the good of our nation is not nor has it been a concern of the bush administration.
This is the sort of hyperbolic nonsense that deprives you of any credibility or substance.
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.
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.
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!
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?
He's got to be a member of some branch 'cause it always seems like he's got one stuck up his arse.
revel wrote: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
I don't understand how you see the choices being so limited:
1) Rant about how our government is, without exception, working against our interests.
2) Keep our mouths shut.
Congress should engage in oversight that even includes investigations from time to time but to Waxman oversight is merely a weapon in his partisan war. There are Republicans of the same nature and much of the nonsense around the Clinton impeachment was a clearly an example of same.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote: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
I don't understand how you see the choices being so limited:
1) Rant about how our government is, without exception, working against our interests.
2) Keep our mouths shut.
Congress should engage in oversight that even includes investigations from time to time but to Waxman oversight is merely a weapon in his partisan war. There are Republicans of the same nature and much of the nonsense around the Clinton impeachment was a clearly an example of same.
There is no comparison in investigating about an office in our government who engaged in unethical behavior ranging from wiretaps, destroying documents, making claims as unequivocal statements which were in dispute in order to force a war...and asking questions about an adulterous affair are two entirely different things.
Oh Good Grief, here you go again. All of what you seem to believe are facts about Cheney (or is it Bush too - these rants tend to bleed together) are allegations, none of which have been proven and none of which would be the subject of any Waxmanian investigation springing from this issue which is about keeping classified information secret.
Try to wrap your head around this: Clinton lied to the American public and he lied to a Grand Jury. Because the lie was about sex doesn't make it OK. It was a partisan effort by Republicans to impeach the man, but it wasn't on the basis that he porked an intern. Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying to a grand jury in connection with something which has never been proven to be a crime - the so-called leaking of Valarie Plammes identity as a CIA operative. We now know, as did the Special Prosecutor long before us, that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak.
It is not partisan,
What is not partisan? I'm not talking about you I'm talking about Henry Waxman.
I have liked some republicans in the past even though I didn't agree with everything they did. For instance I didn't agree with Reagan's trickle down theory or the Iran Contra thing, I didn't dislike everything he did.
Bully for you. This means that every inane comment you make about Bush & Co is valid? Or just that it is sincere, albeit hysterical.
This administration is outside of normal partisan politics and dwells in the extreme and radical. Its like they are trying to re-write everything this country stands for. That is no hyperbole but just the truth.
OK true believer
Every extreme government wants the people to remain silent and cite security purposes.
And is it working in America? Who the hell is silent? Do you think you are even in the slightest bit of danger posting your rants on the web? Get a grip.
Ooops, that's a mistake; we still have three branches of government headed by a king.
King Bush Bush won't supply subpoenaed documents to congress.
Turley: Avoid Bush's Executive Privilege Claim By Investigating NSA Program As A Crime
Yesterday, after years of White House stonewalling, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to the Bush administration for documents related to the warrantless domestic surveillance program.
Today, during a background discussion with reporters, senior Bush administration officials indicated that they would invoke executive privilege in order to deny the NSA documents to Congress, just as they did this morning concerning subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney scandal. "Our response to [the NSA] subpoenas will be the same as our response was before," said an anonymous official.
But last night on MSNBC's Countdown, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that Congress may be able to "get around the executive privilege in court" by saying "we are investigating a potential crime." Turley said this was possible because warrantless wiretapping is "a federal crime" that "the president has ordered hundreds of people do."
As Columbia University law professor Michael Dorf points out, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that, "where the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, [executive privilege] must yield to the interests of the government and defendants in a criminal prosecution."
Bush is invoking such "a generalized need for confidentiality," according to a senior administration official this morning:
"This is not a mere exercise relating to a particular event. This is an exercise in an attempt to protect the prerogatives of the president for this president and for future presidents."
UPDATE: Raw Story has more.
Digg It!
