Vice President Cheney
This letter has not been edited.
Thanks for the letter Jackoff
Posted by ibtz on July 3, 2007 02:32 PMYaakov Watkins wrote:
"President Bush issues an executive order, Cheney interprets it as not applying to him. Bush agrees with Cheney. What’s your problem?"
The problem is that the order specifically states how the offices of president and vice president should treat it:
Sec. 1.3. Classification 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;
and...
[Sec. 3.1.](c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.
more:
[Sec. 3.3.(c) An agency head shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of any specific file series of records for which a review or assessment has determined that the information within that file series almost invariably falls within one or more of the exemption categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section and which the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification.
[...]
The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended. File series exemptions previously approved by the President shall remain valid without any additional agency action.
So why enumerate how the office of the vice-president should comply if it really "wasn't meant to apply" to him.
Why does Bush continue to abide by it?
In fact, Cheney followed the order for two years after it was issued.
Everybody knows that Cheney's got a secret. Don't expect the Rocky to get to the bottom of it though. This is a dying paper.
Posted by Charles B on July 3, 2007 02:34 PMbill clinton took an oath of office and decided it did not apply to him.
I guess Cheney learned from the best.
all cheney needs to do now is find and intern and lie in court.
The bottom line is that the President sets the rules for classified information and he is happy with Cheney's behavior. Yes there are special rules for the Vice President.
There are so many valid things to criticize Bush about, why choose this one?
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on July 3, 2007 04:58 PMHey 3:56PM,
Don't worry-- Libby already lied in court for him! I guess he wasn't good-looking enough for an intern though..... maybe he could get one from Mark Foley.
When does the next witch hunt start? Will there be squel?
I'm loaded with popcorn, ready and waiting.
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 07:50 PM"There are so many valid things to criticize Bush about, why choose this one?"
Because one criticism does not prohibit another, and because Cheney appears to be hiding something. That's why he won't "show his work".
Posted by Charles B on July 3, 2007 07:51 PMKW said with yawning predictability:
"When does the next witch hunt start? Will there be squel?"
Let's see...The CIA under a Republican President filed a complaint with a Republican Attorney General, who appointed a Republican special prosecutor, who filed charges and won a conviction by a jury of Libby's peers. He was then sentenced by a Republican judge to a prison term based on the guidelines instituted by a "get tough" Republican Congress.
Yeah, sure was a "witch hunt"...
KW=Joke.
Posted by Charles B on July 3, 2007 07:57 PMIf the new direction congress can't find any crimes to charge these guys with, why can't the rest of you accept that?
I mean, you voted for them... didn't you?
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 08:04 PM"If the new direction congress can't find any crimes to charge these guys with, why can't the rest of you accept that?"
KW=Joke
Posted by Charles B on July 3, 2007 09:01 PMibtz, you are a coward and a idot. Makes you feel big knocking someone's name, eh?
Posted by B. Snyder on July 4, 2007 04:11 AMchas b = whale dung
Posted by on July 4, 2007 06:30 AMWhat's all the fuss and furor?
Bush - as with Charley McCarthy, and Mortiimer Snerd earlier in time - sits on Cheney's knee. Or is everyone just now finding this out?
Who gets whisked off to a top secret bunker of safety at the slightest hint of trouble?
Who gets left out, like a sitting duck in the shooting gallery?
Whose Companies are making huge profits out of the current Iraq quagmire?
Who hasn't even got a clue as to why we're there, or what it's all about; much less the ghost of an idea as to how to get out?
Whose office really started the exposure of a covert CIA agent?
Or is Bushism just the newest religion, taking the place of idolizing Ronnie Raygun?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 07:05 AMOG asked:
"Or is Bushism just the newest religion, taking the place of idolizing Ronnie Raygun?"
I'm afraid it's worse. It's total devotion to a transparently suicidal cause; a slavish prostration to a megolomaniacle man-child by an ignorant and increasingly marginalized bunch of suckers and marks.
Apologies for the new word;^|{
Posted by Charles B on July 4, 2007 07:57 AMOG: "Who gets whisked off to a top secret bunker of safety at the slightest hint of trouble?"
Sorry OG, that's SOP for any President. Good try though.
And good try at down playing 9/11 by calling it the "slightest hint of trouble." How many innocent Americans have to be slaughtered by terrorists before you consider it a real cause for concern?
Posted by KW on July 4, 2007 08:20 AM"I'm afraid it's worse. It's total devotion to a transparently suicidal cause; a slavish prostration to a megolomaniacle man-child by an ignorant and increasingly marginalized bunch of suckers and marks."
Oh Charles. I'll admit than I've been fooled a little by the man-child, maybe even to the point of being a sucker, but I'm not suicidal enough to be a liberal. and so far, I haven't been fooled by you.
Posted by R on July 4, 2007 08:35 AM"SOP for any President" the writer says. I'd really like to know how many times the Vice-President - prior to Cheney, that is - has been whisked off to a secret bunker at the slightest hint of of trouble. Never heard of it back in World War 2, even when there was a threat of the enemy being able to bomb Washington, D.C. But then again, back in those days, it wasn't the VP running the country - with "plausable deniability", and his own self-generated form of "executive privilege", to cover his ass, either.
