Cheney tells agency that Vice President's office is not part of the executive branch

[shemp]

WTF? What branch is it a part of then? I like the url:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html ?idiot

The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney told an agency within the National Archives that for purposes of securing classified information, the Vice President's office is not an 'entity within the executive branch' according to a letter released Thursday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, you exempted the Office of the Vice President from the presidential executive order that establishes a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified national security information," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Committee's chairman, wrote in a letter to Cheney. "Your decision to exempt your office from the President's order is problematic because it could place national security secrets at risk. It is also hard to understand given the history of security breaches involving officials in your office."

Read: "I am above the law! I am a GOD!!!"

[headscratcher4]

kinda makes it hard to later claim "executive priveledge" doesn't it?

[SezMe]

The PC police have been out and about, shemp, because the url is now:

rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html )

[shemp]

The PC police have been out and about, shemp, because the url is now:

rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html )


The original still works.

[Darth Rotor]

WTF? What branch is it a part of then? I like the url:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html ?idiot
Article II of the Constitution disagrees with this idiocy.

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
===============================================
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Read: "I am above the law! I am a GOD!!!"
Read (Cheney's people) : "We think you people are too stupid to know if we are right or wrong."

I might oughta email his people and point out my favorite Constitution Link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html

It is provided by Cornell Law School. Maybe they need to add it to their "Favorites" list.

ETA:
It is also hard to understand given the history of security breaches involving officials in your office."
Oh, Hank, twist that Libby Knife. :)

DR

[Ohmer]

Cool. If they are not part of the executive branch, they should have no access to classified information. Especially given the history of security breaches involving officials in their office.

I can dream.

[aerosolben]

The PC police have been out and about, shemp, because the url is now:

rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html )
Note that data after the question mark is used to pass information to a particular page and will usually be ignored if it is not expected. Behold:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html ?Cheneylovestoeatlittlechildren

[davefoc]

Note that data after the question mark is used to pass information to a particular page and will usually be ignored if it is not expected. Behold:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html ?Cheneylovestoeatlittlechildren

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheney_tells_agency_that_Vice_Presidents_0621.html ?thatIsInterestingItSeems ToAllowOneToAddAnthingToTheEndOfAlink

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"The Oversight Committee has learned that over the objections of the National Archives, you exempted the Office of the Vice President from the presidential executive order that establishes a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified national security information," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA),

That`s rich...were was Waxman when Sandy Burglar was on the lose. Besides why is just a marginal left wing kook site reporting this?

[Zep]

Heh! It seems to back up what we have been saying about the guy here on this forum for years!

Any way to confirm the story?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Heh! It seems to back up what we have been saying about the guy here on this forum for years!

Any way to confirm the story?


"Your position was that your office 'does not believe it is included in the definition of 'agency' as set forth in the Order' and 'does not consider itself an 'entity within the executive branch' that comes into the possession of classified information,'" a National Archives official claims Cheney chief of staff David Addington wrote to him.


What`s his name...were is the document?

[davefoc]

That`s rich...w[h]ere was Waxman when Sandy Burglar was on the lose.

Are all things proper in the Comrade Ogilvy world view if a case can be found where a Democrat has done something vaguely similar? As an aside, is this the most similar incident that you could find of Democratic malfeasance to reference or was the temptation to write Sandy Burglar just too great and you bypassed some more appropriate Democratic transgressions to use Sandy Burglar in this thread?

Besides why is just a marginal left wing kook site reporting this?

From ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/cheney-power-gr.html

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Are all things proper in the Comrade Ogilvy world view if a case can be found where a Democrat has done something vaguely similar? As an aside, is this the most similar incident that you could find of Democratic malfeasance to reference or was the temptation to write Sandy Burglar just too great and you bypassed some more appropriate Democratic transgressions to use Sandy Burglar in this thread?



From ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/cheney-power-gr.html



Oh... I really doubt that Cheney is trying to overthrow the constitution on this one... God knows Waxman has tried everything else to get a scandal going...as far as Sandy Burger..."Lets hide that one down the old memory hole pants"......O.K. Comrade!

[fishbob]

That`s rich...were was Waxman when Sandy Burglar was on the lose. Besides why is just a marginal left wing kook site reporting this?

Cheap shots cost ya in the long run. Especially silly and poorly thought out cheap shots.
And non-sequitur cheap shots that don't make sense. Especially those.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Cheap shots cost ya in the long run. Especially silly and poorly thought out cheap shots.
And non-sequitur cheap shots that don't make sense. Especially those.


Don`t mean nothing to me..........


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/3931.jpg

[Dancing David]

That`s rich...were was Waxman when Sandy Burglar was on the lose. Besides why is just a marginal left wing kook site reporting this?


Here are some more marginal left wing kook sites!

As is mainstream right wing kook reporting is so accurate as well.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/22/america/22cheney.php

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney22jun22,0,405085.story?coll=la-home-nation

[SteveGrenard]

The Branches of Government Re-Organization Chart has been Posted on the Countdown Website:



Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Dick Cheney

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/21/232596.aspx

[Ziggurat]

Actually, this looks to me like a non-trivial constitutional issue. The only constitutionally-mandated power that the vice president has is as president of the senate. So in that sense, he is part of the legislative, and not executive, branch. The vice president gets mentioned in article 1, which covers the legislature and legislative powers, but the president doesn't get mentioned until article 2, which covers the executive. Article 2 mentions that the vice president is elected at the same time as the president, but does not grant the vice president any powers or duties (other than that he succeeds the president if the president cannot fulfill the duties of office, but the speaker of the house is also in the line of succession so that doesn't tell us anything). So while I don't like what Cheney is doing (I'm in favor of oversight and accountability), it's not clear that he doesn't have any constitutional basis for it. There are also some non-trivial issues regarding the extent of executive priviledge if the current argument holds up, but that's another matter.

[fishbob]

As you say, Cheney's single listed duty is legislative, however is seems to me that Cheney's office has been working exclusively on executive issues, and therefore should be covered by rules regarding the executive branch.

[Ziggurat]

As you say, Cheney's single listed duty is legislative, however is seems to me that Cheney's office has been working exclusively on executive issues, and therefore should be covered by rules regarding the executive branch.

But are they doing anything that a senator, for example, wouldn't be allowed to do if the president wanted him to? If not, then that may not make much difference. In any case, I don't think the issue is trivial (even though at first glance it looked that way), and I wouldn't be surprised to see it end up before the supreme court, possibly with unexpected consequences.

[headscratcher4]

Likely I'm wrong...but I seem to remember that the office of the VP is only mentioned/established by Article 2 of the USConst, which defines the executive.

[Ziggurat]

Likely I'm wrong...but I seem to remember that the office of the VP is only mentioned/established by Article 2 of the USConst, which defines the executive.

You're wrong. I looked it up after reading one of the links that mentions the argument that the vice president is (at least partly) part of the legislature. The vice president is indeed mentioned in article 1 (spelling out his role as president of the senate), and so appears even before any mention of the president. Strange but true.

[Bob Klase]

The Vice President's office's refusal to comply with the executive order and the National Archives's request prompted the National Archives to file a complaint with the Attorney General's office. But the Justice Department has not followed up on the Archives's request.

Gee, wonder why the president's lapdog at Justice wouldn't follow up on something like that.

