Comments (57)

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 26, 2007 11:07 AM:

Actually, no one really cares what Perino or anyone else in the White House has to say. Republicans of all stripes are methodically breaking ranks from the Bush crime family. The ship is going down, and no one but a fool will go down with it.

Redshift wrote on June 26, 2007 11:07 AM:

The fundamental argument from both Cheney and Bush is "the rules don't apply to me." Especially when it concerns their ability to keep secret everything from the time when they are proven to have mishandled classified information. All the rest is just BS.

Impeach now.

C 92 wrote on June 26, 2007 11:14 AM:

As many, many commenters have pointed out the cover for so-called "executive privilege" arguments and exemptions becomes pretty thin when those seeking coverage claim they aren't in fact "executive."

Since Cheney is taking shelter behind the fact that he is not an "agency" or "department" by strict definition, it's time to find a legitimate single primary source (Constitution) where he is described as "excutive" yet not attached to the Executive Branch.

It's not going to be up to the Roberts court to decide this one.

melior wrote on June 26, 2007 11:16 AM:

It's more than improvisatory, it's outright Calvinball.

gcs wrote on June 26, 2007 11:35 AM:

Come on. This is the legal equivalent of covering your retreat with tacks or marbles in an effort to slow your pursuers, nothing more and nothing less. Stopping to even consider this absurd bullshit is a sickening disgrace and beneath us as a nation.

Peter Principle wrote on June 26, 2007 11:37 AM:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that in 2005, ISOO investigators came to the West Wing to inspect senior Bush aides' handling of classified information, only to be turned away

The ISOO inspectors might have inquired into the handling of White House staff email, and Rove and Company definitely didn't want that turd to get out of the sewer pipe.

John Kirk wrote on June 26, 2007 11:51 AM:

watched catch 22 again last night and the movie, for all of the obvious reasons, has particular resonance not the least of which is the massive number of well known character actors often stuck in unlikely roles. Unwittingly or not the administration owes so much to works such as Catch 22 and 1984 which anticipate not only their actions but the essence of their whole destructive approach.

Jane wrote on June 26, 2007 11:53 AM:

I'm going to exempt myself but I'm not going totell anyone else that I have done so until they try and investigate.

Yeah, right.

The Bush record on handling classified information is not stellar.

If the Dems had done what Bush has done, the Rethugs would have yelled to high heaven.

As it is, so far, silence.

david wrote on June 26, 2007 12:00 PM:

what are you all complaining about? dana's cute as hell so get off her back... lets not drive her to 'spend more time with her family'.

bleh wrote on June 26, 2007 12:02 PM:

I agree that a lot of it is smokescreen, but I think some of it is also genuine contempt, albeit calculatedly displayed.

Bush has never known a life outside of tremendous privilege, and Cheney is perfectly happy to keep him and his royal attitude out front deflecting or delaying criticism while the real business goes on.

Eventually it will all crumble -- you almost gotta feel sorry for Bush -- but by then the smart money will have cashed out.

KWM wrote on June 26, 2007 12:04 PM:

At the risk of taking a cheap shot, it should be noted that, in fact, Saddam Hussein gave significantly greater access to UNMOVIC weapons inspectors in 2002 than the Bush/Cheney gang has apparently given the ISOO since then.

mo2 wrote on June 26, 2007 12:06 PM:

Darth Cheney is an entity. He is a thing that comes into possession of classified information.

en·ti·ty [en-ti-tee] –noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing

The spirit of the Executive Order as a whole is that any time the Vice President is acting "in the performance of executive duties" (such as when declassifying) then he is part of the Executive Branch. I don't see how they can argue that the VP is acting as part of the Senate when handling information that Senators are not privy to.

There are people dying - if the next step is taking it the the Supreme Court then start the procedure today. Get this train moving.

jolly ranchero wrote on June 26, 2007 12:06 PM:

It will be difficult to impeach them since they're no longer in the executive branch.

Just watch--that'll be their legal argument.

Rick Rettberg, Esq. wrote on June 26, 2007 12:10 PM:

Congress is going to have to nail one of them to the wall, or else all we're going to talk about for the next 2 years is the President's and the Vice President's contempt for law. Terrible precedent.

dee illuminati wrote on June 26, 2007 12:34 PM:

"Basically, he gave the vice president power to automatically declassify information; it became an issue in the Valerie Plame leak case" the retroactive declasification and then a non-reporting of it means that the OVP is stating that he can tell anybody anything and it is legal. That is not the case. In effect the OVP is saying I can share any national security information with whom anybody I want, and then after the fact it is not classified.

slb wrote on June 26, 2007 12:39 PM:

I guess these guys weren't kidding when they said they were not part of the reality-based community...

slb wrote on June 26, 2007 12:41 PM:

I guess these guys weren't kidding when they said they were not part of the reality-based community...