Who was referring to 9/11, and "down-playing" it? First example of the practice, that has become rather habitual in the terms of the current Adminstration, true; but far from any attempt to "downplay" the event itself. Which makes the last question purely rhetorical, irrelevant and immaterial - as is usual with that writer.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 09:12 AMCharles B, It is not a witch, or a which, hunt. To quote from my comment under the in the company of liars letter posted today. It is " the March hare in persuit of the Cheshire cat "
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 4, 2007 09:20 AMHey grouch. You forgot to mention a certain former VP who infamously claimed the "no controlling legal authority" defense. When he got caught with his hand in the money jar, he didn't try to deny it, (so the plausible deniability thing was off the table), and he couldn't claim executive privilege, (because that was before he lost the election and became a big movie star), so his only recourse was to assert that he was above the law. Don't remember you guys getting all riled up about that one. Guess that VP office is piled heap full of powerful magic.
Posted by R on July 4, 2007 09:30 AMHey, R:
Nobody's asking you to "be a liberal".
It's enough that you're one of the few conservatives who've finally admitted there is something WRONG with this president and his administration.
Why has it been such an impossible thing for so many on the right to admit, once and for all, that this guy has been a disaster, even for conservative causes? I point to the immigration debacle as case-in-point.
If another Republican president gets elected in '08, I hope he displays some true conservative principles, i.e., fiscal responsibility, less government interference in the common man's life, sane policies on border security and immigration, and NOT selling out the country to the highest corporate bidder.
Fat chance, methinks.
R,
But, did he get whisked off to a secret bunker every time there was a hint of trouble? And, did he set out to establish his own "top-secret" classification of papers - apparently claiming himself to be above even the President's specific directions - along with refusing to give information to Congress in a legitimate Congressional Hearing, claiming a form of "executive privilege" exceeding that of the Oval Office itself?
The Dems, by and large, have never even tried the "plausable deniability" approach. It was invented by the Republicans in the first place, back when Nixon was committing the felonies of conspiracy to commit burglary; paying individuals to obstruct justice; - from a slush fund of campaign contributions held in a safe in his private office, itself a felony at the time - and continuing further to obstruct justice by having evidence of felony destroyed, or "erased": So forth, for about 9, or 10, indictable counts.
And of course, should we leave out the VP who failed to pay his Income Tax - and otherwise got himself entangled in foul-up with the IRS, to the point of having to resign even before Nixon, and wind up convicted as a felon as well? Who Nixon didn't arrange to pardon either, by the way; nor even offer comutation.
And then, even without the "plausable denial" material, shall we go back to the 1920's, and Teapot Dome? Do let that light of yours shine on, sir.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 11:25 AMI haves a real question for conservatives, Republilcans and any one else who supports this White House.
Just what would Bush and company have to do to make you as sick of them as we are?
Can you answer this without citing Bill Clinton or any other Democrat or lilberal.
Give us the answer.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 4, 2007 12:12 PMBbbbuuutt, bbbbbbuuuttttt, bbbuuttttt, CLINTON DID IT FIRST!!! Whimper, snivel, snort.
Posted by [Paolo] "shameless republiCON" on July 4, 2007 12:45 PMWow, some people need to grow up! Just because Clinton may or may have not done something does not excuse anyone else from committing morally questionable activities.
I guess the party of personal responsibility has once again proven themselves to be anything but responsible.
"Whose office really started the exposure of a covert CIA agent?
OG - I was right there with you until this one. Swing and a miss.
You know damn well that it was Richard Armitage of the State Department that was the source of the leak regarding Plame.
Posted by RU Serious on July 4, 2007 05:55 PMJust what would Bush and company have to do to make you as sick of them as we are?
Couple of things
1. That amnesty thing is non-starter.
2. I think I'd be pretty darn unhappy if he campaigned for Hillary.
Posted by R on July 4, 2007 07:14 PMWell my heck grouch, I thought you were talking about modern day stuff. Maybe you have first hand memory of that teapot dome incident, was it called an incident?, but I don't.
But I do know one thing. Your guy Al was caught red handed, or green handed as it were. What he was doing was against the law of the day. But Al connected a couple wires and a small IBM to the beta site for the internet and cooked himself up a nice little defense. And he was right there in that very same office that Cheney uses today. Committing a crime. Go figure. And you know what? It worked. You see, even in those days the New York Times was already in the no Dem scandal looked for - no Dem scandal found mode. Now it's 2 elections later and we have us a genuine movie star and the same old political shenanigans.
My guess is that if Cheney is forced by public pressure to testify, and if he is found guilty as accused, then we shall see what we see. But what's with all the fuss about him being sent to a bunker? He went. He'll go again if the situation comes up. Cheney is gone in 2 years and you never have to worry about him again.
Posted by R on July 4, 2007 08:33 PMR,
Not quite first hand; but it is a part of American history. The burden of most of what is on this line of postings seems to be, "Billy did it, so it's O.K. for us guys to do too", in one form or other. (Or, in the case of VP, "Al did it, so . . . .") Along with the usual, "Poor old Scooter", etc., etc. business for fill in.
And, for the most part anyway, this seems to be the theme that is harped to death every time there is evidence of more shenanigans in this Administration: The old, old, old, "It's not our fault", argument that crooks have been crying for . . . more time than any of us put together can remember.
O.K. History does show that in what might be called "incidence level", the Republicans have the lead, going back even before Nixon. So, what's new?
I don't worry about Cheney. The burden of the letter writer to begin with was basically how, or why, he gets away with his own form of "Executive Privilege". The answer is simple, he's the 'Edgar Bergen" of the Administration; and it's becoming obvious. Or, if you prefer, The Wizard of Oz is losing his smoke screens. And he's proving he ain't such a whiz of a wiz as he would like to have the sheeple believe.
Gone in two years, and happily forgotten.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 4, 2007 09:04 PM