Dick Cheney considers himself above the law:
Vice President Cheney's office has refused to comply with an executive order governing the handling of classified information for the past four years and recently tried to abolish the office that sought to enforce those rules, according to documents released by a congressional committee yesterday.Since 2003, the vice president's staff has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration charged with making sure the executive branch protects classified information. Cheney aides have not filed reports on their possession of classified data and at one point blocked an inspection of their office. After the Archives office pressed the matter, the documents say, Cheney's staff this year proposed eliminating it.
...The aggressive efforts to protect the operations of his staff have usually pitted Cheney against lawmakers, interest groups or media organizations, sometimes going all the way to the Supreme Court. But the fight about classified information regulation indicates that the vice president has resisted oversight even by other parts of the Bush administration. Cheney's office argued that it is exempt from the rules in this case because it is not strictly an executive branch agency.[Emphasis mine -- RD.]
Really? The Vice President isn't part of the executive branch? OK, fine. Congress, you know what you have to do now: subpoena him. He can't be part of the executive branch only when it suits his interests.
To my fellow conservatives: if you don't think this behavior ought to be challenged now, before it establishes a precedent, on what ground will you stand should President Hillary and her team start pulling the same crap?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Conservatives used to sing the praises of W and Dick and their total unwillingness to pay heed to public opinion, unlike Bill Clinton (Oops I mean Satan) who took polls to see where he should take a vacation.
Now, they are horrified and outraged that these guys don't listen to them, either.
The whining and tantrums are constant on talk radio. I think the thing that frustrates them the most is that they can't go to their perennial default position of blaming Clinton. Now that's a hoot.
(BTW, I am no great fan of Bubba, and I don't plan to vote for Hillary, but I am bone weary of listening to right-wingers try to blame all the evil in the world on them, just as left-wingers tried to do to Reagan years ago.)
Robert, my friend, I "hate" :-) to correct you because, unlike the Molester In Chief's Cool Aid drinkers on this board, you are tying to be balanced.
Conservatives, just like liberals and Christians, come in many shades; our gracious host, W, and the VP are examples of three different shades of Conservatism.
Some Conservatives (e.g., the "Rockefeller Wing", which liberals make a show of despising, but privately envy) have ALWAYS disagreed with the prevalent body of Conservative thought represented by folks like former President Reagan, VP Cheney, Rush, Hannity, Coulter and the great unwashed mass of Conservatives (including your humble interlocutor). Of late, the disagreeing Conservatives have been called Paleo or Crunchy or Compassionate, but the point is they have never been "mainstream" Conservatives (not completely homogenous themselves).
So, Robert, we mainstream Conservatives are not "horrified and outraged" at the VP--to the contrary, he is our hero. We are horrified and outraged at the calumny he suffers, such as being called a hypocrite for loving his lesbian daughter, and being detested for his patriotism.
"The whining and tantrums are constant on talk radio. I think the thing that frustrates [Conservatives] the most is that they can't go to their perennial default position of blaming Clinton. Now that's a hoot."
Yes and no, Robert. Yes, there is Conservative whining on talk (i.e., liberated) radio, but none I've ever heard is directed at Mr. Cheney and his ilk, and it's sure as hell not because of his "total unwillingness to pay heed to public opinion", by which you mean liberals and closeted libertarians. If he ever did pay such heed, you really would hear outrage.
Nor is the liberated radio whining directed at W for his efforts to protect us and our grandchildren from Islamofascists, or from Homosocialits in the Democrat Party. Much of the whining is because W is being true to his campaign word--he IS a Compassionate Conservative, to a fault: He spent years of blood, sweat and tears trying to make an omelet in Iraq without breaking any eggs (e.g., the heinous al-Sadr still lives, and Iran still openly aids al-Qaeda); he expanded Medicare by billion$; and his heart truly breaks for the plight of illegal immigrants. That drives Paleos, their brother Rockefeller wingers and even many mainstream Conservatives to drink (I like B&B with ice water on the side, myself). That's kind of a hoot, I guess, but we would elect him again over Algore or Ichabod F. Crane if those were our choices again.
And if you think we Conservatives can't or don't continue to blame Clinton for the continued "legality" of killing unborn children; not even attempting to fix Social Secutity (because he is a coward); al-Qaeda's ascendancy, including 9/11; doing worse than nothing to stem illegal immigration; North Korea's and Iran's nuclear capabilities; high taxes and a heightened culture of Hollywood filth; then, Robert, you don't live in the same world as I.