[shemp]

Here's an opinion piece from CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen:

Is Vice President's Office Above The Law? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/22/opinion/courtwatch/main2965962.shtml)

[SteveGrenard]

Here's an opinion piece by MSNBC political analyst Keith Olbermann, well an excerpt from his program the other night:


How many branches of our government are there, three? No, four. The executive, the legislative, the judicial, and the Dick. The vice president‘s office refuses inspection by the National Archives in the erased and illegal e-mail scandal, claiming that law doesn‘t apply to it, the fourth branch of government.

(snipped)



In our fourth story tonight, the president has sunk so low we learned today he cannot even run the vice president. A Bush executive order commands everyone in the executive branch to report on handling of classified material. But Dick Cheney has not done so since 2002.

Today, the House Oversight Committee revealed that in 2004, the Information Security Oversight Office, ISOO, tried to inspect Cheney‘s office but was denied entry. In fact, Cheney responded by trying to destroy ISOO.

Why the lack of cooperation? His office says, quote, “The reporting requirement does not apply to Cheney‘s office, which has both legislative and executive functions.” In other words, his functions outside the executive branch exempt him from oversight by the executive branch.

But if he‘s not the executive branch, and he‘s not a legislator and not a judge, there remains only one possible alternative—Vice President Dick Cheney is a rogue nation.

Despite the recent capture of his top lieutenant, Mr. Cheney continues to defy the rule of law, attempting to destroy ISOO—an office of the U.S. government, after all—and barring inspections in true Saddam style, leaving only one possible remedy—invade him, in order to establish a free and democratic Dick Cheney.

excerpted from the full show transcript at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19372138/

[RussDill]

Are all things proper in the Comrade Ogilvy world view if a case can be found where a Democrat has done something vaguely similar? As an aside, is this the most similar incident that you could find of Democratic malfeasance to reference or was the temptation to write Sandy Burglar just too great and you bypassed some more appropriate Democratic transgressions to use Sandy Burglar in this thread?



From ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/cheney-power-gr.html

Everything in these news articles are "according to Waxman". Heck, I can't find any information that is from where it should actually be from, its all "Waxman's letter claims". The only quote from the office of the vice president in any of these stories is "We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law.”

How about some actual comments on the situation from the ISOO? The Whitehouse? The attorney general? The office of the vice president?

Aren't news outlets supposed to use multiple sources?

Also in all of this, remember that the ISOO is part of the executive branch and is not under the authority of the legislative branch in any way.

Can someone at least point out what executive order Waxman is talking about?

[RussDill]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6729631,00.html

A story from the AP actually quotes the White House.


White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said it's clear that the president's executive order never intended for the vice president's office to be treated as an ``agency.''

``He's not exempt from following the laws of the United States,'' Perino said. ``He's exempt just from this reporting requirement in this particular executive order.''

...

``I don't think that anyone has suggested that,'' Perino said.

...

``The office of the vice president is in compliance with laws relating to classified material,'' said Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for the vice president.


Everything else, including additional statements said to be from the White House, are actually from Waxman.

The executive order would clear this up quite a bit. If it does refer to agencies, ie, the EPA, CIA, FBI, etc, the White House's position does make quite a bit of sense. There is no Vice President Agency, just as there is no President Agency. That would be saying that the office of the vice president is not an agency within the executive branch, not saying that the office of the vice president is not part of the executive branch.

[RussDill]

BTW, the quoted "expert" Steven Aftergood, isn't exactly unbiased. He'd rather see *all* data declassified. How about a quote from an unbiased expert. Not only that, he is the person who set all this in motion, so of course he is going to take his own side. Interesting how none of the articles mention that fact.

Anyway, the executive order that keeps mentioning is 12958 (from Clinton), which is actually obsoleted by 13292 (from GW Bush).

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12958
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292


Sec. 5.2. Information Security Oversight Office.

(a) There is established within the National Archives an Information Security Oversight Office. The Archivist shall appoint the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, subject to the approval of the President.

(b) Under the direction of the Archivist, acting in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall:

(1) develop directives for the implementation of this order;

(2) oversee agency actions to ensure compliance with this order and its implementing directives;

(3) review and approve agency implementing regulations and agency guides for systematic declassification review prior to their issuance by the agency;

(4) have the authority to conduct on-site reviews of each agencys program established under this order, and to require of each agency those reports, information, and other cooperation that may be necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. If granting access to specific categories of classified information would pose an exceptional national security risk, the affected agency head or the senior agency official shall submit a written justification recommending the denial of access to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs within 60 days of the request for access. Access shall be denied pending the response;

(5) review requests for original classification authority from agencies or officials not granted original classification authority and, if deemed appropriate, recommend Presidential approval through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

(6) consider and take action on complaints and suggestions from persons within or outside the Government with respect to the administration of the program established under this order;

(7) have the authority to prescribe, after consultation with affected agencies, standardization of forms or procedures that will promote the implementation of the program established under this order;

(8) report at least annually to the President on the implementation of this order; and

(9) convene and chair interagency meetings to discuss matters pertaining to the program established by this order.


From 6.1:

(b) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.


The important part being what is meant by "any other entity within the executive branch". Well, if the ISOO was confused, they could just ask the attorney general:

From 6.2

(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.


Which he has:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/isoo-ag.pdf

The Attorney General's office has not yet replied. So if you want to go after anybody, go after the Attorney General.

[Wolfman]

In another article discussing (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wcheney0622/BNStory/International/home) this, there is the following quote which rather concerns me:
Ms. Perino said, "I think what is absurd is Chairman (Waxman) asserting some sort of authority over the President regarding an executive order of which he is the sole enforcer."
As I'm not American, can someone clarify this for me...if the President issues/signs an Executive order, then the President is basically the only one who can enforce (and apparently interpret) that order? I could understand an argument that a president who issues an executive order would have a valid claim to know what he intended when he issued it; but its my understanding that Bush simply renewed this, I'm not clear as to whether he was the actual author.

But putting that aside, a claim from any member of this administration that only the President has the right to enforce it seems to me to be just another example of the monomaniacal quest for power that highlights this administration's policies -- to try as much as possible to remove power from other branches of the government, and invest that power in the president alone.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

In another article discussing (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wcheney0622/BNStory/International/home) this, there is the following quote which rather concerns me:

As I'm not American, can someone clarify this for me...if the President issues/signs an Executive order, then the President is basically the only one who can enforce (and apparently interpret) that order? I could understand an argument that a president who issues an executive order would have a valid claim to know what he intended when he issued it; but its my understanding that Bush simply renewed this, I'm not clear as to whether he was the actual author.

But putting that aside, a claim from any member of this administration that only the President has the right to enforce it seems to me to be just another example of the monomaniacal quest for power that highlights this administration's policies -- to try as much as possible to remove power from other branches of the government, and invest that power in the president alone.



Gee... then WTF would you know about American politics except to formulate your Anti-Bush agenda?

[Wolfman]

Gee... then WTF would you know about American politics except to formulate your Anti-Bush agenda?
Ah, now there is the kind of response I've come to expect from the pro-Bush crowd...don't actually answer a question, rather ignore the question and make personal attacks instead.

Hey...if "your side" is so right, then answer a simple question, and inform this poor non-American so that I won't be quite so ignorant -- does the U.S. President have sole power to enforce an executive order? Can he bypass the entire legislative branch of the U.S. gov't (which, as I understand it, was established specifically to prevent the President from having unilateral power to enforce laws, but that's just my poor, ignorant, non-American POV)?

