Hello world!
7 years ago
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Speaking of "Authoritarian Cultism" . . .
On contemporary contrasts between Liberals and Conservatives. "Fights on the Right" -- The Corner on National Review Online.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Heard the latest?
Cheney doesn't have enough power or secrecy so he's withdrawing from the Executive Branch of the federal government. Now we have 4 branches: the executive, legislative, judicial, and the "secret Cheney branch". Under the executive order - the Presidential Records Act, executive branch offices are required to give the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives the data on how much material their office has classified and declassified. Cheney's office provided the information in 2001 and 2002, then stopped.
What do think Ned? Shall we bow to his authority? Does he have the right to avoid oversight?
Isn't it great that we can find our own president's lies and the VP's efforts to avoid accountability on an official US government website? We're living in a great country.
"Government" websites--in the hands of Democrats tend toward Party organs . . . but I think that he should be held to account for violating the law, if that's what he's doing . . . and if what he's doing is as unprecedented as the mouth-breathing Left would make us think . . .
But are these the same National Archives folks who watched as Sandy Berger stole and later destroyed documents from the Clinton Administration? Maybe questions of security are legitimate?
But I'm reading the link you provided . . . I'll let you know what I think.
Cheney claims the executive privilege of privacy but not of oversight. Interesting stuff, it inspired a blog, I think it's a good summary. Law is more your area than mine but it reminds me of the famous Nixon quote, "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" The pattern is undeniable. I think with all of the administration's actions combined - signing statements, attorney firings, deleted emails, efforts to avoid accountability, domestic spying, torture, etc... it certainly constitutes abuse of power and a constitutional crisis not seen since Nixon. . . in MHO.
NYT has a major story on this Fri.
"The pattern is undeniable."
I do think someone's view of the "facts" and the "pattern" is affected by that person's prejudices.
"I think with all of the administration's actions combined - signing statements [this is a tempest in a teapot--merely a new development by this administration to add to the "legislative record" on a bill; it's "creative" something typically admired by those with Liberal jurisprudential views], attorney firings [there's no evidence that these were done to protect Republicans under investigation--certainly some political considerations, but Clinton did that too . . . it's not unprecedented and it is logical to want USAs that share your values and priorities], deleted emails [I don't know what to think about this, but it is no more of a "pattern" than were such things in the Clinton era], efforts to avoid accountability [vague and "accountability" is surely a newfound value by a party too long in the minority], domestic spying [suspected terrorists in other countries don't have Constitutional protections; it's now post-9/11], torture [see above], etc... it certainly constitutes abuse of power and a constitutional crisis not seen since Nixon. . . in MHO.
Nixon's actions weren't that bad or exceptional or unprecedented. He just got caught trying to cover up not atypical campaign skulduggery. It was still wrong, but the righteous indignation from moral relativists is kind of peculiar.
In sum, I don't think the Republic is on the brink of crumbling. I think that Cheney has probably pushed back too hard on the political gamesmanship taken to an all new level in the years following Bush winning a squeaker in 2000. There's no question that Waxman et al will use (and abuse, I think) their authority to try to win the next election.
I don't think Bill Clinton was evil (though he's kind of scummy) . . . I just think he's wrong on policy. Unfortunately, demonization and demagoguery are so often effective that people can't resist the temptation to engage in them.
So long for now. I'll be offline until Saturday night.
Cheney - not an entity under the executive branch?
Constitution is rather clear on this. Article 2, 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..."
Now Bush also says the oversight rules on classified material don't apply to him either, even though his own executive order reads: "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government"
Bush and cheney are refusing to abide by "our democratic principles" - their own rules. If that isn't abuse of power, I don't know what is.
"If the president and the vice president don't take their own rules seriously, who else should? If they get a blank check, it's a recipe for disaster. If there are all these great safeguards in place, then where are the [missing] e-mails?"
-- Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive
Even many conservative bloggers agree -
"Arguing that the VP belongs to the legislative branch either looks like desperation or a Constitutional illiteracy that should disturb everyone, not just Democrats." - Captains Quarters
As a representative RRWA, how are you going to give a pass on this one?