Something ate my post, so I'll try again.
Robert, my friend, I "hate" :-) to correct you because, unlike the Molester In Chief's Cool Aid drinkers on this board, you are tying to be fair and balanced.
Conservatives, just like liberals and Christians, come in many shades; our gracious host, W, and the VP are examples of three different shades of Conservatism.
Some Conservatives (e.g., the "Rockefeller Wing", which liberals make a show of despising, but privately envy) have ALWAYS disagreed with the prevalent body of Conservative thought represented by folks like former President Reagan, VP Cheney, Rush, Hannity, Coulter and the great unwashed mass of Conservatives (including your humble interlocutor). Of late, the disagreeing Conservatives have been called Paleo or Crunchy or Compassionate, but the point is they have never been "mainstream" Conservatives (hardly homogenous themselves).
So, Robert, we mainstream Conservatives are not "horrified and outraged" at the VP--to the contrary, he is our hero. We are horrified and outraged at the calumny he suffers, such as being called a hypocrite for loving his lesbian daughter, and for his patriotism.
"The whining and tantrums are constant on talk radio. I think the thing that frustrates them the most is that they can't go to their perennial default position of blaming Clinton. Now that's a hoot."
Yes and no, Robert. Yes, there is Conservative whining on talk (i.e., liberated) radio, but it's not directed at Mr. Cheney and his ilk, and it's sure as hell not because of his "total unwillingness to pay heed to public opinion", by which you mean liberals and closeted libertarians.
Nor is the liberated radio whining directed at W for his efforts to protect us and our grandchildren from Islamofascists. Much of the whining you hear on radio is because W is being true to his campaign word--he IS a Compassionate Conservative, to a fault: He wasted years of blood, sweat and tears trying to make an omelet in Iraq without breaking any eggs (e.g., the heinous al-Sadr still lives and Iran still openly aids al-Qaeda); he expanded Medicare by billion$; and his heart truly breaks for the plight of illegal immigrants. That drives Paleos, their brother Rockefeller wingers and even many mainstream Conservatives to drink (I like B&B with ice water on the side, myself).
And if you think we Conservatives can't or don't continue to blame Clinton for the continued "legality" of killing unborn children; al-Qaeda's ascendancy, including 9/11; doing worse than nothing to stem illegal immigration; North Korea's and Iran's nuclear capabilities; high taxes; and a heightened culture of Hollywood filth; then, Robert, you don't live in the same world as I.
Cleveland, it is clear that conservatives do blame Clinton for every ill on earth, and maybe in the galaxy. I have no particular interest in defending him. But neither am I interested in scapegoating.
Conservative Republicans have held the White House for 19 out of the last 27 years, and yet abortion continues. Even when they didn't hold the White House during the Clinton Administration, they had Congress for much of the time, and in the earlier days of W's regime they held both houses of Congress and the White House and still didn't change anything. Yet, this is Clinton's fault.
Al-Qaeda is growing in size thanks to the Iraq debacle, our standing in the world is lower than it was in the Vietnam days, and 9/11 happened eight months into the Bush Administration. (Something that the Bushies never mention about our early success in Afghanistan was that many of the special forces that orchestrated the battle had been embedded there during the Clinton Administration. This is not to say that Bill can take all the positive credit. He certainly made his share of blunders. But GWB also got to take credit for work that was already underway when he took office.)
Iran has been working on nuclear capabilities for decades. Clinton shares in the blame but both Bushes also failed. However, W did crank up their paranoia several notches and helped to undermine the homegrown resistance that was beginning to make progress. Mr. Ahmadinejad rode into office on Iranian fear of invasion as chest-thumping neo-cons cried, "On to Teheran!" Now we have this messianic, psychotically anti-Semitic screwball in charge. (Our one hope seems to be that global sanctions have begun to bite and the people are sick of him as the Iranians literally run out of gas!)
I don't think the Clinton regime did a great job with North Korea, but I am equally unimpressed with Bush & Co. And they went nuclear well into the Bush era.
I actually give props to Bush for trying to address the Social Security mess. I am disgusted by the way the Democrats demagogued the issue. But Bush fumbled and bumbled and squandered the political capital he touted.
