Senate panel moves to cut off Cheney's funding

[ReillyT]

I see the same old "repeat the lie enough" is in play here.

Cheney NEVER said he was not part of the Executive branch. Provide source documents that he did.

What has been claimed is his office is NOT AN AGENCY as covered under the executive order. But hey don't let facts get in the way of a good lie.

Actually, you are pretty much wrong. Cheney first argued that the Executive Order did not apply to him because his was not an "Executive Office," due to the legislative functions of his office. The National Archives responded on two occasions, informing the OVP that they were interpreting this to mean that he did not consider the OVP as part of the Executive Branch, as defined by the order. The OVP did not respond.

Here are many cites. http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/waxman_questions_legality_of_c.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2169209/entry/2169210/ (This cite is best because it provides the actual source documents of correspondence from the NA to the OVP, one of which relays the prior discussions on the topic).

Only after this became a matter in the press did Cheney alter the rationale for preventing the NA audit to the argument that the OVP was not an agency within the meaning of the order. See actual June 26 letter from OVP at Slate site above.

However, even the argument that the OVP is not an Executive Agency is silly, as the Exec. Order states the definition of "Agency" as the following: "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Anyway, most importantly, Dickhead, if I was wrong about Cheney's rationale (which apparently, I was not), it would have been because I made a mistake, not because I am a liar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, you are pretty much wrong. Cheney first argued that the Executive Order did not apply to him because his was not an "Executive Office," due to the legislative functions of his office. The National Archives responded on two occasions, informing the OVP that they were interpreting this to mean that he did not consider the OVP as part of the Executive Branch, as defined by the order. The OVP did not respond.

Here are many cites. http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/waxman_questions_legality_of_c.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2169209/entry/2169210/ (This cite is best because it provides the actual source documents of correspondence from the NA to the OVP, one of which relays the prior discussions on the topic).

Only after this became a matter in the press did Cheney alter the rationale for preventing the NA audit to the argument that the OVP was not an agency within the meaning of the order. See actual June 26 letter from OVP at Slate site above.

However, even the argument that the OVP is not an Executive Agency is silly, as the Exec. Order states the definition of "Agency" as the following: "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Anyway, most importantly, Dickhead, if I was wrong about Cheney's rationale (which apparently, I was not), it would have been because I made a mistake, not because I am a liar.

Ahh but according to maineman, any "mistake" is still a LIE. or weren't you here for his little tirade on how Bush LIED about Iraq?

And if one of your own can call Bush a liar for telling us what he believed to be true, what the ENTIRE intelligence communtiy of the world BELIEVED to be true, then your little tirade here would qualify under your own buds definition.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, you are pretty much wrong. Cheney first argued that the Executive Order did not apply to him because his was not an "Executive Office," due to the legislative functions of his office. The National Archives responded on two occasions, informing the OVP that they were interpreting this to mean that he did not consider the OVP as part of the Executive Branch, as defined by the order. The OVP did not respond.

Here are many cites. http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2007/06/waxman_questions_legality_of_c.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2169209/entry/2169210/ (This cite is best because it provides the actual source documents of correspondence from the NA to the OVP, one of which relays the prior discussions on the topic).

Only after this became a matter in the press did Cheney alter the rationale for preventing the NA audit to the argument that the OVP was not an agency within the meaning of the order. See actual June 26 letter from OVP at Slate site above.

However, even the argument that the OVP is not an Executive Agency is silly, as the Exec. Order states the definition of "Agency" as the following: "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

Anyway, most importantly, Dickhead, if I was wrong about Cheney's rationale (which apparently, I was not), it would have been because I made a mistake, not because I am a liar.

Further the ONLY one of your three links ( middle one doesn't work) that even comes close to a source is the third and IT clearly states that the spokesperson said Cheney's office was NOT an AGENCY.

 

[ReillyT]

Further the ONLY one of your three links ( middle one doesn't work) that even comes close to a source is the third and IT clearly states that the spokesperson said Cheney's office was NOT an AGENCY.