Transcript:
TURLEY: They could. I mean, they could do a kind of tai chi of litigation and just move incredibly slowly. This president doesn't have long to go. But there is one thing that might concern them about the court, and that is, you know, for many years, since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that was a clearly criminal act that the president called for ?- that under federal law, it's a federal crime to do what the president has ordered hundreds of people do. Now, if we're right, not only did he order that crime, it would in fact be an impeachable offense. Now, both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor. They don't want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses, but they now may be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say we are investigating a potential crime. And if they do it here, that crime was ordered by no one other than the George Bush.
revel wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote: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
I don't understand how you see the choices being so limited:
1) Rant about how our government is, without exception, working against our interests.
2) Keep our mouths shut.
Congress should engage in oversight that even includes investigations from time to time but to Waxman oversight is merely a weapon in his partisan war. There are Republicans of the same nature and much of the nonsense around the Clinton impeachment was a clearly an example of same.
There is no comparison in investigating about an office in our government who engaged in unethical behavior ranging from wiretaps, destroying documents, making claims as unequivocal statements which were in dispute in order to force a war...and asking questions about an adulterous affair are two entirely different things.
Oh Good Grief, here you go again. All of what you seem to believe are facts about Cheney (or is it Bush too - these rants tend to bleed together) are allegations, none of which have been proven and none of which would be the subject of any Waxmanian investigation springing from this issue which is about keeping classified information secret.
Try to wrap your head around this: Clinton lied to the American public and he lied to a Grand Jury. Because the lie was about sex doesn't make it OK. It was a partisan effort by Republicans to impeach the man, but it wasn't on the basis that he porked an intern. Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying to a grand jury in connection with something which has never been proven to be a crime - the so-called leaking of Valarie Plammes identity as a CIA operative. We now know, as did the Special Prosecutor long before us, that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak.
The point is that Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that his office is exempt from the President's executive order which safeguards national security information. In this past he also claimed executive privilege to keep from complying with handing over documents. If this is true then Cheney can give out any information he wants to for any reason to anybody in the world and there would not be another branch or agency which could have oversight to make sure he (or anyone else in that position) was not giving out information which could put this nation at risk. This is not a premise grounded in partisan politics. Waxman is head of the oversight committee and it is his job in that role to conduct oversight, Cheney is impeding is efforts to conduct his job.
Also it has been established that Valerie Wilson was covert at the time she her name was leaked to the press. It is a crime to leak a covert agent. This really is not pertinent to the simple matter at hand which is Cheney refusing oversight.
On the other hand the premise of the whole Monica Lewinsky and Clinton saga started with Paula Jones trying to get Clinton in a lawsuit of sexual harassment. Clinton used their very own definition to deny he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky which incidentally did not involve porking (disgusting word) but oral sex which according to the definition given in the lawsuit did not involve oral sex. So technically he did not commit perjury but did deceive which is why no court ever got him on lying.
Can you not honestly see the differences in the two situations? If you can't or wont then there is nothing else to say in that regard.
It is not partisan,
What is not partisan? I'm not talking about you I'm talking about Henry Waxman.
I have liked some republicans in the past even though I didn't agree with everything they did. For instance I didn't agree with Reagan's trickle down theory or the Iran Contra thing, I didn't dislike everything he did.
Bully for you. This means that every inane comment you make about Bush & Co is valid? Or just that it is sincere, albeit hysterical.
No this simply means there are legitimate reasons other than partisan reasons to be against this administration and Waxman had legitimate reasons to write the VP in regards to his objection to the National Archives to comply with safeguarding national security papers.
The letter
This administration is outside of normal partisan politics and dwells in the extreme and radical. Its like they are trying to re-write everything this country stands for. That is no hyperbole but just the truth.
OK true believer
Every extreme government wants the people to remain silent and cite security purposes.
And is it working in America? Who the hell is silent? Do you think you are even in the slightest bit of danger posting your rants on the web? Get a grip.
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.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote: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
I don't understand how you see the choices being so limited:
1) Rant about how our government is, without exception, working against our interests.
2) Keep our mouths shut.
Congress should engage in oversight that even includes investigations from time to time but to Waxman oversight is merely a weapon in his partisan war. There are Republicans of the same nature and much of the nonsense around the Clinton impeachment was a clearly an example of same.
There is no comparison in investigating about an office in our government who engaged in unethical behavior ranging from wiretaps, destroying documents, making claims as unequivocal statements which were in dispute in order to force a war...and asking questions about an adulterous affair are two entirely different things.