My taxes are too high, too. But every study I have seen indicates that the disparity between the wealthy and the middle class and poor has grown worse under Bush. Raise this issue and the Republicans pull out that old tired chestnut about "class warfare." But as Warren Buffet noted, "If there is class warfare, my class is winning." I believe he would classify as a super-captialist and he thinks the situation is grossly unjust. American workers have continued to grow more productive, but their wages have not kept up. The wealth is not trickling down, just the stress.
Perhaps we don't live in the same world. I don't see the VP as a hero, when he refuses to face reality in Iraq and engaged in deceitful claims in order to get us there to fight he war he assumed would be cheap and easy.
That's what drives me to drink...but I'll stick to Dr. Pepper.
Per Robert: "Conservative Republicans have held the White House for 19 out of the last 27 years, and yet abortion continues. Even when they didn't hold the White House during the Clinton Administration, they had Congress for much of the time, and in the earlier days of W's regime they held both houses of Congress and the White House and still didn't change anything. Yet, this is Clinton's fault."
That's right, Robert, he appointed Ginsberg (ACLU) and Breyer to keep infanticide legal. What did you want Republicans to do, execute the liberal justices?
------------
"Al-Qaeda is growing in size thanks to the Iraq debacle"
Says who, liberals?
------------
"our standing in the world is lower than it was in the Vietnam days"
Good! Anytime the Eurotrash countries start to like us, I'll be worried, except now maybe France. :-)
-----------------------------------------
"9/11 happened eight months into the Bush Administration."
So what? 9/11 was planed during the Clinton dark ages, and was carried out because Clinton's Justice Dept made doubly sure the CIA and FBI could not share national security info. That may very well be the reason it was successful, and it was mostly Clinton-appointed personnel in the CIA and FBI when 9/11 occurred. And why did it occur in the first place? Because the Coward In Chief would not capture or kill Bin Laden, nor even retaliate for the 500 Americans he killed in the US and elsewhere. My man, Cheney, talked the Pres into stopping that crap!
Robert, as a good American, you should be ashamed of Clinton, not defend him on 9/11.
----------------
"Something that the Bushies never mention about our early success in Afghanistan was that many of the special forces that orchestrated the battle had been embedded there during the Clinton Administration."
Source, please, Robert.
----------------------------------------
"Iran has been working on nuclear capabilities for decades. Clinton shares in the blame but both Bushes also failed."
Failed at what? Iran was not working on making a bomb until Clinton's latter years, as I understand it. But where were the intrepid UN inspectors--taking bribes?
-------------------------
"Our one hope [about Iran's nuclear threat] seems to be that global sanctions have begun to bite and the people are sick of him as the Iranians literally run out of gas!"
First, that's not our only hope of stopping Iran's threat. Second, who do you think is helping cause the unrest among the sane people in Iran? W, Cheney and the CIA!
-----------------------------------
"I don't think the Clinton regime did a great job with North Korea, but I am equally unimpressed with Bush & Co."
That's a joke, right? You haven't seen the news lately?
-----------------------------------
"I actually give props to Bush for trying to address the Social Security mess. I am disgusted by the way the Democrats demagogued the issue. But Bush fumbled and bumbled and squandered the political capital he touted."
He never touted it, but I don't get your point. The heinous b******s were not going to let the Pres fix SS, political capital or not. It would have gone over too well with the Dems' plantation workers.
-------------------------
"American workers have continued to grow more productive, but their wages have not kept up. The wealth is not trickling down, just the stress."
How the heck are you not embarrassed to say that! America's poor have a standard of living akin to Africa's middle class. Many millions of people in this world would thank God just for the health care, food, housing, schooling and clothing our poor take for granted. Why do you think people die in the dessert to come here? For the stress?
----------------
"I don't see the VP as a hero, when he refuses to face reality in Iraq and engaged in deceitful claims in order to get us there...".
Robert, you seem like a nice fellow. Why would you repeat the tired old lies about the VP without checking them out? I follow politics very closely (from the inside for a while) and will not abide a person who lies, so I can tell you this with certainty: Dick Cheney is an honorable man. He is not a liar.
Robert, my friend, it makes me sad to see decent people taken in by the crap evil people do in our country for political gain. Do yourself a big favor and independently check out what you think are the VP's lies. Nothing he said about Iraq was a lie, and most of what he said was said in spades by the two Clintons, John Kerry, etc. And what he did say was told to him by Clinton's CIA people. Did Colin Powell lie too?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.