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 12:46 PM:

I would encourage TPM readers to review 32 CFR 2800 -- Requirements on OVP to Comply with Executive Orders and Security Guidelines
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

All this talk about whether the EO "does" or "does not" apply; or whether OVP "is" or "is not" in the Exeuctive Branch are meaningless.

OVP shall comly with 32 CFR 2800. Also review Statement on Accounting Standard 74, which applies to compliance audits of all Executive Branch entities.

Time for the auditors' working papers, in compliance with SAS74, to show what OVP did or did not do to allow the auditors to conduct a 32 CFR 2800 compliance audit.

We know the answer: OVP did not permit an audit, in contravention to 32 CFR 2800 wiich compels compliance under pentalty of prosecution. 32 CFR 2800 also includes, as authority an Executive Order, which OVP has not explained away.

Congressman Waxman today sent a letter to WH Counsel in re SEcurity Compliance. In the notes (bottom) on page 4of8 of Waxman's letter there is a reference to 32 CFR section 2001, not 32 CFR 2800 which applies to OVP.

Waxman Sent A Letter:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070626110513.pdf

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 12:47 PM:

[ June 26, 2007 12:46 PM ]

Here's the link

32 CFR 2800: Requirements on OVP to Comply with Executive Orders and Security Guidelines
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

tockeyhockey wrote on June 26, 2007 12:51 PM:

the saddest thing about this is that he'll get away with it, just like he's gotten away with everything else he's done in these last 7 years.

no one stands up to him.

the media is in bush's pocket. the democrats don't have the will to fight. and, most depressing of all, the general population does not give a damn about this stuff.

so here we are, living in a de facto dictatorship.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 12:56 PM:

If you think that SAS74 isn't serious, auditors have been disciplined for failing to document their SAS74 findings, as would apply in their review of 32 CFR 2800.

Here's a sample disciplineary report in re SAS74:
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/cpaltr/disciplinary_actions/disc2004.htm

If OVP will not cooperate with a 32 CFR 2800 review, time for Waxman to get the auditor working papers which showed what effort was done to do the compliance audit, in re SAS74.

This is evidence of illegal activity, and cannot be shielded by a claim of "national security". ORCON EOs prohibit classification of illegal activity. Also note in the 32 CFR 2800 the many references to Executive Orders in the opening "authority".

Would encourage some discussion on TPM of what will be done to leverage 32 CFR 2800 to compel OVP to reply to SAS74/32 CFR 2800 requirements.

SAS74 Sanctions wrote on June 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

Here's a sample auditor disciplinary report in re SAS74, which would apply to this case in re OVP
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/cpaltr/disciplinary_actions/disc2004.htm

IF OVP has not permitted a 32 CFR 2800 compliance audit, as required under SAS74, there must be auditor working papers. If no papers, that auditor has a problem. [See the link]

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:00 PM:

Auditors can be sanctioned if they do not show the full review of the standard, in this case 32 CFR 2800.

Auditors have been discipliend for not fully comlying with SAS74. if Cheney won't comply with 32 CFR 2800, or permit an audit, then time for the auditor working papers to get revivewed. Evidence of illegal activity cannot be lawfully classified. See "ORCON" rules.

pj in jesusland wrote on June 26, 2007 1:01 PM:

Cheney knows he's boxed in and in violation of the law.

These legal rationalizations are just an attempt to delay criminal charges. This is the worst abuse of executive power since Nixon.

OVP thinks that because the GOP took us down the impeachment trail in the 1990s that the Dems won't have the stomach for a Senate trial over constitutional violations that really matter. But Cheney's snide arrogance won't hold off a legitimate investigation, and that's what is clearly called for here.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:10 PM:

Google this [ Compliance Auditing Considerations in Audits of Governmental Entities ] and you'll see the problem Cheney has with funding, audit compliance, 32 CFR 2800, and SAS 74.