Curious how the pro-Bush side, for all their vehement denials of anything wrong, nevertheless always seem entirely unable to answer specific questions; instead, they consistently seek to divert the issues by launching personal attacks, or otherwise trying to divert peoples' attention from the fact that they can't answer the questions.

[Jeff Corey]

What`s his name...were is the document?
It's "where". Are you a dimwit or an illiterate piece of parrot droppings?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Ah, now there is the kind of response I've come to expect from the pro-Bush crowd...don't actually answer a question, rather ignore the question and make personal attacks instead.

Hey...if "your side" is so right, then answer a simple question, and inform this poor non-American so that I won't be quite so ignorant -- does the U.S. President have sole power to enforce an executive order? Can he bypass the entire legislative branch of the U.S. gov't (which, as I understand it, was established specifically to prevent the President from having unilateral power to enforce laws, but that's just my poor, ignorant, non-American POV)?

Curious how the pro-Bush side, for all their vehement denials of anything wrong, nevertheless always seem entirely unable to answer specific questions; instead, they consistently seek to divert the issues by launching personal attacks, or otherwise trying to divert peoples' attention from the fact that they can't answer the questions.



Yeah your right...lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies...have a great insight into american politics...after all what else would they live for?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It's "where". Are you a dimwit or an illiterate piece of parrot droppings?


Brilliant response!

[Jeff Corey]

Yeah your right...lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies...have a great insight into american politics...after all what else would they live for?
It would be "You're right" if you had the cognitive abilities of the average slab of granite.

[Jeff Corey]

News Flash from Fox. Now there are four branches of the US government. The legislative branch, the judicial branch, the executive branch and Herr Chaney's bunker.
Thanks for the clap, I'll be here all week. Try the Faux Escargots, made from fresh local slugs.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It would be "You're right" if you had the cognitive abilities of the average slab of granite.

Perhaps better than a dog...which you chose to represent yourself on this forum with....."Go Lick yourself"!

[Wolfman]

Yeah your right...lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies...have a great insight into american politics...after all what else would they live for?
It is truly amazing! I specifically point out that your only tactic is personal attacks, and that you have not actually answered the question; I specifically give you the opportunity to prove me wrong, and actually answer the question; and still, the only response you are able to come up with is another personal attack which has nothing to do with the question!

And what's this "your right" thing...is that like "your mamma"? I assume you meant "you're"? An inability to provide the simplest of answers; a failure to handle even the most basic English grammar (and in America, this rule is the same as for "lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies"); and insults that a primary school kid could come up with.

I'm not sure if you're claiming to represent Americans as a whole, or just the right-wing component. But whatever it is...you're doing a miserably pathetic job.

[Jeff Corey]

Sobaka skazala "Garf Garf".

[Jeff Corey]

It is truly amazing! I specifically point out that your only tactic is personal attacks, and that you have not actually answered the question; I specifically give you the opportunity to prove me wrong, and actually answer the question; and still, the only response you are able to come up with is another personal attack which has nothing to do with the question!

And what's this "your right" thing...is that like "your mamma"? I assume you meant "you're"? An inability to provide the simplest of answers; a failure to handle even the most basic English grammar (and in America, this rule is the same as for "lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies"); and insults that a primary school kid could come up with.

I'm not sure if you're claiming to represent Americans as a whole, or just the right-wing component. But whatever it is...you're doing a miserably pathetic job.
I bet he's not a US person. Sounds Russky. "Moose and squirrel must die!"

[SteveGrenard]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said he plans to propose next week, as part of a spending bill for executive operations, a measure to place a hold on funds for Cheney's office and official home until he clarifies to which branch of the government he belongs. Emanuel acknowledged that the proposal is just a stunt, but he said that if Cheney is not part of the executive branch, he should not receive its funds. "As we say in Chicago, follow the money," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201809.html

Cheney could always make his office part of Halliburton ...er, wait a minute, it may already be that in which case the above stunt will have no impact whatsoever.

[Tricky]

Golly, now it looks like the President is also not part of the executive branch (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4913965.html).
The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is exempt from a presidential order requiring government agencies that handle classified national security information to submit to oversight by an independent federal watchdog.

The executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 covers all government agencies that are part of the executive branch and, although it doesn't specifically say so, was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

He's now saying essentially, "Oh yeah, maybe we should have mentioned that we're telling others what to do. We don't follow those rules I made."



In the executive order (of 2003), Bush emphasized the importance of the public's right to know what its government was doing, particularly in the global campaign against terrorism. "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government," the executive order said.
But that was then. This is now.
But from the start, Bush considered his office and Cheney's exempt from the reporting requirements, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an interview Friday.
It's just that he didn't feel the need to mention that until now.

[Dancing David]

Ah, now there is the kind of response I've come to expect from the pro-Bush crowd...don't actually answer a question, rather ignore the question and make personal attacks instead.



It is a rather weak attempt at debate. When you have no substance to your argument, then there is an emotional appeal. Generally to the herd mentality of conservative platitudes.

"If you don't agree with me than you support the terrorists"
"The human body is obviously too marvelous to have arisen by random chance"
"America love it or leave it"

What happens on this forum is that these people usually get frustrated that people don't just agree with their simple infantile logic and they leave.

It can take a while but it is the style over substance form of argument.

[Dancing David]

Yeah your right...lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies...have a great insight into american politics...after all what else would they live for?


So you can't answer the question. I understand you may just be here to get laughs but what about answering the question.

You still haven't said why drowning people on a water board isn't torture either.

You have style over substance, it is rather shallow.

Why not show you can answer the question.

If the president is part of the constitutionally derived government and the president signs an executive order which is legally constructed, why should not all branches and parts of government be obliged to enforce the executive order?

The logic of asking runs like this:

1. The president has the legal power to make an executive order.
2. The executive order applies to all members of the government covered by the order. (And actually the valid argument that Cheney might be making)
3. The president is not above his own law, he is not a monarch entitled to decide the extent and scope of the law.

So that leaves us with the following possibilities:

A. The president is not bound by his own ability to make executive orders. IE he is exempt from the legal authority granted to him to make such orders.

B. Not all branches of government are obligated to follow an executive order, in other words the president does not have legal authority to make such orders, or they are limited in scope to the executive branch.

C. The power of the president to make executive orders is not backed by the power of the constitution, so that say the members of Congress can ignore them and are not obliged to follow them. In which case they have the power of a memorandum that applies only to the executive branch.

D. In the above case the president does not have the authority to write executive orders regarding any parts of government that require the oversight of congress, IE treaties, trade bills, appointments and the like.

E. The president has no discretion to change the budgets of the parts of the "black budget", because the ability to allocate funds is limited to congress, they are not bound to follow an executive order. Therefore if the president’s power to allocate funds within the budget is derived from an executive order, the president does not have the ability to rearrange the budget.


These are possible consequences of saying "Only the president has the power to enforce his executive order".

[E.J.Armstrong]

Yeah your right...lefty Canadians or Euro-weenies...have a great insight into american politics...after all what else would they live for?

This response sure epitomises the Bush/Cheney approach to international relations.

Factually incorrect, illogical and intolerant of those who disagree with them.

Who in the Bush/Cheney neo-lunatic axis of madness cares about the truth anyway?

