Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NOT one of those is from the Vice President nor even his staff. Again I repeat, provide me a SOURCE document where the Vice President or his staff make the claim they are NOT part of the Executive branch.
Sorry let me just get Dick on the phone, because
The
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHTAND GOVERNMENT REFORM
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621093952.pdf
Isnt a Valid enough source for the ol' RGS.
Well it wasn't good enough for you when the repubs were churning out information on Clinton, now was it?
Provide a source document or admit your full of shit.
Well it wasn't good enough for you when the repubs were churning out information on Clinton, now was it?
Provide a source document or admit your full of shit.
2004, the Archives notified your office that it would conduct an on-site inspection ofthe Office of the Vice President, as authorized by the executive order.
According to the National Archives, your staff blocked this inspection. Your office informed the Archives that it was not bound by the executive order applicable to all other executive branch entities and therefore would not permit the Archives to conduct an inspection of the procedures and facilities used by the Office of the Vice President to safeguard classified national security information.
In 2001 and2002, your office had provided the National Archives with data on its classification and declassification activities, as required by the executive order. Your office ceased to provide this information in 2003, and has refused to provide it in each year since.
No rationale for this change in policy was provided to the Archives at that time. In June 2006, the Director of the lnformation Security Oversight Office, J. William Leonard, wrote to your Chief of Staff, David Addington, to contest your claim that the Office of the Vice President is not subject to the President's executive order. According to Mr. Leonard's letter, 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."'
Sorry let me just get Dick on the phone, because
The
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHTAND GOVERNMENT REFORM
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621093952.pdf
Isnt a Valid enough source for the ol' RGS.
Dont you think that you are stretching it a bit? An official government document from a government agency is good enough for me. It is not like an anti-Bush smear blog posted it. What would be a good enough source? A letter signed by Cheney? What are you looking for?
Just to be clear, an argument may be made that he's 'acting like he's not part of the executive branch,' much like Ms. Pelosi was acting like she was elected to the executive branch, not a leadership role in the Congress, when she began speaking regarding US or Israeli policies.
Her trip was approved by the admin
Pelosi stands her ground on Syria trip
By Zeina Karam, Associated Press | April 3, 2007
BEIRUT -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday shrugged off White House criticism of her impending visit to Damascus, saying she had "great hope" for reviving US relations with Syria and changing its behavior.
Speaking hours after arriving in Lebanon, Pelosi indicated that the Bush administration was singling out her trip to Syria while ignoring recent visits by Republican members of Congress.
"It's interesting because three of our colleagues, who are all Republicans, were in Syria yesterday and I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," Pelosi said, referring to the meeting that Representatives Frank Wolf, Joe Pitts, and Robert Aderholt had with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Sunday.
"I think that it was an excellent idea for them to go," said Pelosi, who is to meet with Syrian leaders tomorrow. "And I think it's an excellent idea for us to go, as well."
In Washington yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stressed that the Bush administration objected to all visits to Syria.
"We ask that people not go on these trips," she said. "We discourage it. Full stop."
The State Department later said that Pelosi was briefed by the Bush administration for her trip, but spokesman Sean McCormack said that did not represent an endorsement of the visit...
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
....
They never told her or the republicans the day before her that they were not allowed to go.
Why is it you only care what Nancy did?
Why are you not complaining about the others?
What she did is legal , what Cheney is doing is not.
He is in fact a member of the executive branch.
Do you agree the vice president is executive branch?
What she did is legal , what Cheney is doing is not.
He is in fact a member of the executive branch.
Do you agree the vice president is executive branch?
Right you are. I went looking for some brouhaha from the press, not there. Then I read the first post again:What he is doing is not illegal.
What he is doing is manipulating the system.
Government officials and Corporate execs are very good at finding the loopholes and "Gray" areas and using them to their advantage.
Its dirty. but its not illegal, and that is why RGS and RSR will defend the powerful elites, because what they do is often not "Technically" wrong simply because they found a hole and walked through it before someone fixed it.
...In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman Waxman writes: "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions. ... t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that apply to all other executive branch officials."
A fact sheet prepared by Chairman Waxman describes other instances in which the Vice President's office has sought to avoid oversight and accountability.
A specific claim has been made, that Cheney or his Staff claim they are not part of the Executive branch. No one can actually provide ANY evidence at all any such claim was made. So yes, either a letter from Cheney, a memo or note. Or something directly from his Staff.
All I see is that Cheney and staff do not want to provide names to a source book they are not required to participate in, that he feels his office is not subject or is exempt from a specific Executive order and so on.
For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his offices handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice presidents office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.
The Information Security Oversight Office, a unit of the National Archives, appealed the issue to the Justice Department, which has not yet ruled on the matter.
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheneys effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committees Web site.
Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxmans letter.
The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staffs classification of internal documents, the vice presidents office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.
But the National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the archives division that oversees classification and declassification.
I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy, Mr. Waxman said in an interview. But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that hes not part of the executive branch, so he doesnt have to comply.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Megan McGinn, said, Were confident that were conducting the office properly under the law. She declined to elaborate.
Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheneys view said that he and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vice presidents office because it had a legislative as well as an executive status in the Constitution. Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, routinely comply with the oversight requirements, according to Mr. Waxmans office and outside experts.
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said last night, The White House complies with the executive order, including the National Security Council.
The dispute is far from the first to pit Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington against outsiders seeking information, usually members of Congress or advocacy groups. Their position is generally based on strong assertions of presidential power and the importance of confidentiality, which Mr. Cheney has often argued was eroded by post-Watergate laws and the prying press.
Mr. Waxman asserted in his letter and the interview that Mr. Cheneys office should take the efforts of the National Archives especially seriously because it has had problems protecting secrets.