Cheney-OVP Counsel have illegally blocked a Federally required compliance audit, which must be done on 32 CFR 2800 per SAS74. Without this compliance audit, OVP cannot demonstrate it is able to accept, create, or review any classified information.

OVP refusal to submit to this compliance audit means OVP is no longer able to perform its Federal mandate under the Code of Federal Regulations. OVP is no longer able to show it is able to effectively manage funds, oversee any operations.

This is about the -known- activities per 32 CFR 2800. Adverse inferences, when information has been withheld, may be made about the "other" programs OVP runs in re secret activiites.

In light of the adverse inferences following SAS74, and OVP blocking 32 CFR 2800 compliance audits, all OVP-connected programs, intelligence agencies, and Special Access Programs are similarly-reasonably concluded to be illegally managed.

Until the OVP reforms, they cannot demonstrate they are effectively managing any Federal Funds. Shutting down funding to OVP is warranted, appropriate, prudent, and required. Anything else, would condone abuse of the auditing system, and illegal efforts to obstruct a Federally mandated compliance audit of OVP in re 32 CFR 2800, as required by Generally Accepted Auditing Standards [GAAS].

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:15 PM:

Google this [ Compliance Auditing Considerations in Audits of Governmental Entities ] and you'll see the problem Cheney has with funding, audit compliance, 32 CFR 2800, and SAS 74.

Cheney-OVP Counsel have illegally blocked a Federally required compliance audit, which must be done on 32 CFR 2800 per SAS74. Without this compliance audit, OVP cannot demonstrate it is able to accept, create, or review any classified information.

OVP refusal to submit to this compliance audit means OVP is no longer able to perform its Federal mandate under the Code of Federal Regulations. OVP is no longer able to show it is able to effectively manage funds, oversee any operations.

This is about the -known- activities per 32 CFR 2800. Adverse inferences, when information has been withheld, may be made about the "other" programs OVP runs in re secret activiites.

In light of the adverse inferences following SAS74, and OVP blocking 32 CFR 2800 compliance audits, all OVP-connected programs, intelligence agencies, and Special Access Programs are similarly-reasonably concluded to be illegally managed.

Until the OVP reforms, they cannot demonstrate they are effectively managing any Federal Funds. Shutting down funding to OVP is warranted, appropriate, prudent, and required. Anything else, would condone abuse of the auditing system, and illegal efforts to obstruct a Federally mandated compliance audit of OVP in re 32 CFR 2800, as required by Generally Accepted Auditing Standards [GAAS].

mo2 wrote on June 26, 2007 1:19 PM:

June 26, 2007 12:34 PM -
So is part of the problem that in the Libby trial it was stated that Cheney had declassified the NIE so that Libby could share it with Judith Miller but when asked to show documentation of the declassification, he can't do it -- because it does not exist?

StephenH wrote on June 26, 2007 1:24 PM:

Cheney stopped cooperating with the ISOO in 2003, and so Bush started doing it in 2005. Typical. Proving once again that Bush is the follower and not a leader, and that both of them will always do everything they can to put themselves above the law.

JMOHR wrote on June 26, 2007 1:28 PM:

Please get off the technicalities and procedural issues. We will not have an impact that way. This is about the security of the United States. This must be the first point in every argument.

Look at the cost of failing to adhere to good security practices:
1. Exposure of classified information concerning US success in breaking Iranian code.
2. Exposing British security operation in Afghanistan and Britian prior to the conclusion of operations.
3. Exposing Plame and all those associated with the cover corporation providing her NOC employment cover.

We need to argue the actual harm and potential harm of an executive using classifications as a means to hide embarrassing information and declassifying information for political advantage. We need to emphasize that ISOO is not attempting to investigate. ISOO is attempting to audit security procedures which is necessary to avoid security breaches as the President should well know.

The real question that must lead the public discussion should be: WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT ENDANGER THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY THROUGH HIS CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS SECURITY?

This makes the matter clear. It is then the President who looks stupid trying to assert highly technical legal arguments and parsing words.

sms wrote on June 26, 2007 1:29 PM:

Really--how much more of this stuff are we going to stand for? Haven't these guys debased our democracy enough already?

JD wrote on June 26, 2007 1:30 PM:

There is nothing Cheney would like better than for us to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of his claims. Because the more time we spend on it, the less time there is for actual oversight of his office. This is a ploy to get the pundits talking about the constitution and separation of power instead of the shortcomings of his office. I'm sure he and Addington had a good laugh about it when they concocted the argument.