It does say that, in the June 26th letter, just as I indicated in my post. This was the second rationale, after the media firestorm. The prior rationale is discussed in the letter from the NA to the OVP, and in the letter to Alberto Gonzalez (both contained in the third cite). In addition, prior to that June 26th letter, in a May 2006 statement by Lee Anne McBride to the Chicago Tribune, Cheney's spokeswoman, stated "This has been thoroughly reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the Office of the Vice President], which has both legislative and executive functions." Chicago Tribune of May 27, 2006.

 

[ReillyT]

Ahh but according to maineman, any "mistake" is still a LIE. or weren't you here for his little tirade on how Bush LIED about Iraq?

And if one of your own can call Bush a liar for telling us what he believed to be true, what the ENTIRE intelligence communtiy of the world BELIEVED to be true, then your little tirade here would qualify under your own buds definition.

Coincidentally, I wasn't here for maineman's discussion, and I don't know maineman. Here is a news flash for you. Maineman and I are separate people. Don't attribute what he say to me, and don't attribute what I say to him. It is a pretty simple concept, and by golly little guy, I think you can handle it.

 

[ReillyT]

By the way, with respect to the executive order controversy, as stated in my first post, I really don't believe that it is a big deal. I think that the democrats should just drop it. Bush could always revise the order if he so desired anyway.

 

[Gunny]

By the way, with respect to the executive order controversy, as stated in my first post, I really don't believe that it is a big deal. I think that the democrats should just drop it. Bush could always revise the order if he so desired anyway.

That depends. If indeed, a document is missing, the seriousness would be determined by the classification. Cheney circumventing accountability is only making himself look bad.

 

[maineman]

Ahh but according to maineman, any "mistake" is still a LIE. or weren't you here for his little tirade on how Bush LIED about Iraq?

And if one of your own can call Bush a liar for telling us what he believed to be true, what the ENTIRE intelligence communtiy of the world BELIEVED to be true, then your little tirade here would qualify under your own buds definition.

did you ever say that there was no doubt that Cheney had not claimed he was immune from the statute?

If you had, of course, that would have been a lie.... as it is, you were just mistaken.... which you are often, it would seem.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It does say that, in the June 26th letter, just as I indicated in my post. This was the second rationale, after the media firestorm. The prior rationale is discussed in the letter from the NA to the OVP, and in the letter to Alberto Gonzalez (both contained in the third cite). In addition, prior to that June 26th letter, in a May 2006 statement by Lee Anne McBride to the Chicago Tribune, Cheney's spokeswoman, stated "This has been thoroughly reviewed and it's been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the Office of the Vice President], which has both legislative and executive functions." Chicago Tribune of May 27, 2006.

Well good, you do realize that the Vice President DOES have legislative and Executive powers? This does not help you, except in Bizarro world.

 

[Mr.Conley]

He decided he wasn't required. That he did before and now doesn't is not somehow proof of anything.

I am still waiting ( and have been for weeks) for a SOURCE document that has Cheney making the claim the left keeps saying he made.

The Executive Order instructs ALL departments within the executive branch to comply with the directive. Cheney's office is insisting that because his office is somehow now magically not an office within the executive branch he therefore does not need to comply with the directive.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Executive Order instructs ALL departments within the executive branch to comply with the directive. Cheney's office is insisting that because his office is somehow now magically not an office within the executive branch he therefore does not need to comply with the directive.

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

Agency. not office.

Further the President is the source of all Presidential orders and such. And lets recall what HE has said shall we?

 

[red states rule]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to cut off funding for Vice President Dick Cheney's office in a continuing battle over whether he must comply with national security disclosure rules.

A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president's budget until Cheney's office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.

At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.