[Tricky]

Who in the Bush/Cheney neo-lunatic axis of madness cares about the truth anyway?
Events have shown that they all care very deeply about the truth. Americans must be protected from it at all costs, even if it means rewriting the Constitution.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So you can't answer the question. I understand you may just be here to get laughs but what about answering the question.

You still haven't said why drowning people on a water board isn't torture either.

You have style over substance, it is rather shallow.

Why not show you can answer the question.

If the president is part of the constitutionally derived government and the president signs an executive order which is legally constructed, why should not all branches and parts of government be obliged to enforce the executive order?

The logic of asking runs like this:

1. The president has the legal power to make an executive order.
2. The executive order applies to all members of the government covered by the order. (And actually the valid argument that Cheney might be making)
3. The president is not above his own law, he is not a monarch entitled to decide the extent and scope of the law.

So that leaves us with the following possibilities:

A. The president is not bound by his own ability to make executive orders. IE he is exempt from the legal authority granted to him to make such orders.

B. Not all branches of government are obligated to follow an executive order, in other words the president does not have legal authority to make such orders, or they are limited in scope to the executive branch.

C. The power of the president to make executive orders is not backed by the power of the constitution, so that say the members of Congress can ignore them and are not obliged to follow them. In which case they have the power of a memorandum that applies only to the executive branch.

D. In the above case the president does not have the authority to write executive orders regarding any parts of government that require the oversight of congress, IE treaties, trade bills, appointments and the like.

E. The president has no discretion to change the budgets of the parts of the "black budget", because the ability to allocate funds is limited to congress, they are not bound to follow an executive order. Therefore if the president’s power to allocate funds within the budget is derived from an executive order, the president does not have the ability to rearrange the budget.


These are possible consequences of saying "Only the president has the power to enforce his executive order".


From years on the internet I have realized that nobody convinces another person of anything in these political forums...so yes..I`m basically in for the laughs.

Haaaaaaaa....Haaaaaaaa....

[The Mysterian]

Why haven't you signed up to go to Iraq? By the way, have you ever heard this joke before?


Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"


Sums up the Bush mentality.

[President Bush]

The only constitutionally-mandated power that the vice president has is as president of the senate. So in that sense, he is part of the legislative, and not executive, branch.


During Dick's impeachment proceedings will the Chief Justice - presiding over the Senate - no longer be part of the Judicial Branch?

[Ziggurat]

During Dick's impeachment proceedings will the Chief Justice - presiding over the Senate - no longer be part of the Judicial Branch?

No. The chief justice remains in the judicial branch. But jurors, for example, are not part of the judicial branch, they are just jurors. The senate becomes a very special jury, but that doesn't alter the division of branches.

[Ziggurat]

Why haven't you signed up to go to Iraq?

What an absurd question. How is this in any way relevant, unless you don't believe in civilian control of the military? I'm continually amazed at the prevalence of this meme, especially among liberals since that civilian control of the military is about the LAST thing any liberal should want to do away with. It is hypocracy of the highest order, all to score cheap rhetorical points.

[Unabogie]

What an absurd question. How is this in any way relevant, unless you don't believe in civilian control of the military?

I'm not sure I understand your point here, unless you don't understand why someone would ask supporters of the war to join the battle.

The logic seems simple to me. 28% of the American public supports Bush's war in Iraq. Those people often accuse non-supporters of being "traitors" and of "wanting the terrorists to win". Most, if not all, of the supporters (the public faces, anyway) have never joined the military and have taken specific steps to avoid doing so. They state that we are in an "epic war of civilizations" and are actually in "World War III". That being said, it's quite fair to wonder why these "true patriots" who support with undying fealty our Epic War choose not to join the fight, since it seems to be a cognitive dissonance with what they claim we are involved in.

I don't see that as the same as saying only civilians with military credentials can run the country.

[MaGZ]

Four part series on VP Cheney in Washington Post

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

[NoZed Avenger]

I missed this topic until now.

It certainly could have been interesting.

On the first issue, I was incredibly surprised to find some political texts and other sources (pre-dating the controversy) that have carved out the Vice President's office from the Executive branch proper.

(for an online example, c.f. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/p226_appendix5.pdf )

So that could have been an interesting topic, although to base a claim that the Veep is not an executive for any purpose still seems whacked.

But then it looks like the only person making that claim was Waxman, as this really relates to an Executive Order with different language. The original story appears to have gone completely by Waxman's (deliberately provocative) characterization.

The actual claim and the wording of the executive order would also be interesting topics. I'd like to know if there were ever any similarly-worded orders and if any precedent exists, for example.

But, upon surveying the smoking wreckage of this thread, it looks to me like conversation on this topic is impossible. There has already been so much vitriol and attempted point-scoring that I can only conclude that no one wanted to discuss or even argue about anything.

So, in conclusion (and in no particular order):

Waxman is a tool.

Cheney is a tool.

Most of the posters on this thread, who I don't believe are tools, are posting in a definitely toolish manner. As someone who can easily be voted "most likely to be left hanging in a toolshed," I am certainly qualified to make that judgment, and trust me: most of the posts in this thread should be stamped "Craftsman."

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure I understand your point here, unless you don't understand why someone would ask supporters of the war to join the battle.

Oh, I understand EXACTLY why someone would do it. I even said why: to score cheap rhetorical points. But it's deeply dishonest.

The logic seems simple to me. 28% of the American public supports Bush's war in Iraq. Those people often accuse non-supporters of being "traitors" and of "wanting the terrorists to win".

SOME people make such accusations of SOME non-supporters. Such vast over-generalizations should be beneath you.

Most, if not all, of the supporters (the public faces, anyway) have never joined the military and have taken specific steps to avoid doing so.

This is false (both Rumsfeld and Bush joined the military). It is also cherry picking, since we're not just talking about "public faces", we're also talking about private citizens when we're discussing the actions of individual board members. Furthermore, it is irrelevant unless you do not believe in civilian control of the military. If you DO believe in civilian control of the military, past service IS IRRELEVANT to you having a say in how the military is used. Evidently, you don't really believe in that at all - or you're just really clueless about what it means.

I don't see that as the same as saying only civilians with military credentials can run the country.

No, nor did I claim that. It's the same as saying only those with military credentials can determine how the military gets used. Which means that it IS saying that civilian control of the military is unimportant. That is not actually synonymous with military control of civilians, though that's often the end state of heading away from civilian control of the military.

[Bob Klase]

I'm not sure I understand your point here, unless you don't understand why someone would ask supporters of the war to join the battle.

When someone asks that, I always wonder why so few of them are policemen. Most of them seem to support the police, so why wouldn't they join them?

[Unabogie]

How can it be cherry picking when it's typically used in answer to a war proponent's assertions of "true patriotism"? Even in this thread, it's used to ask a Bush supporter why he isn't in Iraq, since he calls others "traitors" and "terrorist lovers" for not supporting this war.

In fact, look at the right wing blogs for example after example of young men who could easily be in Iraq fighting the war -- a war they claim is essential for the survival of America -- but who instead sit in their comfy living rooms and expect other people to fight for them. We even saw Hugh Hewitt make the unbelievable assertion that he is "on the front lines (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008520.php)" there in New York.

How can it not be a fair question to ask these guys why they are not volunteering to serve in this endless war cycle they advocate? How is that different from the criticisms of Al Gore and his energy use?

I'd break your position down into the following:

"A" advocates "B" but will not participate in "B". "A" criticizes "C" for not advocating "B". It is not reasonable to ask why "A" will not do "B" but will criticize "C" for not supporting "B".