We should give this the attention it deserves... nada, or at least call it for what it is... a smoke screen.

Tom Simon wrote on June 26, 2007 1:34 PM:

JMOHR - excellent post!

GOP 08 wrote on June 26, 2007 1:42 PM:

Did Cheney do Jeff Gannon first too, or was that Bush's idea?

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on June 26, 2007 2:23 PM:

And the folly continues on! A couple of quotes from the Constitution and the VP, defending the secrecy of his Energy Task Force:

ARTICLE II:
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 (emphasis added) the Vice President, chosen for the same Term...

"[Cheney] said that a congressional probe into the workings of his energy task force "would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch."
from Dana Milbank in today's WP

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on June 26, 2007 2:25 PM:

And the folly continues on! A couple of quotes from the Constitution and the VP, defending the secrecy of his Energy Task Force:

ARTICLE II:
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 (emphasis added) the Vice President, chosen for the same Term...

"[Cheney] said that a congressional probe into the workings of his energy task force "would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch."
from Dana Milbank in today's WP

Brianm0122 wrote on June 26, 2007 2:35 PM:

It's nothing but legal and semantic gymnastics, meant to delay and distract...

Cut off funds to the OVP, send the classified information custodians over and remove the information. If the OVP doesn't meet the requirements for storing classified info, then someone needs to go secure it.

Hillbilly wrote on June 26, 2007 2:44 PM:

Hi. Would anyone care to shoot some holes in this question?

My question is if OVP is not granted executive authority under the Constitution, then doesn't his empowerment at the discretion of an individual President transform him into "other public Ministers and Consuls" as described in Article II, Section 2?

Not that he is no longer the VP, just that he is being empowered with an additional office.

Note that this would also place that potential delegation of what is essentially Cabinet level authority to being subject to Senate confirmation.

Any thoughts?

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 2:45 PM:

I am SICK of hearing, especially from mainstream media and also the wapo story

about how cheney's deputy of this and that ASSERTS
or how the white house POSITS
or how John Yoo ARGUES
or how Addington ADDUCES

try this on for size. Timothy McVeigh argues that he was only trying to add increased lighting to a dark and underlit area of the Murrow building. His detractors suspect that he went over the line. McVeigh asserts he was only trying to help.

that is about what we are getting: everyone pushes the WH position first, minimizes the actual CRIME or import, then reasserts the WH line in closing.
For 7 plus years. Now the first couple of years, I could understand the mainstream medias reluctance to say "Bumbling Idiot George W Buuusch gave a commencement speech today...." or "CokeSnortin GW attended a ribbon cutting ceremony on the East Lawn..." or "Vietnam Era Deserter Pres. Bush....."
or "Drunk Driving Prez flies F-18..."
Hell, Kato Kalin cannot be mentioned without saying he was OJ's houseboy. Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding cannot be mentioined without THE OTHER also being invoked. Pres. Clinton, while in office, could not be mentioned without a blue dress stain.

So why are we still sitting around letting these guys ASSERT and ARGUE their 300th malfeasant, criminal, treasonous act on the public stage without calling them on it? Why isn't every newsarticle using qualifiers such as The Discredited President, or the Confirmed Liar VP, or the War Criminal DoD, or Traitorous I Lewis Libby?

When people have lied and obfuscated, obstructed, shredded, buried, connived, and betrayed....why o why are we still letting these guys get away with assertions and arguments? All the reporting on DarthCheney is that he asserts what he did wasn't illegal....when we all saw the crime happen. We all see the evidence, the results. You call him a criminal, you show him as the perpetrator...you don't listen to a battery of his craven lawyers who helped blueprint his crimes.

We have seen over and over, worse as the admin goes along, that if the Media don't cover it....it didn't happen. And what they DO cover gets this kinda treatment all the time, where the perp gets to doublespeak and lawyerball the reporters. Remember of course your Orwell. Hell, even remember the Charles Durning Texas Gov. in Best Little Whorehouse in TX doing his "oooh, I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don't! I'm heeeere and gone....."

You just saw the evidence. You just saw the papertrail. You just saw the aftermath. And the guy isn't even denying he DID it. You don't let him Argue and Assert that he was doing it for perfectly good reasons which YOU don't have the clearance for. You believe your lying eyes and call him what he is.

sc = regret

C 92 wrote on June 26, 2007 2:46 PM:

@ SPENCER ADAMS

Cheney's argument that the Energy Task force was "executive" just represents an evolution of the OVP, so to speak. Cheney wasn't claiming exemption from the executive order in 2001 and 2002 because it didn't exist then. And he reportedly complied with classified info inspections back then. And the Energy Task Force fiasco was decided in 2001.

