Cheney: VP's office not part of Executive branch.

Oh, no, no one ever said he was nonpartisan. However since the administration has proved so one-sidedly partisan for six plus years, and so relentlessly ignored the Constitution (see the Washington Post's currently running series of exposes of Cheney's activities--not just the executive-or-not question) and the pass the Republican Congress gave them for six years, I see absolutely no problem with Waxman raking them over the coals. Cheney's arrogance is astounding. Go, Henry.

0 Replies

Yeah, but...no comment on what Cheney is asserting, Finn?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

IF Cheney said that,then he is an idiot and needs to go back to school and get some education in civics and govt.

There is no defense for his comment.

An artful dodge perhaps but artful never-the-less.

Is there any position within the Executive Branch that can cast a vote in the Legislative Branch? Why yes, there is...the VP.

Any other such hybrid position out there?

Nope, didn't think so.

Cheney, like all other VPs, has his loyalty clearly aligned with the Executive Branch, but that doesn't clarify the ambiguity of the position.

Whether or not one believes the VP's response to be mendacious or simply ignorant, one must consider it within context. The issue that gave rise to this response is utterly a product of partisan politics.

If any of you believe that the Democrat's pit bull Henry Waxman is truly doing the People's business, I have some swamp land in Florida I would like you to consider purchasing.

Waxman is good at what he does. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to involve itself in the execution of Executive Orders. Even Waxman will admit this as he did on the Diane Ream show (NPR) this morning. However this issue falls right in the wheel house of the White House's enemies.

"Have you stopped beating your wife Mr. Vice President?"

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, but...no comment on what Cheney is asserting, Finn?

Read on McSnood

0 Replies

username wrote:

Oh, no, no one ever said he was nonpartisan. However since the administration has proved so one-sidedly partisan for six plus years, and so relentlessly ignored the Constitution (see the Washington Post's currently running series of exposes of Cheney's activities--not just the executive-or-not question) and the pass the Republican Congress gave them for six years, I see absolutely no problem with Waxman raking them over the coals. Cheney's arrogance is astounding. Go, Henry.

They are all partisan. That is the nature of politics, and within this context, there is nothing wrong with Waxman plying his oily wiles. To be taken seriously, however, one must acknowledge that this is not a battle of Good and Evil but simply a battle of Democrats and Republicans. I'm afraid that folks such as yourself appear to be unable to admit as much and instead assume this rather perverse argument that the end justifies the means: "We know that Cheney is a vile political shill and we hate him for it, so it is OK that another vile political shill use all of his base arsenal to attack the target of our contempt."

Or, even delusionally: "We believe Cheny to be the Anti-Christ and therefore any foul means employed to combat him is to be justified."

Somewhat ironic that this seems to be the argument of those who unceasingly employ the banal argument of "If we do xxxxxxx, the terrorists will have won!"

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"We know that Cheney is a vile political shill and we hate him for it, so it is OK that another vile political shill use all of his base arsenal to attack the target of our contempt."

Actually, it's not okay. It's f*cking sweet!

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
"We know that Cheney is a vile political shill and we hate him for it, so it is OK that another vile political shill use all of his base arsenal to attack the target of our contempt."

Actually, it's not okay. It's f*cking sweet!

Slash and burn partisan warfare.

Vicerally satisfying, perhaps, but to the good of our nation?

0 Replies

It very good to keep reminding our citizens just how untrustworthy our government is. There are still many people out there who think our government is for all the people instead of for some of the people.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
"We know that Cheney is a vile political shill and we hate him for it, so it is OK that another vile political shill use all of his base arsenal to attack the target of our contempt."

Actually, it's not okay. It's f*cking sweet!

Slash and burn partisan warfare.

Vicerally satisfying, perhaps, but to the good of our nation?

Probably not. But I believe I can understand and be turned off by that facet of it, yet still enjoy the part that spells bad political news for the vile political shill in question.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

It very good to keep reminding our citizens just how untrustworthy our government is. There are still many people out there who think our government is for all the people instead of for some of the people.

Is it?

And you know the result of this equation how?

It may be very good to remind our citizens that they need to keep a watchful eye on their government, but to not trust it in anyway?

What fools we are that believe our government, ultimately, has our best interests in mind.

There are very few things more pathetic and destructive than the backbench complainers who feel they are grasping some small tatter of heroism by mindlessly mouthing slogans and the spew of other, more sharpened, though, ugly minds.

0 Replies

So we just sit quietyly with out mouths shut tight for the good of the nation? Nothing is more unamerican than that.

Quote:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson

0 Replies

the good of our nation is not nor has it been a concern of the bush administration.