I wasn't commenting on the "legislative" v. "Executive" issue--in fact, I'm still not sure what that means . . . the article you linked to (as far as I can see) didn't relate to Cheney "withdrawing from the Executive branch," so my apologies for missing your point on that. It is a positive thing to see that you know how to find a copy of the Constitution when it suits you.
But is sure sounds like some seriously creative lawyering . . . the kind of stuff that Liberals are surely capable of when they need to justify or rationalize an action. I can't say whether I agree with his argument or not--I haven't heard it (and I'm not sure I'm worried enough about him taking over the world and sending all the William-types to gulags to go hunting for it). But it is interesting that you seem to believe an executive order is somehow sacrosanct; if Bush issued it, he certainly has authority to interpret it and even rescind it if he likes, it seems to me. But I haven't read anything on that (I guess I need to go trolling over at Kos to get up to speed at what is REALLY happening in the world, huh?
Don't think you'll need to look to Kos.
NYT
CNN
Part 1 of a series on Cheney tomorrow in the Sunday Washington Post where they talk about his destruction of secret service logs and other shady ways he subverts democratic principles of checks and balances.
LATimes
--------
"Don't need no shadow man, runnin' the government."
- Neil Young, Living with War CD
"Nixon's actions weren't that bad or exceptional or unprecedented. He just got caught trying to cover up not atypical campaign skulduggery."
BTW, I agree with you here. Nixon was a fine president, compared with what we've got now.
Ironically, I disagree, because I don't think Nixon was a good president . . . not very Conservative and rather Statist.
Reading the links you gave, I'm pretty good at this stuff; a quote from the LATimes: The White House disagrees, Fratto said.
"We don't dispute that the ISOO has a different opinion. But let's be very clear: This executive order was issued by the president, and he knows what his intentions were," Fratto said. "He is in compliance with his executive order."br/>
>Hey, do you think it was the Office of the Pres. or VP that has been seditiously leaking classified stuff to the NYTimes?
The part-Legislative branch defense is lame, I'll agree . . . but it's his Executive Order, not Waxman's or a statute. MAYBE he's being hypocritical or double-minded, but I'm not afeared.
I'll get around to reading the other articles . . .
The NYTimes nicely carries Waxman's water in trying to make the Plame affair look like an issue of the VP's office not being secure. The State Dept. was at "fault" if anyone was, but they manage to cram "secret" "convicted" "Libby" "indicted" "evil" all in one sentence.
"He noted that I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president’s former chief of staff, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury and the F.B.I. during an investigation of the leak of classified information — the secret status of Valerie Wilson, the wife of a Bush administration critic, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer."
Another example of Liberal flackery--
"Mr. Cheney’s penchant for secrecy has long been a striking feature of the Bush administration, beginning with his fight to keep confidential the identities of the energy industry officials who advised his task force on national energy policy in 2001. Mr. Cheney took that dispute to the Supreme Court and won."
And perhaps calling Cheney secretive for his actions in the post-FL2000 climate is akin to calling Paris Hilton's judge draconian.
Its a sham. Cheney knows Gonzalez won't investigate the matter.
National Archives official J. William Leonard asked Gonzales to have the Justice Dept' Office of Legal Council investigate. DoJ officials said last week that the matter has been 'under review' for five months. But it appears that’s not the case.
From thinkprogress:
[O]n June 4, an Office of Legal Council lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter... Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable" — especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard’s letter had generated no "substantive work product."
Cronyism has it's perks, like subverting the constitution and 30 years of oversight precendent.
House oversight chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) now says he will investigate Gonzales’ handling of the issue.
Perhaps. And things'll sure change when Hillary's in office . . . her and her moral relativist legions.
Part II of the Post series is out
Man, no wonder Powell and Rice hate him. What a sneaky manipulating guy. Spying on WH staff, destroying records, bypassing procedures. Unbelieveable.
Post a Comment