Nope, what you're seeing here is before-your-eyes evolution. Cheney ceased to be Executive sometime in 2002 or 2003... Which would mean that the Supreme Court decision about the Energy Task Force is RIPE for revisiting.

Scott L wrote on June 26, 2007 2:57 PM:

Seems like a great battle plan. Start a new outrage weekly and no one can keep up with it. It becomes white noise which allows you do do Anything you want to. Sounds twisted but it works.

benjoya wrote on June 26, 2007 2:59 PM:

mo2, cheney claimed he "declassified" on the fly, then implicitly reclassified that doc. what he meant is he leaked classified information. impeach him.

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on June 26, 2007 3:13 PM:

C92:
I guess you're right about the evolving nature of the Veep's power before our eyes, and I suppose that the executive order in 2003 wouldn't affect the defense by Cheney in 2001.

But what about my constitutional question? Does that quote and emphasis hold water? Anyone?

Hector wrote on June 26, 2007 3:13 PM:

Yes, David -- It is indeed a pleasure watching the videos of Dana Perino with the sound turned off. Unfortunately, I fear that the stakes are quite high here. Bush, Cheney, and those few who continue to support and advise them seem to hold enormous contempt for law and democracy at home, not to mention their views of people who live in other countries. Then there's the truly depressing thought of the Democratic candidates for president (and most senators and members of the House),each trying to out-hawk each other on Iran and Palestine/Israel. I'm not at all sanguine that we've yet seen the worst -- or even that the worst would be over if one of the current Democratic "front-runners" were to become President of the United States. For an end to the current administration and a real change in government, I'd be willing to do without Dana Perino on video tape.

parrot wrote on June 26, 2007 4:28 PM:

This is an either-or situation. Either Cheney and his gang are against open government and accountability or they are for tyranny. So, which is it?

SPENCER ADAMS wrote on June 26, 2007 5:06 PM:

HOLD THE PRESSES!

You have to read this surreal response from David Addington via Raw Story; the link to the letter from Addington to Sen. Kerry and the story:

http://rawstory.com/other/Addington_Letter.pdf

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheneys_chief_of_staff_rebukes_Kerry_0626.html

In a letter on Vice President Dick Cheney's stationery, Cheney chief of staff David Addington issued a letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) today defending the Vice President's interpretation of his office being outside the executive branch.

A copy of the letter was provided to RAW STORY.

"Dear Senator Kerry," Addington writes. "The executive order on classified national security information -- Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 -- makes clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from 'agencies.'"

No longer satisfied with the Vice President's office's claim that Cheney is actually an admixture between the legislative and executive branch, Addington now posits that the Vice President's office is not an "agency."

"The executive order gives the [Information Security Oversight Office], under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, responsibility to oversee certain activities of 'agencies,' but not of the Vice President or the President."

"Constitutional issues in government are generally best left for discussion when unavoidable disputes arise in a specific context instead of in theoretical discussions," Addington adds. "Given that the executive order treats the Vice President like the President rather than like an "agency," it is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning, based on the law and the history of the legislative functions of the vice presidency and the more modern functions of the vice presidency, to reach the same conclusions that the vice president is not an 'agency' with respect to which ISOO has a role."

mo2 wrote on June 26, 2007 6:01 PM:

For timeline - March 25, 2003.

Executive Order 12958 was amended on March 25, 2003, by Executive Order 13292

Sec. 6.3. Effective Date.
This order is effective immediately, except for section 1.6, which shall become effective 180 days from the date of this order.

1.6 (h) Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html

****************************************
Is 1.6(h) an out because the NIE had not been appropriately marked when it was first declassified? Was Cheney/Bush trying to give himself 180 days to comply because he knew he had not complied?

Sticky wrote on June 26, 2007 6:03 PM:

According to the definitions in the citation, the President is not investigable.

Mickey wrote on June 26, 2007 6:32 PM:

Perino doesn't need a "legal mind." Just a "mind" would suffice. As for her future, there are frequent openings on "The View."

Louise wrote on June 26, 2007 6:39 PM:

Perhaps we are all missing the point.