The only thing about this entire big news to do that I at all like is that there is certainly no longer any question in the minds of any but the most stubbornly rabid that bush is s sniveling litlle figure head who lacks both the skill or power to run this country. The presidency, like everything else he's done is a joke and a failure and he will go down in history as the president who wasn't really president.

If he hadn't f**ked up my country so badly, I would feel sorry for this sad little half a man.

0 Replies

From today's Washington Post (page A20)

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

...we would rather reserve the effort for copulation that engaging in banter with you.

I used to think Finn a troll, but I guess he's really a trollop!

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whether or not one believes the VP's response to be mendacious or simply ignorant, one must consider it within context. The issue that gave rise to this response is utterly a product of partisan politics.

Perhaps one should understand the issue that gave rise to this response before they claim that it was partisan.

The issue that gave rise to it was an executive branch department attempting to fullfill its requirement under an executive order. It didn't have anything to do with partisan politics that I can see until the VP decided to not comply and complaints were made to congress. The VP certainly must have had a reason for not complying in the first place. Either his reason was he isn't part of the executive branch or he is not telling the truth in claiming that is his reason. To somehow state that the VP's reason was partisan politics seems as outlandish as the VP's claim that he isn't part of the executive branch.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Slash and burn partisan warfare.

Vicerally satisfying, perhaps, but to the good of our nation?

Wait.

Finn d'Abuzz is decrying viscerally satisfying but unproductive slash and burn partisan warfare?

What next - BiPolarBear holding forth on the dangers of drug abuse?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Slash and burn partisan warfare.

Vicerally satisfying, perhaps, but to the good of our nation?

Wait.

Finn d'Abuzz is decrying viscerally satisfying but unproductive slash and burn partisan warfare?

What next - BiPolarBear holding forth on the dangers of drug abuse?

hey dick head.... don't insult me or any other drug abuser by comparing us to Finn Laughing

0 Replies

Back on topic.

Quote:

The gist of this story is that Cheney and Addington are zealously committed to certain beliefs about Executive power, about the role and understanding of statutory, treaty-based, and customary international law, and about how to prosecute the current military conflicts. They are very adept at playing and controlling the system within the Executive branch. They are unbelievably thorough and unrelenting. And they are responsible for virtually all of what you can read in the 600 or so posts over on the left-hand column of this blog.

Moreover, as we have recounted in the NSA/FISA matter and elsewhere, and as Gellman and Becker elaborate at great length, virtually any time Cheney and Addington adopt an extreme position, they are met with strong resistance from many conservatives within the Bush Administration -- including many important players at DOJ (Ashcroft, Comey, Goldmsith, Philbin, Olson, Clement, etc.), and elsewhere (Rice, Gates, Powell, Bellinger, Waxman, Kavanaugh, Berenson, etc.) Not to mention huge swaths of the intelligence agencies, the State Department, the uniformed military (especially the JAGs), et al. If you have any friends who have served in this Administration, you know that there are countless very conservative supporters of this President within the government who have constantly been at loggerheads with Cheney and Addington, and who simply cannot believe the positions adopted by (and, frequently, the terrible misjudgments of) the Vice President's office. And they are even more incredulous that those positions have, rountinely, become state policy, no matter the amount or intensity of dissent from other components of the Administration.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/most-important-unanswered-question.html

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Back on topic.

Quote:

And they are even more incredulous that those positions have, rountinely, become state policy, no matter the amount or intensity of dissent from other components of the Administration.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/most-important-unanswered-question.html

Cycloptichorn

Precisely why it is beyond ridiculous for the legislative branch to try to put an amendment in the spending budget that limits or restricts funds for the VP office. It isn't going to work. It's just poking the monkey before going ahead and giving him the banana.

The monkey becomes more and more emboldened knowing that a couple of cheap pokes are worth taking since each time the reward gets bigger.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Back on topic.

Quote:

And they are even more incredulous that those positions have, rountinely, become state policy, no matter the amount or intensity of dissent from other components of the Administration.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/06/most-important-unanswered-question.html

Cycloptichorn

Precisely why it is beyond ridiculous for the legislative branch to try to put an amendment in the spending budget that limits or restricts funds for the VP office. It isn't going to work. It's just poking the monkey before going ahead and giving him the banana.

The monkey becomes more and more emboldened knowing that a couple of cheap pokes are worth taking since each time the reward gets bigger.

I agree with all this, the more I read about him the more disturbed I get and when I think about Iran, I get down right scared and think we need to impeach him before we are plunged into another war this time with even more tragic results. But I don't think that is going to happen and I hope we don't go to war with Iran. If we don't go to war with Iran or anybody else, then we just need to remind ourselves that all things can be reversed (except Iraq and other wars) back and they can't be in office forever.

Today's Post installment cheney/Leaving No Tracks

0 Replies

Cheney: VP's office not part of Executive branch.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know