Cheney's office, with backing from the White House, argues that the offices of the president and vice president are exempt from the order because they are not executive branch "agencies."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/democrats.cheney.ap/index.html

I think that Cheney is in the wrong here, and that the argument that he is not part of the executive branch just plain silly. Nonetheless, this seems like a grade school playground move. I don't see how it will help anything, and I wish the Senate would drop this particular issue.

and Dems wonder why there poll numbers continue to drop

 

[red states rule]

yay, lets give the libs more information, so the terrorists can read about it in the new york times.

and the Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, and see it on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN

 

[ReillyT]

Further the President is the source of all Presidential orders and such. And lets recall what HE has said shall we?

However, if you are a strict constructionist, the President's explanation of his intent should be disregarded in light of the clear language of the order.

 

[jillian]

I think that Cheney is in the wrong here, and that the argument that he is not part of the executive branch just plain silly. Nonetheless, this seems like a grade school playground move. I don't see how it will help anything, and I wish the Senate would drop this particular issue.

It's an absolutely bizarre and duplicitous claim. On one hand he says he's not of the executive branch (even though the vice presidency is created as part of the executive branch) so he's not subject to scrutiny under mandates applying to the executive branch. On the other hand, he says he's not part of the legislative branch, so he doesn't have to answer to congress.

Methinks he doesn't like people knowing what he's doing...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's an absolutely bizarre and duplicitous claim. On one hand he says he's not of the executive branch (even though the vice presidency is created as part of the executive branch) so he's not subject to scrutiny under mandates applying to the executive branch. On the other hand, he says he's not part of the legislative branch, so he doesn't have to answer to congress.

Methinks he doesn't like people knowing what he's doing...

Again he NEVER said he was not part of the Executive Branch, provide a source for any such claim. The claim is his office is NOT an Agency.

 

[jillian]

Again he NEVER said he was not part of the Executive Branch, provide a source for any such claim. The claim is his office is NOT an Agency.

Actually he did. You do love revisionist history, don't you?

Vice President Cheney's recent declaration that he is not part of the executive branch has prompted hard questions, and nobody in the White House has a good answer for why Cheney -- who hovered near Bush's desk while the president spoke -- had turned himself into a fourth branch of government.

The explanatory task fell to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, whose skin reddened around her neck and collar as she pleaded ignorance during the daily briefing: "I'm not a legal scholar. . . . I'm not opining on his argument that his office is making. . . . I don't know why he made the arguments that he did."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501565.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting story, BUT no actual source document. I am still waiting for the actual source , a video, a letter, a memo, I might even accept a DIRECT quote from Cheney from a reputable source.

 

[Edward]

He decided he wasn't required. That he did before and now doesn't is not somehow proof of anything.

I am still waiting ( and have been for weeks) for a SOURCE document that has Cheney making the claim the left keeps saying he made.

The source has already been provided to you. Just because you do not want to accept that source does not mean that it has not been provided on more than one occasion.

 

[ReillyT]

Interesting story, BUT no actual source document. I am still waiting for the actual source , a video, a letter, a memo, I might even accept a DIRECT quote from Cheney from a reputable source.

You are completely disingenuous. We had this discussion earlier in the thread and I provided cites to numerous sources.

* There was the May 2006 statement by Cheney's spokesperson to the Chicago Tribune.

*There were the two letters from the National Archives to both Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez detailing the disagreement between the parties, and restating the OVP's position that it was an an executive office. [I actually provided you with a link to pdfs of the actual documents]

Cheney did eventually fall back on the claim that his office was an agency, but only in late June after the media picked up the story. And this 1) doesn't negate an earlier claim that his office is not an executive office; and 2) is completely and utterly baseless in light of the wording of the executive order [to which, I also provided a link].

For your information, Cheney has even pretty much abandoned the claim that he is not an agency under the order, and is saying that the intent of the order was always to include his office within that of the Office of the President, whether the order actually says this or not.

This is the second or third time in the last few days where I have seen you continue to make claims or deny the claims of others, irrespective of what sources they provide you, or what sources you appear unable to provide. It is very frustrating, and robs you of the opportunity to be taken seriously. I hope that you will stop.