Oh Good Grief, here you go again. All of what you seem to believe are facts about Cheney (or is it Bush too - these rants tend to bleed together) are allegations, none of which have been proven and none of which would be the subject of any Waxmanian investigation springing from this issue which is about keeping classified information secret.
Try to wrap your head around this: Clinton lied to the American public and he lied to a Grand Jury. Because the lie was about sex doesn't make it OK. It was a partisan effort by Republicans to impeach the man, but it wasn't on the basis that he porked an intern. Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying to a grand jury in connection with something which has never been proven to be a crime - the so-called leaking of Valarie Plammes identity as a CIA operative. We now know, as did the Special Prosecutor long before us, that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak.
The point is that Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that his office is exempt from the President's executive order which safeguards national security information.
True, but how does that unerringly lead to the hysterical allegations you are making?
In this past he also claimed executive privilege to keep from complying with handing over documents.
Ditto
If this is true then Cheney can give out any information he wants to for any reason to anybody in the world and there would not be another branch or agency which could have oversight to make sure he (or anyone else in that position) was not giving out information which could put this nation at risk.
No it means he would not be subject to this particular Executive Order. He still would be subject to all the many statutes we have that govern the release of classified information. If Waxman has some reason to believe Cheney is in violation of these statutes then he should press on and prove his allegations. It also means that you are beginning with the basic premise that Cheney either wants to put the nation at risk or simply just doesn't care if he does or not. That's a pretty bold statement. Can't be that you are knee-jerk Liberal (nothwithstanding that the fact that there are some things you liked about Ronnie)?
This is not a premise grounded in partisan politics. Waxman is head of the oversight committee and it is his job in that role to conduct oversight, Cheney is impeding is efforts to conduct his job.
Nonsense. The National Archives are not in any way connected to Waxman, and their efforts (politically motivated) were not part of Waxman "doing his job."
Also it has been established that Valerie Wilson was covert at the time she her name was leaked to the press. It is a crime to leak a covert agent.
Has it? Please offer evidence as there are quite a lot of people who disagree with you.
Let's just assume you are right, and she was a spook. Armitage leaked her status. Why wasn't he brought up on charges?
This really is not pertinent to the simple matter at hand which is Cheney refusing oversight.
Perhaps not but it is pertinent to the issue of how 9/10ths of these highhanded investigations (by both parties) are part of an ongoing partisan warfare.
On the other hand the premise of the whole Monica Lewinsky and Clinton saga started with Paula Jones trying to get Clinton in a lawsuit of sexual harassment. Clinton used their very own definition to deny he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky which incidentally did not involve porking (disgusting word) but oral sex which according to the definition given in the lawsuit did not involve oral sex. So technically he did not commit perjury but did deceive which is why no court ever got him on lying.
Can you not honestly see the differences in the two situations? If you can't or wont then there is nothing else to say in that regard.
Can't believe what I just read. By your own conditions, there is nothing else to say.
It is not partisan,
What is not partisan? I'm not talking about you I'm talking about Henry Waxman.
I have liked some republicans in the past even though I didn't agree with everything they did. For instance I didn't agree with Reagan's trickle down theory or the Iran Contra thing, I didn't dislike everything he did.
Bully for you. This means that every inane comment you make about Bush & Co is valid? Or just that it is sincere, albeit hysterical.
No this simply means there are legitimate reasons other than partisan reasons to be against this administration and Waxman had legitimate reasons to write the VP in regards to his objection to the National Archives to comply with safeguarding national security papers.
Yes there are but you've not yet cited one.
The letter
This administration is outside of normal partisan politics and dwells in the extreme and radical. Its like they are trying to re-write everything this country stands for. That is no hyperbole but just the truth.
OK true believer
Every extreme government wants the people to remain silent and cite security purposes.
And is it working in America? Who the hell is silent? Do you think you are even in the slightest bit of danger posting your rants on the web? Get a grip.
No it is not working in America and it never will as long as people with consciences continue to rant either on web pages or in real time.
This Post is the post which prompted my responses about remaining silent.