Would you disagree with that?

[Unabogie]

When someone asks that, I always wonder why so few of them are policemen. Most of them seem to support the police, so why wouldn't they join them?

You're missing half the analogy. If "police supporters" accused others of being "anti-police" and then proclaimed themselves as the only ones truly supporting police, it would be fair to ask them why they are not part of the force.

Since everyone supports the police, and more importantly, the mission of the police, the criticism is silly.

[Ziggurat]

How can it be cherry picking when it's typically used in answer to a war proponent's assertions of "true patriotism"?

It's cherry picking to pick some war proponents who haven't served as indicative of those who support the war in general. You REALLY missed my point.

In fact, look at the right wing blogs for example after example of young men who could easily be in Iraq fighting the war

Again, cherry picking. There are also milblogs by people who have served.

a war they claim is essential for the survival of America -- but who instead sit in their comfy living rooms and expect other people to fight for them.

This is one of the stupidest arguments you've ever made. The idea that we as a nation are in an existential fight doesn't mean that the limiting factor on our side in this fight is people willing to join the military. And until it is, there's simply NO conflict between thinking we're in such a fight and not joining up.

We even saw Hugh Hewitt make the unbelievable assertion that he is "on the front lines (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008520.php)" there in New York.

What a pathetic misreading of the obvious intent. He didn't say he was on the front line. He said that New York was the front line four and a half years ago (from the date of the interview) - a rather obvious reference to the idea that while the 9/11 attacks were in progress, New York City was a front line. Make of that argument what you will, but it's not what you claimed. Furthermore, even if he HAD said what you claimed he said, any stupidity on his part doesn't somehow excuse the hypocricy of your own argument, an argument that is deeply illiberal and probably not even honest.

How can it not be a fair question to ask these guys why they are not volunteering to serve in this endless war cycle they advocate?

Well, Hugh Hewitt was 50 years old at the time of the interview. Damn, but you do a piss poor job even when you are cherry picking.

How is that different from the criticisms of Al Gore and his energy use?

Am I making any criticisms of Al Gore in this thread? No, I am not. The validity (or lack thereof) of any criticisms of Al Gore are then quite beside the point. And don't claim that all these republicans make such criticisms because that is likewise irrelevant: regardless of how hypocritical they may be, that does not somehow validate your own pathetic arguments.

I'd break your position down into the following:

"A" advocates "B" but will not participate in "B". "A" criticizes "C" for not advocating "B". It is not reasonable to ask why "A" will not do "B" but will criticize "C" for not supporting "B".

Would you disagree with that?

Not really. And that's the only position that makes sense, and I doubt that you honestly disagree with it either, except that you think you can use it as leverage against war proponents. For example, do you advocate giving emergency medical care to the uninsured? I do. Do you yourself provide such emergency medical care to the poor? I do not. Am I a hypocrit for not participating in some action that I advocate? No, of course not. That would be an absurd position to take. Given that the labor which government services rely upon is specialized, but the tax burden comes from a common pool, it's simply not POSSIBLE to participate in every government action which one advocates.

This position does not in any way preclude support for "B" being wrong, by the way.

[Unabogie]

It's cherry picking to pick some war proponents who haven't served as indicative of those who support the war in general. You REALLY missed my point.

Not at all. I just think your point is hogwash.



Again, cherry picking. There are also milblogs by people who have served.No one has heard of them. The loudest advocates are the ones who are rightly being criticized.

This is one of the stupidest arguments you've ever made. Thanks. I love it when you break down into insults. It makes me respect your arguments. And I learn so much from it, too.

The idea that we as a nation are in an existential fight doesn't mean that the limiting factor on our side in this fight is people willing to join the military. And until it is, there's simply NO conflict between thinking we're in such a fight and not joining up.********. These people are calling people like John Kerry and Jack Murtha "cowards".

COWARDS. The fact that they won't fight and yet will call others cowards is a perfectly legitimate cause for ridicule.

What a pathetic misreading of the obvious intent. He didn't say he was on the front line. He said that New York was the front line four and a half years ago (from the date of the interview) - a rather obvious reference to the idea that while the 9/11 attacks were in progress, New York City was a front line. Make of that argument what you will, but it's not what you claimed. Furthermore, even if he HAD said what you claimed he said, any stupidity on his part doesn't somehow excuse the hypocricy of your own argument, an argument that is deeply illiberal and probably not even honest.No he wasn't. He was discussing the right wing meme that journalists were in Iraq on "hotel balconies" and weren't brave enough to see all the "schools being built" and that that claptrap. When he was called on it, and told that he was saying those things from his comfy studio, he defended himself by claiming that since 9/11 happened in New York, he was somehow in danger. It was self-serving, and I know you can see this.



Well, Hugh Hewitt was 50 years old at the time of the interview. Damn, but you do a piss poor job even when you are cherry picking.
Well, that's silly, since Hugh has had many opportunities to serve in the military but never has. Yet he calls others cowards. This is true of all the major right wing pundits. They call others cowards, but they refuse to display any courage on their own. Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Pat Buchanan
Ann Coulter
Ralph Reed
Bill O’Reilly
Michael Savage
Bill Kristol
Ok, so those guys are all old, and merely chickened out of Vietnam.

But what about young men?

What about Ben Domenich, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin? I could hunt down a list, but what's the point?

Am I making any criticisms of Al Gore in this thread? No, I am not. The validity (or lack thereof) of any criticisms of Al Gore are then quite beside the point. And don't claim that all these republicans make such criticisms because that is likewise irrelevant: regardless of how hypocritical they may be, that does not somehow validate your own pathetic arguments.I asked a question, and it seems like your answer is to attack me with strawman ********. Nice.



Not really. And that's the only position that makes sense, and I doubt that you honestly disagree with it either, except that you think you can use it as leverage against war proponents. For example, do you advocate giving emergency medical care to the uninsured? I do. Do you yourself provide such emergency medical care to the poor? I do not. Am I a hypocrit for not participating in some action that I advocate? No, of course not. That would be an absurd position to take. Given that the labor which government services rely upon is specialized, but the tax burden comes from a common pool, it's simply not POSSIBLE to participate in every government action which one advocates.It would be a fair question if I advocated a non-governmental approach to health care based on charity and you asked if I donated money. If I didn't, I'd be a hypocrite, just like "chickenhawks".

This position does not in any way preclude support for "B" being wrong, by the way.No it doesn't. I agree with you that a person can advocate something for which they have not personally done or cannot do. Charles Krauthammer can't serve, since he's a quad. And I don't see this as a black or white issue. I simply scoff at the notion that these people can cheer-lead for war after war, call others traitors and cowards, and then claim that they themselves are too important or busy or precious or whatever to go serve.

P.S. Kindly tone down the invectives in your reply so this thread doesn't devolve into a flame war.

[Ziggurat]

But what about young men?

What about Ben Domenich, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin?

Well, Michelle Malkin is a woman, so I don't know why you're including her in this list.

I could hunt down a list, but what's the point?

Indeed, what would be the point? Why does what various pundits do have anything to do with whether or not people on this board have the right to advocate military action without having served?

It would be a fair question if I advocated a non-governmental approach to health care based on charity and you asked if I donated money.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that we were fighting wars with non-governmental approaches.

