Many of us in the country have been very fortunate during our lives. The writing on the wall seems to indicate that things are going to be getting a lot worse very soon. While some parts of the worlds (such as Iraq) are in crisis now, I fear that we are not seeing a chain of events that will lead us into a satisying future, but rather one in which our fears of terrorism and economic disruptions become more fully realized than they are currently.

It's true that someone in every era feels the end is nigh,and I'm certainly not making that argument. But I know enough of cause and effect to worry that the balance is tipping. We're paying more for gas because we're running out of oil -- doesn't really seem that way from the comfort of our experience, but the evidence is clear.

You're right that many wonderful things are still a part of our lives. I just hate to think that because of our country's actions over the last six years, we've insured that it will be more difficult for us to sustain our relatively untroubled existences.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So, Hersch is not a good example of a non-biased reporter. Try again.

He's not writing an editorial, he's reporting substantive news. Whether or not he has a bias, what he reported on Abu Ghraib was absolutely correct, and he got that news when no one else had a clue. Call him biased all you want, that's good reporting. Now he has more details on how the Pentagon handled post-Abu Ghraib investigation. And his primary source is the very general the Pentagon appointed to lead the investigation. If you're not going to grant Hersch any credibility on that, you need to take a long look in the mirror as far as bias is concerned.

[NoMyths]

Ahem (Hersh).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Look out for the black helicopters!

Yeah, I think this was the most accurate response in the thread.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Many of us in the country have been very fortunate during our lives. The writing on the wall seems to indicate that things are going to be getting a lot worse very soon. While some parts of the worlds (such as Iraq) are in crisis now, I fear that we are not seeing a chain of events that will lead us into a satisying future, but rather one in which our fears of terrorism and economic disruptions become more fully realized than they are currently.

This is because much of the world hates us. And if you think that is the fault of the Republicans, think again, as it's been going on at least as long as I've been around (e.g. Iranian Hostage Crisis under Carter). We are a rich country, and that puts a big target on us around much of the world (much like anyone in this country who figures out how to make a buck gets a huge target painted on them).

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's true that someone in every era feels the end is nigh,and I'm certainly not making that argument. But I know enough of cause and effect to worry that the balance is tipping. We're paying more for gas because we're running out of oil -- doesn't really seem that way from the comfort of our experience, but the evidence is clear.

We're paying more for gas because no one is allowed to build a refinery in this country any more, and we are at capacity in all the existing refineries. Oil prices aren't influencing this all that much at the moment.

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You're right that many wonderful things are still a part of our lives. I just hate to think that because of our country's actions over the last six years, we've insured that it will be more difficult for us to sustain our relatively untroubled existences.

Sorry, this goes back a lot further than just Bush. People love to forget things like 9/11 was mostly planned under Clinton, the original Twin Towers bombing was mostly planned under Bush I, the Beruit barracks were bombed under Reagan, the Embassy in Iran was taken under Carter, etc.

Clinton had a pretty scandalous Presidency himself you know. I'm just sick of everyone going "Republicans are evil!" when the reality is most politicians in this country play these exact same games. The difference to me is that Bush I is willing to pull the trigger, while Clinton dismantled our military and we're STILL trying to recover.

[st.cronin]

Hers(c)h is also the guy that every couple of months writes an article about how we're about to attack Iran, articles which serve no purpose other than to inflame the audience. On some days, he's a journalist, but on other days he's something else.