Quote:
Well, I can only say that I'm glad for you that you consider yourself such a stalwart fighter in the battle of keeping our government free from tyranny. I wonder though how it can be that an Administration so bent on dictatorial powers is prevented from suppressing anti-governmental rants by the mere existence of such rants? Does this mean that if Chinese citizens ranted more on the internet that they too would overcome their tyrants as you and your fellow ranters have overcome ours?
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.
It is our duty as citizens to continually watch our government not matter who is in control to make sure there is no corruption or abuses of power. Read the Federalist papers of the Founding Fathers to get a grip yourself.
You seem to be mistaking the duty of vigilence with the indulgence of partisan hysteria, but at least your heart seems to be in the right place.
The Federalist Papers
So much for that.
Excerpt:
House bid to cut off Cheney funds fails
Emanuel led effort in flap over secrecy
Associated Press
Published June 29, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney won't lose his home, his office and his entertainment expense account after all.
The House on Thursday rejected an attempt to eliminate the vice president's executive office budget, a move that Democrats tied to Cheney's assertion that his office did not need to comply with national security disclosure rules required of other executive branch agencies.
Republicans denounced the proposal as political theater.
No sir! It's the viligence of true patriots! Nothing partisan about it!
The vote, rejecting an amendment to a 2008 spending bill for the Treasury Department and executive branch agencies, was 217-209.
Source
revel wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:revel wrote: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
I don't understand how you see the choices being so limited:
1) Rant about how our government is, without exception, working against our interests.
2) Keep our mouths shut.
Congress should engage in oversight that even includes investigations from time to time but to Waxman oversight is merely a weapon in his partisan war. There are Republicans of the same nature and much of the nonsense around the Clinton impeachment was a clearly an example of same.
There is no comparison in investigating about an office in our government who engaged in unethical behavior ranging from wiretaps, destroying documents, making claims as unequivocal statements which were in dispute in order to force a war...and asking questions about an adulterous affair are two entirely different things.
Oh Good Grief, here you go again. All of what you seem to believe are facts about Cheney (or is it Bush too - these rants tend to bleed together) are allegations, none of which have been proven and none of which would be the subject of any Waxmanian investigation springing from this issue which is about keeping classified information secret.
Try to wrap your head around this: Clinton lied to the American public and he lied to a Grand Jury. Because the lie was about sex doesn't make it OK. It was a partisan effort by Republicans to impeach the man, but it wasn't on the basis that he porked an intern. Scooter Libby is going to jail for lying to a grand jury in connection with something which has never been proven to be a crime - the so-called leaking of Valarie Plammes identity as a CIA operative. We now know, as did the Special Prosecutor long before us, that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak.
The point is that Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that his office is exempt from the President's executive order which safeguards national security information.
True, but how does that unerringly lead to the hysterical allegations you are making?
It proves Cheney is with holding documents to National Archives on false premises. The reason Cheney gave the National Archives for not complying with request was because he is not an entity within the executive branch. This is a false reason and it directly contradicts some of his previous statements in which he claimed executive privilege and some of his previous statements in which he referred to himself as being part of the executive branch.
Quote:"I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the executive branch, the president and the vice president, to be able to conduct their business," Cheney said.
Speaking to students in China on April 14, 2004, he explained that it was President Dwight Eisenhower who first gave the vice president an office "in the executive branch," adding "since then the responsibilities have gradually increased."
Click Here
In this past he also claimed executive privilege to keep from complying with handing over documents.
Ditto
If this is true then Cheney can give out any information he wants to for any reason to anybody in the world and there would not be another branch or agency which could have oversight to make sure he (or anyone else in that position) was not giving out information which could put this nation at risk.
No it means he would not be subject to this particular Executive Order. He still would be subject to all the many statutes we have that govern the release of classified information. If Waxman has some reason to believe Cheney is in violation of these statutes then he should press on and prove his allegations. It also means that you are beginning with the basic premise that Cheney either wants to put the nation at risk or simply just doesn't care if he does or not. That's a pretty bold statement. Can't be that you are knee-jerk Liberal (nothwithstanding that the fact that there are some things you liked about Ronnie)?