I agree with you that a person can advocate something for which they have not personally done or cannot do. Charles Krauthammer can't serve, since he's a quad. And I don't see this as a black or white issue. I simply scoff at the notion that these people can cheer-lead for war after war, call others traitors and cowards, and then claim that they themselves are too important or busy or precious or whatever to go serve.

What do you know about the other posters on this board? Probably nothing. And yet, you were still willing to use the chickenhawk meme in regards to posters here, not just famous people whose biographies can be examined. Leave your grudge with various commentators with those commentators. You cannot justify arguments you use against posters here by saying that those commentators' behavior invites it.

[Unabogie]

What do you know about the other posters on this board? Probably nothing. And yet, you were still willing to use the chickenhawk meme in regards to posters here, not just famous people whose biographies can be examined. Leave your grudge with various commentators with those commentators. You cannot justify arguments you use against posters here by saying that those commentators' behavior invites it.

I was? Where? I was defending that criticism as valid in general terms, and used public figures as my examples. Care to cite my use of that against people on this board, in cases where I knew nothing about them?

Kindly retract that, if not.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Bill clitoons letter to his draft board....great moments in courage!


The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years (the society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway).


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

[Ziggurat]

I was? Where?

My mistake. It was The Mysterian who was doing that. Sorry for the confusion.

I was defending that criticism as valid in general terms, and used public figures as my examples.

Even there, it's simply not valid. It is a tu quoque fallacy. And if the same criticism against war opponents came from an Iraq war veteran, you wouldn't suddenly accept that criticism as valid because they're an Iraq war veteran. You cannot in good faith reject the accusation because someone isn't either. That does not preclude you from rejecting it for other reasons.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"Dear Colonel Holmes,

I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

Geez...get a motel room....

[The Mysterian]

I think the draft should be started again.

[Ziggurat]

I think the draft should be started again.

The only motive I know of for doing so is to try to increase opposition to the war. No other explanation makes any sense.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The only motive I know of for doing so is to try to increase opposition to the war. No other explanation makes any sense.


Absolutely true...and I am a 1969 draftee...even the Army dont want draftees...because we have the best Army in the world right now.

[davefoc]

The only motive I know of for doing so is to try to increase opposition to the war. No other explanation makes any sense.

I was one who thought the idea of a draft was wrong on several levels. It offended my libertarian ideas, I didn't think it was fair and in almost all foreseeable situations a draft would produce more soldiers than the country could possibly use, especially if women were also subject to the draft.

But at least some of John Conyer's arguments in favor of the draft have been bolstered by the actions of the cynical chicken hawks that have led this country with lies into a war that they might not have if their children had been in harm's way as a result of the war. After they got the war going would this band of cowardly, corrupt chicken hawks have used the war to enrich their cronies and advance their personal agendas if their own flesh and blood had been at risk? I doubt it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I was one who thought the idea of a draft was wrong on several levels. It offended my libertarian ideas, I didn't think it was fair and in almost all foreseeable situations a draft would produce more soldiers than the country could possibly use, especially if women were also subject to the draft.

But at least some of John Conyer's arguments in favor of the draft have been bolstered by the actions of the cynical chicken hawks that have led this country with lies into a war that they might not have if their children had been in harm's way as a result of the war. After they got the war going would this band of cowardly, corrupt chicken hawks have used the war to enrich their cronies and advance their personal agendas if their own flesh and blood had been at risk? I doubt it.


Hillary tried to join the Marines...but her thighs were too thick..what a pity!

[The Mysterian]

The only motive I know of for doing so is to try to increase opposition to the war. No other explanation makes any sense.

100% correct!

[fishbob]

"How many is a brazillion?"

C'mon Ogilvy, that is some funny stuff.

[Ziggurat]

But at least some of John Conyer's arguments in favor of the draft have been bolstered by the actions of the cynical chicken hawks that have led this country with lies into a war that they might not have if their children had been in harm's way as a result of the war.

This is nonsense. First off, if the existence of a draft would have made this war less popular, it will make other wars, including ones we may need to engage in, less popular. It is a crude tool indeed. And it will have no effect on Iraq policy, since it would take years to implement. Lastly, of course, what makes you think any of the chickenhawks would have children in the military if there was a draft? Isn't the charge against them that they got out of the military by various means due to their privilege? Do you honestly think that's not going to happen with a draft reimplementation? Of course it will. Among the elite, only those who want to serve will serve. Which, given a draft army, will probably mean less elites at the same time that it means more average and poor folks. You'll end up with a less representative army. The only achievement will be less general willingness to use the military, but quite frankly, a weaker and more expensive army isn't worth that price, and I've seen no argument to say otherwise. Unless you're a pacifist, but pacifists are morons.

[Ladewig]

Bush joined the military

In 1968, there was more than one way to join the military. The method that G.W. Bush used is hardly worthy of praise.

[Darth Rotor]

Golly, now it looks like the President is also not part of the executive branch (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4913965.html).
Then why didn't Nixon use that defense? One wonders.

This smells of fish. Failure to comply with the law on classified material is just that, failure to comply. Without oversite, how does one know? Without an audit, how does one know?

What was it Reagan was big on? Trust but verify.

Works for me.

ETA: Hey Nozed, thanks for tossing me into the toolbox (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2716102&postcount=54), or, in other words (Maggie to Danny in Caddyshack

"Tanks fer nuttin' (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2716102&postcount=54)!" ;)

ETA 2: For Russ Dill:

Once your post arrived, most of the rest of the discussion was rendered moot.

Russisms:

From 6.1:
(b) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.
The important part being what is meant by "any other entity within the executive branch". Well, if the ISOO was confused, they could just ask the attorney general:

From 6.2
(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.
Which he has:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/isoo-ag.pdf

The Attorney General's office has not yet replied. So if you want to go after anybody, go after the Attorney General.

Gonzo seems almost too convenient a scapegoat in all of this, or perhaps what is going on here is what we used to call, in the Navy, "a pattern of misconduct." That pattern was how we often discharged a sailor under a general, other than honorable discharge, when the constant run ins with the rules and disciplinary system were a matter of record.

Sound like Gonzo needs an OTH discharge board. This appears to be Waxman's overall aim.

DR

[Ziggurat]

In 1968, there was more than one way to join the military. The method that G.W. Bush used is hardly worthy of praise.

I never took a position on the praiseworthiness of him joining. But the claim was made that none of the prominent proponents of the Iraq war had joined the military, and this claim is quite obviously false. That is the relevance of Bush having joined the military, nothing more.

[davefoc]

This is nonsense. First off, if the existence of a draft would have made this war less popular, it will make other wars, including ones we may need to engage in, less popular. It is a crude tool indeed. And it will have no effect on Iraq policy, since it would take years to implement. Lastly, of course, what makes you think any of the chickenhawks would have children in the military if there was a draft? Isn't the charge against them that they got out of the military by various means due to their privilege? Do you honestly think that's not going to happen with a draft reimplementation? Of course it will. Among the elite, only those who want to serve will serve. Which, given a draft army, will probably mean less elites at the same time that it means more average and poor folks. You'll end up with a less representative army. The only achievement will be less general willingness to use the military, but quite frankly, a weaker and more expensive army isn't worth that price, and I've seen no argument to say otherwise. Unless you're a pacifist, but pacifists are morons.