If these guys aren't impeached, then they are setting precedent with these statements and behaviors that will never be challenged.

How could Republicans - even Cheney - make these arguments if there was the slightest chance that a Democratic administration would ever be serving and use these same justifications? They wouldn't.

It is apparent that they - at least Fourthbranch - never intends to step down. They are going to maintain power in spite of any silly election that may or may not be held.

No Democrat will ever serve, again. If they have to declare martial law and cancel elections and put "terrorist sympathizers" in camps, they will.

But they obviously believe that they will never leave the leadership of the United States. If not them as individuals, then they, through their minions, will be in the White House.

mo2 wrote on June 26, 2007 7:10 PM:

For timeline junkies -
Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak the NIE.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 7:30 PM:

Perhaps to restrate the obvious, OVP has an interst in "changing" their "copmliance" to "non compliance" in 2003 because of the Libby illegal activity:

-------------

For timeline junkies -
Vice President Dick Cheney directed his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on July 12, 2003 to leak the NIE.

Posted by: mo2
Date: June 26, 2007 7:10 PM

jimbo92107 wrote on June 26, 2007 7:46 PM:

"[Cheney] said that a congressional probe into the workings of his energy task force "would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch."

Cheney's response to being caught contradicting himself:

"Aw, go fuck yourself, ak-ak-ak-ak."

skippyjones wrote on June 26, 2007 9:01 PM:

Its funny - but you know what I think this all will really bring into stark relief? The fact that the 9/11 Commission interviewed Bush & Cheney together (how completely bizarre) and not under oath. When the Bush crime ship runs aground - it will blot a dark stain on the work of the 9/11 commission, as well it should. This commission agreed to only interview witnesses in front of administration 'handlers' - the very antithesis of an independent investigation. Does America not realize that a President and Vice-President declaring themselves free from government audit, refusing to appear in front of Congress, is declaring a Dictatorship? That's the truth. People can laugh at ole crazy Dick and stupid George, but folks the day is here. The United States President declared a dictatorship last week, and though we may not want to recognize it, less partial observers in future generations most certainly will. This is serious business folks - and don't let anyone tell you not to be alarmist. Those criminals have their hand on the button, and there is nobody short of mutiny who can stop them. My understanding is that things have already intensified to that point on several occassions. Expect constitutional crisis within the coming months.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 10:52 PM:

There will be a movement to have Bush/Cheney up on criminal charges by the world court after they leave office...

These criminals have perpetrated crimes against humanity, that must be addressed else the Nuremburg trials would have been a sham. We Americans are complicit in these crimes. Our shame was we allowed it to happen. We have elected not statesman but hacks who placed party loyalty above country honor. The Powells, the Lugars, the Warners, the Pattersons, the Frists, the Lotts, the McCains, those who could have made a difference, were woefully silent. There isn't a republican senator statesman in the bunch. They have blood on their hands, and history will pose the question as to why our congress allowed this to happen..Now it is the turn of the democrats to make a mockery of the people's will both about the Iraq war and illegal immigration.

It is appropriate that the security code for this commentis SHAME.

molly wrote on June 27, 2007 12:29 PM:

Wonder why liberal blogs wouldn't address election fraud starting in 2000.It just never was politically correct. That's how WE ended up being a fascist country.Now WE are open for true terroist attacks on our soil because of what WE are doing to other countries.Seymour Herst (ex. sp.) writes about our CIA and mercenaries sexually assaulting children so their parents would "confess". It has gone on way too long for an oops to suffice.

gazo wrote on June 27, 2007 10:37 PM:

I wrote about Executive Order 13292 in this blog post way back in February 2006. And I just emailed a copy of that post, plus links, to TPM a couple of days ago. So I'm guessing I have helped out a bit here (don't bother to thank me, puh-lease!).

OTOH, Spencer Ackerman's take on Order 13292 is different to mine. I see this as a legal handover of powers from a lazy, ignorant President to a ruthlessly power-hungry Vice President.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq began on March 20. This order was released just five days later!

Now just try to tell me that the Iraq War was not pre-planned... Cheney and the PNAC neo-cons had this document ready to push right under Bush's nose just as soon as they went to war!!!

So just what has Cheney been keeping secret from the USA?

More importantly, perhaps, what has Cheney been keeping secret from Bush himself???

aileen wrote on June 27, 2007 11:01 PM:

I would like to see our current “president” be supportive of more international affairs that affect our place in this world. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.