In the past he claimed executive privilege to keep from disclosing documents or other request, now he claiming he is not part of the executive branch so he does not have comply with the executive order to disclose documents to the National Archive about his security program. He has a catch 22 for any request for documents since when it suits him he can claim executive privilege from congress (legislative branch) as he has done in the past and now he claims he is not part of executive branch to get out of complying with this latest request for documents by the national archives. He is in effect his own branch of government not answerable to anyone. And it is not a knee jerk reaction, just an honest leeriness of Cheney after reading so many articles about him.
This is not a premise grounded in partisan politics. Waxman is head of the oversight committee and it is his job in that role to conduct oversight, Cheney is impeding is efforts to conduct his job.
Nonsense. The National Archives are not in any way connected to Waxman, and their efforts (politically motivated) were not part of Waxman "doing his job."
Waxman is chairman of the Oversight and Government reform, of course this particular dispute between the national archives and Cheney would fall in his purview of duties.
Also it has been established that Valerie Wilson was covert at the time she her name was leaked to the press. It is a crime to leak a covert agent.
Has it? Please offer evidence as there are quite a lot of people who disagree with you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Let's just assume you are right, and she was a spook. Armitage leaked her status. Why wasn't he brought up on charges?
I don't know but she was covert.
This really is not pertinent to the simple matter at hand which is Cheney refusing oversight.
Perhaps not but it is pertinent to the issue of how 9/10ths of these highhanded investigations (by both parties) are part of an ongoing partisan warfare.
This particular came about because of a dispute between National Archives and Cheney concerning Cheney's security classification programs. I am not sure it has anything to do with the issue of Valerie Wilson/Plame but even if it does, it is a legitimate issue.
On the other hand the premise of the whole Monica Lewinsky and Clinton saga started with Paula Jones trying to get Clinton in a lawsuit of sexual harassment. Clinton used their very own definition to deny he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky which incidentally did not involve porking (disgusting word) but oral sex which according to the definition given in the lawsuit did not involve oral sex. So technically he did not commit perjury but did deceive which is why no court ever got him on lying.
Can you not honestly see the differences in the two situations? If you can't or wont then there is nothing else to say in that regard.
Can't believe what I just read. By your own conditions, there is nothing else to say.
Shrugs
It is not partisan,
What is not partisan? I'm not talking about you I'm talking about Henry Waxman.
I have liked some republicans in the past even though I didn't agree with everything they did. For instance I didn't agree with Reagan's trickle down theory or the Iran Contra thing, I didn't dislike everything he did.
Bully for you. This means that every inane comment you make about Bush & Co is valid? Or just that it is sincere, albeit hysterical.
No this simply means there are legitimate reasons other than partisan reasons to be against this administration and Waxman had legitimate reasons to write the VP in regards to his objection to the National Archives to comply with safeguarding national security papers.
Yes there are but you've not yet cited one.
I have cited plenty you have just obtusely refused to acknowledge them.
The letter
This administration is outside of normal partisan politics and dwells in the extreme and radical. Its like they are trying to re-write everything this country stands for. That is no hyperbole but just the truth.
OK true believer
Every extreme government wants the people to remain silent and cite security purposes.
And is it working in America? Who the hell is silent? Do you think you are even in the slightest bit of danger posting your rants on the web? Get a grip.
No it is not working in America and it never will as long as people with consciences continue to rant either on web pages or in real time.
This Post is the post which prompted my responses about remaining silent.
Quote:
Well, I can only say that I'm glad for you that you consider yourself such a stalwart fighter in the battle of keeping our government free from tyranny. I wonder though how it can be that an Administration so bent on dictatorial powers is prevented from suppressing anti-governmental rants by the mere existence of such rants? Does this mean that if Chinese citizens ranted more on the internet that they too would overcome their tyrants as you and your fellow ranters have overcome ours?
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.
It is our duty as citizens to continually watch our government not matter who is in control to make sure there is no corruption or abuses of power. Read the Federalist papers of the Founding Fathers to get a grip yourself.
You seem to be mistaking the duty of vigilence with the indulgence of partisan hysteria, but at least your heart seems to be in the right place.
The Federalist Papers
