Cheney: Above the Law

>on what ground will you stand should President Hillary and her team >start pulling the same crap?

Amazing how you can manage to turn a criticism of Dick Cheney into an insult of Hillary Clinton. Must be an art.

Richard, amazing how you can turn an appeal to conservatives to understand the importance of the principle here into an occasion to whine about the fact that a conservative -- clutch the pearls! -- thinks Hillary Clinton is a self-serving, untrustworthy, Rose Law Firm document-concealing politician.

Rod, I actually rather agree with Richard this time around. It’s sad that you act as if the best reason to prevent Cheney from behaving this way is so that the next Democratic White House won’t do the same thing.

Rod, you don't know what you're talking about. This is not a law but an executive order by President Bush. Cheney does not actually have to comply with executive orders because the Constitution of the United States of America does not make the Vice President subservenant to the President. Why don't you take a course in civics and find out what's going on?

It’s sad that you act as if the best reason to prevent Cheney from behaving this way is so that the next Democratic White House won’t do the same thing.

What he said.

Rod:

I am surprised that you are relying on a press account of a complex problem that arises in a government of separated powers. As you know, the trite one-sentence ways that reporters convey complicated disputes is as American as apple pie.

Perhaps "executive branch agency" is a term of art that does not refer to every part of the executive branch. I really don't know. For example, the Department of Health and Human Service is an executive branch agency. But is the executive and his office an agency? Probably not, since agencies come into being as a result of the discretion of the executive with Congressional approval. That's how the Department of Education came into being during the Carter administration. The executive is a Constitutional office and not an agency of itself, for it is the office that bring agencies into being. This is why the VP's office is problematic for your case. For it is a Constitutional office that did not come into being as agencies ordinarily do. So, it is technically not an agency. Again, I really don't know.

So, perhaps Cheney's office has a point. It may be that it has nothing to hide, but it does not want to put in place a flawed understanding of the executive order that may be abused in the future in such a way that conducting the business of government becomes nearly impossible. Again, I really don't know.

But in order to be fair on these matters and not to be caught up in the enthusiasm of Bush-Cheney paranoia, you owe it to your readers to be as skeptical of your own first take as you are of Dick Cheney. Better to be Socratic than Sorotic.

Frank

As a liberal within the progressive movement that tries to understand and work with conservatives, I am still astonished and appalled that many within the conservative movement defend such violations of the rule of law. It is blatantly authoritarian.

This doesn't have to be what the conservative movement is about, but its quickly becoming that. Like a good Millian liberal, I want respectable, honest, intellectually challenging adversaries. Defending behavior like this damages not just the conservative movement but public discourse in general.

For the record, Cheney's office said that the Vice President is not an "entity within the executive branch” and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders. Now White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino said:

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.

Keith Olberman fact checked that and found it to be untrue (some may even say a lie)

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.

Olberman adds:

[Sec. 6.1(b) of Bush’s 2003 executive order governing classified material explicitly states that it applies to any] “‘Executive agency…any ‘Military department’…and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.”

As a liberal who tries to vote conservatives out of office, I am neither astonished nor appalled that many within the conservative movement defend such violations of the rule of law. It's not the least bit surprising to those of us counting down the days until this tragic presidency is over.

Six years of contorting their minds around torture (drowning is such a harsh term), violations of civil liberties, and chatty yet vegetative patients leaves them no choice but to accept this latest middle finger from Dick.

The Daily Show will roast the Republican party and its enablers come Monday evening something fierce. And somewhere yet one more 18 year old will scratch the GOP off their list of sane political choices, pleasing me no end.

>It's serious stuff that requires a serious a mind.

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"

>Making fun of a person for making a typo I'm sure counts for something >somewhere.

Making fun of typos in blogs is bad netiquette.

I was making fun of the president, an incurious stubborn incompetent, while you were making fun of Keith Olbermann for working at ESPN.

Cheney's office argued that it is exempt from the rules in this case because it is not strictly an executive branch agency

The term 'agency' is curious.

The fact that this is all about an "EO" is even more curious.

It's a Con Law question at root, not an EO question, and there is a difference between "agency" and "office."

Like Francis Beckwith, I think it's useful to be reserved in judgment.

And I am NOT a fan of Dick Cheney.

Rod, my friend, in this case you're just flat wrong, and your libertarian slip is showing. Only the President of the United States--not the courts and not the Congress--has legal standing to interpret his own executive order, and he says it does NOT apply to his office or the office of his VP. Period, end of discussion. Anything further is just politics.
If you don't care about the law, then at least tell us why he would execute an order giving access to the secrets of the realm and privlegded discussions of his office, or the VP's, to an outside agency. Obviously, he wouldn't.
Rod, I know that you are one of the good guys and would never knowingly engage in calumny, and that in this case you were just a little too fast on the trigger.

With so much hate in your heart, Robert, there is a pretty good chance God won't listen to your prayer.

>>With so much hate in your heart, Robert, there is a pretty good
>>chance God won't listen to your prayer.

That has to be one of the most spurious and dishonest comments i have ever seen on this site.
Criticizing an elected official and questionning the stance of our representatives equates to having 'hate in your heart' now? Please do us all a favor and stop trying to speak for God.

Cleveland easily confuses hatred with anger.

If Mr. Cheney were in danger or needed some life saving help (even if this meant his staying in office longer) I would render it without hesitation.

But I am absolutely furious over the way this man has brought such suffering and misery and has not the slightest regret or intent to repent. He learns nothing and presumes to lecture the rest of us on the real world.

I will leave it to God and not Cleveland (or even Cincinnati) to judge my prayers. I believe such determinations are way above his pay grade.

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.)

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.

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?