The abuses of the Bush administration come from fundamental sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_secrecy_8;_ylt=AiLsgpVhNalLqY0UIu1l_jIL1vAI
"House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and criticized him for refusing to cooperate with the agency."
"Your decision to except your office from the president's order is problematic because it could place national security secrets at risk," Waxman wrote in a letter to Cheney on Thursday.
"Cheney's office provided the information in 2001 and 2002, then stopped. Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, said Cheney's office claims it need not comply with the executive order because it is not an 'entity within the executive branch.'"
=============
That's interesting logic. The office of the Vice President is not an office within the Executive Branch? That's an outright falsehood.
Why does the VP of the US refuse to reveal what he has been doing in OUR government and justify his actions with what any objective observer has to conlude is a lie?
In an unrelated story, Bush is keen to close Gitmo -- with only Cheney and Gonzales (and formerly Rumsfeld) opposed. So what is the picture of who is running this administrtion? Can Bush not get rid of his discredited cronies simply because he is too weak to stand on his own?
Originally posted by spruce112358Waxman decries too much if you ask me. This one I'm inclined to agree on. The only thing I can think of is that he is going to claim that he's congressional. (Senate)
The abuses of the Bush administration come from fundamental sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_secrecy_8;_ylt=AiLsgpVhNalLqY0UIu1l_jIL1vAI
"House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and critici ...[text shortened]... rid of his discredited cronies simply because he is too weak to stand on his own?
A quick note to you, spruce. Have you ever thought about getting a blog?
Originally posted by spruce112358Oh, and Cheney isn't the reason Bush hasn't closed Gitmo. Gotta have another place to hold Jihadis and I'm sure he would prefer that they not be in the country. If he puts them in one of the 50 states, I think it would make the rights issue all the more sticky. (I think it would bring more attention to the issue)
The abuses of the Bush administration come from fundamental sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_secrecy_8;_ylt=AiLsgpVhNalLqY0UIu1l_jIL1vAI
"House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and critici ...[text shortened]... rid of his discredited cronies simply because he is too weak to stand on his own?
Originally posted by spruce112358Waxman... what a tool.
The abuses of the Bush administration come from fundamental sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_secrecy_8;_ylt=AiLsgpVhNalLqY0UIu1l_jIL1vAI
"House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and critici ...[text shortened]... rid of his discredited cronies simply because he is too weak to stand on his own?
Originally posted by MerkGood point -- forgot about that. An incomplete separation of the powers -- if someone says "the Senate" he says, "No, I'm in the Executive," and vice-versa. Ugh! It gives the VP more power -- but too sneaky, though.
Waxman decries too much if you ask me. This one I'm inclined to agree on. The only thing I can think of is that he is going to claim that he's congressional. (Senate)
A quick note to you, spruce. Have you ever thought about getting a blog?
Once there were two brothers. One went away to sea and the other became Vice President. Neither was ever heard from again.