I do not think the country should impose a draft and on that we agree. I do not agree that the argument that men like Cheney might be less inclined to commit the lives of American forces on unjustified wars run to benefit corporate cronies is nonsense. I think Cheney (and I think he has been the most important decision maker with regard to the Iraq war) has a sense of reverse noblesse oblige, something like those that have the money deserve more. I believe that Cheney works in Cheney's interest and believes he is working for the common interest. Given that set of views, the argument that forcing men like Cheney to put their family at risk when they decide that war is the appropriate path may very well curtail unjustified wars. You might disagree with my appraisal of Cheney or you might disagree that men like Cheney exist, this doesn't make this argument against the draft non-sense, it would make it wrong though.

I never took a position on the praiseworthiness of him joining. But the claim was made that none of the prominent proponents of the Iraq war had joined the military, and this claim is quite obviously false. That is the relevance of Bush having joined the military, nothing more.

What you did was make a spin argument. You made a pedantic point which neglected the underlying facts that negated the value of your point. Your argument was correct, but was it intellectually honest?

[Ziggurat]

I do not agree that the argument that men like Cheney might be less inclined to commit the lives of American forces on unjustified wars run to benefit corporate cronies is nonsense.

That may be so. But that's got nothing to do with 1) whether or not the call to go to war was correct, or 2) his, or anyone else's, ability to form an opinion about such a war.

I think Cheney (and I think he has been the most important decision maker with regard to the Iraq war) has a sense of reverse noblesse oblige, something like those that have the money deserve more. I believe that Cheney works in Cheney's interest and believes he is working for the common interest. Given that set of views, the argument that forcing men like Cheney to put their family at risk when they decide that war is the appropriate path may very well curtail unjustified wars.

This is nonsensical, because 1) it simply won't work in the intended manner, since the elite can still easily get their kids out of the draft (unless you want to end college deferment too - good luck with that) and 2) it'll hamstring EVERY future government, even the ones you like, from doing ANYTHING with the military. And enacting such a fundamental (and weakening) change as essentially a back-door method to try to reign in an administration that will be out of office before it even kicks in is just stupid. No, it's more than that: it's stoopid. The only appeal, and the only justification, is pacifism, and pacifism is for morons.

What you did was make a spin argument.

No. I corrected a factually false claim.

Your argument was correct, but was it intellectually honest?

Since when has pointing out the actual facts of the case been dishonest? Now, Unabogie may be able to modify his argument to take into account this fact and still have the main thrust of his point intact. My response did not preclude such a possibility. But suggesting that I'm somehow being dishonest because I'm using facts to counter some higher truth smacks of a "fake but accurate" defense. I think we can have higher standards than that here.

[davefoc]

Since when has pointing out the actual facts of the case been dishonest? Now, Unabogie may be able to modify his argument to take into account this fact and still have the main thrust of his point intact. My response did not preclude such a possibility. But suggesting that I'm somehow being dishonest because I'm using facts to counter some higher truth smacks of a "fake but accurate" defense. I think we can have higher standards than that here.

If you are arguing as a lawyer advocating for a client or as a partisan pundit attempting to win converts to a particular point of view then limiting your arguments to only facts that support your agenda is expected.

The pursuit of truth is the tacit goal of discussions in this forum, unless it is obvious that you are limiting yourself to partisan arguments as easycruise or Comrade Olgilvy do.

When you made the point that Bush had been in the military in response to Unabogie's statement that "Most, if not all, of the supporters (the public faces, anyway) have never joined the military and have taken specific steps to avoid doing so." without acknowledging the nature of Bush's military service you were not promoting the pursuit of truth. You were either making a pedantic correction of what unabogie said or you were making a statement which misleadingly represented the actual situation and you knew it.

Bush's "military service" consisted of him joining the national guard with the apparent goal of avoiding actual combat and then apparently using high level contacts to break the terms of his contract so that he didn't even fulfill the agreement that he made in lieu of risking combat.

Intellectual honesty includes acknowledging significant facts that don't support your argument. You failed to do that in this case.

[Ziggurat]

When you made the point that Bush had been in the military in response to Unabogie's statement that "Most, if not all, of the supporters (the public faces, anyway) have never joined the military and have taken specific steps to avoid doing so." without acknowledging the nature of Bush's military service you were not promoting the pursuit of truth. You were either making a pedantic correction of what unabogie said or you were making a statement which misleadingly represented the actual situation and you knew it.

Please. Don't pull this sort of bull on me. Unabogie made a false claim. I corrected it. You don't like my correction because I didn't emphasise aspects that you want emphasised. But that's not my job. And don't pretend that you're trying to create a standard of absolute truthfulness, because you're doing nothing of the sort.

Intellectual honesty includes acknowledging significant facts that don't support your argument. You failed to do that in this case.

Funny how you're not calling on Unabogie to acknowledge that Bush did serve, if even in a limited capacity, and you're not calling on him to acknowledge (nor are you acknowledging yourself) that Rumsfeld also served. So don't play this game with me. If a purely objective search for absolute truth was really your goal, I'm not the only one you'd be taking to task for approaching the issue from only one side. But that's not the case, is it? You DIDN'T jump on Unabogie too, you only jumped on me. You're trying to hold me to a standard you're not even making the slightest effort to adhere to yourself.

[Dancing David]

From years on the internet I have realized that nobody convinces another person of anything in these political forums...so yes..I`m basically in for the laughs.

Haaaaaaaa....Haaaaaaaa....

Okay, I just learn a lot by finding out what other people think, I do change my mind and learn things everyday. I was just curious about your thoughts.

Laughs are fun.

:D

[davefoc]

Funny how you're not calling on Unabogie to acknowledge that Bush did serve, if even in a limited capacity, and you're not calling on him to acknowledge (nor are you acknowledging yourself) that Rumsfeld also served. So don't play this game with me. If a purely objective search for absolute truth was really your goal, I'm not the only one you'd be taking to task for approaching the issue from only one side. But that's not the case, is it? You DIDN'T jump on Unabogie too, you only jumped on me. You're trying to hold me to a standard you're not even making the slightest effort to adhere to yourself.

I am trying to adhere to the standard, perhaps you are correct that I am not succeeding with my attempts.

With regard to Rumsfeld I was only vaguely aware that he had been in the military and had forgotten the details. Perhaps it would have been a more complete response on my part if I had mentioned that or had refreshed my memory by looking up the details of Rumsfeld's military service.

As to not criticizing Unabogie: Unabogie did say "most, if not all" so Unabogie wasn't making an absolute claim. But he did say "if not all" and I think everybody that is participating in this thread that Bush did serve in the military so I hereby criticize Unabogie for making a statement which he knew to be false. In defense of Unabogie, I think he assumed that the nature of Bush's military service was not really an exception to what he was talking about and most people, myself included, would understand that. And then there is the issue of Rumsfeld's military service another apparent exception to "if not all". Based on that perhaps he is sorry that he included "if not all" in his statement which implied that there wasn't an obvious exception to "most" and it appears there was.

[Unabogie]

I am trying to adhere to the standard, perhaps you are correct that I am not succeeding with my attempts.

With regard to Rumsfeld I was only vaguely aware that he had been in the military and had forgotten the details. Perhaps it would have been a more complete response on my part if I had mentioned that or had refreshed my memory by looking up the details of Rumsfeld's military service.

As to not criticizing Unabogie: Unabogie did say "most, if not all" so Unabogie wasn't making an absolute claim. But he did say "if not all" and I think everybody that is participating in this thread that Bush did serve in the military so I hereby criticize Unabogie for making a statement which he knew to be false. In defense of Unabogie, I think he assumed that the nature of Bush's military service was not really an exception to what he was talking about and most people, myself included, would understand that. And then there is the issue of Rumsfeld's military service another apparent exception to "if not all". Based on that perhaps he is sorry that he included "if not all" in his statement which implied that there wasn't an obvious exception to "most" and it appears there was.

What he said.

[Darth Rotor]

I am trying to adhere to the standard, perhaps you are correct that I am not succeeding with my attempts.

With regard to Rumsfeld I was only vaguely aware that he had been in the military and had forgotten the details. Perhaps it would have been a more complete response on my part if I had mentioned that or had refreshed my memory by looking up the details of Rumsfeld's military service.
The desire to paint all neocons as chickenhawks is a disturbing habit among those suffering from BDS. I will note that deferments were a common dodge among all persons of college age in the 1960's, not just the so called chickenhawks. It was a way to avoid being in the military if you didn't want to be in it.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
U.S. Navy, 1954-57, pilot, flight instructor.

ETA: note, he remained affiliated with the Reserves for two decades.
(From Answers.com) In 1954, he began three years of service in the U.S. Navy as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve. As a member of the reserve, he continued his flying and administrative assignments during drills until 1975. (Upon becoming Secretary of Defense in 1975, he would transfer to the Standby Reserve. In 1989, he was re-assigned to the Retired Reserve with the rank of captain.)

Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State
U.S. Navy, Naval Academy, 3 combat tours in Vietnam.

GW Bush earned his tin Air Force wings in fighters, not a simple challenge to overcome, but I have to confess, the amount of info on his less than energetic service as an AIr National Guardsman does not speak well of his character. Compare his approach to his father's, and one wonders at the relationship between the two.

I used to golf now and again with a couple of F102 pilots who flew ADIZ intercepts and exercise missions out of Langley AFB on some weekends. Air National Guardsmen, reservists who had full time jobs doing other things. Once was a CPA, the other an attorney. They stayed qualified, and had a passion for flying. It is hard to find record of a similar approach in W's history, so maybe it is best that he left the Guard completely rather than be involved in it in a half assed way.

DR

[Beerina]

Technically, the President is not the Vice President's boss.

But yes, it does throw a monkey wrench into the idea you're simultaneously trying to claim executive privledge.

[Darth Rotor]

Technically, the President is not the Vice President's boss.
How do you come up with that? I'd like to see your reasoning.

DR

[Ziggurat]

How do you come up with that? I'd like to see your reasoning.

The Vice President is elected, not appointed. The president cannot remove him from office once elected. And the only official power the vice president has is within the legislative branch, not within the executive branch. The president can give him other responsibilities, and he can take away those responsibilities, but that's not the same thing as being his boss.

[davefoc]

The Vice President is elected, not appointed. The president cannot remove him from office once elected. And the only official power the vice president has is within the legislative branch, not within the executive branch. The president can give him other responsibilities, and he can take away those responsibilities, but that's not the same thing as being his boss.

This seems like a fairly arbitrary definition of "boss". The president is the vice president's boss in every normal definition of the word except that the president can't fire the vice president. The president can shut down all of the vice president's official activities and he can eliminate any staffing for the vice president if the president is not happy with the vice president's actions.

I suppose the argument that the president is not the vice president's boss is based on the idea that in most normal situation the boss has firing to resort to as the ultimate means of coercion to enforce compliance. But that is certainly not true in every boss/worker relationship and I don't see why it is a requirement here for the president to be viewed as the vice president's boss.

[Ziggurat]

This seems like a fairly arbitrary definition of "boss". The president is the vice president's boss in every normal definition of the word except that the president can't fire the vice president. The president can shut down all of the vice president's official activities

No. He can do nothing about the vice president's primary official activity: his presidency of the senate.

and he can eliminate any staffing for the vice president if the president is not happy with the vice president's actions.

Sure, but that's largely a matter of tradition, not of law. Since the VP is president of the senate, the senate could just as easily provide him staff instead.

As a matter of politics, it's stupid to try to separate the VP from the executive (especially this VP - saying goodbye to executive privilege is a possible side effect which Cheney is unlikely to appreciate). But as a matter of constitutional law, it seems like there's actually a strong case for it.

[Dorian Gray]

What`s his name...were is the document?

That's classified.

[Texas]

No. He can do nothing about the vice president's primary official activity: his presidency of the senate.



Sure, but that's largely a matter of tradition, not of law. Since the VP is president of the senate, the senate could just as easily provide him staff instead.

As a matter of politics, it's stupid to try to separate the VP from the executive (especially this VP - saying goodbye to executive privilege is a possible side effect which Cheney is unlikely to appreciate). But as a matter of constitutional law, it seems like there's actually a strong case for it.
I tend to agree. Cheney can probably make a constitutional case that he is not part of the executive BUT this was the most boneheaded step I have seen him take.

[Texas]

This seems like a fairly arbitrary definition of "boss". The president is the vice president's boss in every normal definition of the word except that the president can't fire the vice president. The president can shut down all of the vice president's official activities and he can eliminate any staffing for the vice president if the president is not happy with the vice president's actions.

I suppose the argument that the president is not the vice president's boss is based on the idea that in most normal situation the boss has firing to resort to as the ultimate means of coercion to enforce compliance. But that is certainly not true in every boss/worker relationship and I don't see why it is a requirement here for the president to be viewed as the vice president's boss. The POTUS would be very unwise to alienate the president of the Senate.

[Texas]

In 1968, there was more than one way to join the military. The method that G.W. Bush used is hardly worthy of praise. That would have been a great argument had Bush tried used his service record to get elected. The only mention of his time in the TANG was in biographical information.

[ilikefrogs]

That would have been a great argument had Bush tried used his service record to get elected. The only mention of his time in the TANG was in biographical information.

He brought up his TANG time in the 2004 campaign to counteract the fact Kerry served in Vietnam

[Ziggurat]

He brought up his TANG time in the 2004 campaign to counteract the fact Kerry served in Vietnam

That's not my memory of the campaign. I don't recall a single speech where Bush made any reference to his TANG service - what various collumnists may or may not have written isn't really in his control. Perhaps you can find a speech by Bush himself which makes reference to his TANG service, but I couldn't. Finding Kerry speeches which reference his service (http://www.4president.org/speeches/johnkerry2004announcement.htm) wasn't difficult for me, though.

[Random]

He brought up his TANG time in the 2004 campaign to counteract the fact Kerry served in Vietnam

No, Bush avoided his TANG issues like the plague. His counter for John Kerry’s service was the Swift Boat Vets for Bald Faced Lying and a compliant media.

[SteveGrenard]

For yet another chuckle this is worth a read ....



....... Cheney, "emboldened" by getting away with that, now figures violating the laws of physics is not that big a stretch.

"The problem," said one U.S. constitutional expert, "is that our forefathers never envisaged a situation where the vice-president would feel that he could ignore the basic laws of physics.

"So, he can float around all over the place and it would appear there's not a damn thing we can do about it."

Cheney's disregard for gravity started to become apparent a few years ago, when then-British prime minister Tony Blair, during a visit to the Oval Office for what he thought was a private meeting with President George W. Bush, happened to glance upward and saw the vice-president with his back pressed to the ceiling.

More on this at:

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/230604

[Oakheart]

These guys and their lawyers will try anything except following the law of the constitution.

G