Cheney Claims Declassification Power

My goodness - Dick Cheney is now saying the same thing I said last week, and last year.  Let Dick tell it:

When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to spread sensitive information [Note: "sensitive information" refers to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, not Valerie Plame's CIA status], the prosecutor did not specify which superiors.

But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said. Asked for details, he said, "I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president."

I had cited Executive Order 12958 from Bill Clinton, 1995.  However, it was supplanted by a revised version (EO 13292) in (care to guess?) March 2003.  The revisions specifically create a role for the Vice President.  Here is an example from Part 1, relating to Classification Authority:

EO 12952 (1995):

Sec. 1.3

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

...(3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), above; or the senior agency official, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

EO 13292 (2003)

[1.3 (c) (3) ] "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or the senior agency official described in section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head.

Thanks to Cathy and Rick for their guidance on this.

UPDATE:  I *knew* someone mocked this idea at the time!  Well, they laughed when I stepped up to the keyboard...

OK, let's serious up - Kevin Drum (in his UPDATE) translated my suggestion that it may be legal for Cheney to declassify some material into "Tom Maguire suggests that even if Cheney's the leaker [to Bob Woodward], he didn't do anything wrong".  Hmmph.  First, not everything that is wrong is also illegal.  And somehow, "didn't do anything wrong" also managed to overlook this paragraph from my post:

My official position is this - if Cheney was Woodward's source, he ought to be impeached.  Not for any national security issues, or legal reasons - he ought to be impeached for utter gutlessness.

Whatever.  The agit-prop sites have a job to do, but getting the facts right isn't it.

MORE:  Hmm, the AP wrote that "Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information."

But Cheney is not quoted as specifically addressing his de-classification authority.  But that said, I expect he has enough influence in the White House that if he tells his staff that something will be declassified, they believe it, and he can get it done.

Or, we could check the transcript (right at the bottom):

HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

HUME: There is.

CHENEY: Yeah.

HUME: Have you done it?

CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.

HUME: Have you —

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: I don't want to get into that. There's an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

Comments

[clarice]

These folks would much rather fight their own countrymen than try and find a common ground upon which to strengthen our Union and defend against any outside dangers.

Dean:I hate Republicans

_

There is no common ground to be found with people like Rockefeller who make clear that they are only playing a bipartisanship role but will lie, cheat and leak to the press for political advantage when they think the time is ripe.

[lazerlou]

Clarice,
Forgive me, but I doubt you are all that "rich" and certainly not "well-educated." I'll give you mid-level civil servant who graduated from community college?

Needless to say, "regular trouncing" is a bit strong, considering the last 50 years of politics in our country. Also considering that Dems won the popular vote two presidential elections ago, also considering that it is tough to attribute views to "the majority" when most of the country doesn't vote. Also considering the affirmative action given to small red states both in presidential elections and the senate.
Also considering that the very successes of liberal policies and the welfare state brought the well-being of the middle class American up to the point where they actually start voting against their economic interests in favor of their religious ones and their fear which repubs create and manipulate.

[Sue]

Jeff,

"...Cheney ordered a political hit on the Wilsons, but it was all legal because he can declassify anything he wants at any time..."

Didn't you just make a gigantic leap there? Where has anyone said Cheney ordered a political hit on the Wilsons? Other than the usual looney suspects that see dead people too...

[AB]

There is no common ground to be found with people like Rockefeller who make clear that they are only playing a bipartisanship role but will lie, cheat and leak to the press for political advantage when they think the time is ripe.

What are you talking about, you disingenuous blueblood elitist? That's EXACTLY the same thing the Repubs do. Only diff is they don't have to press for advantage since they control the entire government, lock stock & barrel. They've trashed even the facade of a representative democracy, using every tool at their disposal to impose a defacto dicatatorship of the majority.

The blatant mendacity of your kind is disgusting. Perhaps a little "intellectual vacuousness" has set in, considering you've had laughing jackals in the press covering for the fact that the modern "conservative" movement has abandoned all principle for the comfort of a well filled pocketbook, eh?

[kim]

Now David wants to elevate the discussion, to some darker place.
============================================

[Soylent Red]

Fear!
Lies!
Religion!
Oil!
Conspiracy!
Doom!

Sincerely,
The Left

(Does that about sum it up to date?)

[David M.]

Which makes Rockefeller different from Bush/Cheney how exactly?

Oh, that's right, your partisans are the 'just' partisans, and everyone elses are bad.

It must be nice to view the world in black and white like that. Stupid, but nice.

[clarice]

Lazerlou, I wish I had your name so I could recommend your party send you to the south and the heartland to organize the masses. Truly I do.

You'll just have to take my word about my background, but I'm afraid I will not take your word for years.

[topsecretk9]

Geez, I am sure Glenn Greenwald would prefer you to be a bit more nuanced when recycling his talking points.

[David M.]

I want somebody to actually refute something I've said. But people keep throwing mud. So I've thown a little back. Whoopie!

[Jeff]

people like Rockefeller who make clear that they are only playing a bipartisanship role but will lie, cheat and leak to the press for political advantage when they think the time is ripe.

clarice prefers people like Cheney who lie, cheat and leak to the press for political advantage when they think the time is ripe but never make any claims about playing a bipartisanship role. clarice likes her lying, cheating and leaking purely partisan.

[kim]

Lazerlou, David M., AB, one and all; the collapse of a paradigm need only be as bitter as your need for it not to collapse. Ever hear of one lasting forever? Yours is bankrupt. I'm sorry that hurts you. It needn't. Move on.
======================================

[AB]

How about refuting them then, topsekret? Cue the forumulaic ridicule, since as becomes more obvious every day, no one can. The conservative movement has not only sold out its last principle, it has descended into a primitive state of blind, base human instinct.

Now go twitter and giggle, because there isn't a man or woman here who can defend themselves. You can link to obscure documents and say A-ha, right again! But you can't prove that the conservative movement is a traitor to itself. And not one of you will even try.

Though we may get a 9/11 cheer started soon. You all have that one down.

[clarice]

http://www.hillnews.com/news/110603/memo.aspx I do not recall in my lifetime perfidiousness that matches Rockefeller's..and that's before the NSA leak to the NYT which he appears to have been part of.

[kim]

Is one of you Paul Hackett?
============================

[clarice]

Formulaic bumper sticker rants deserve no more than a formulaic response.

[David M.]

Again, all you do is say that I'm "bankrupt", but don't address the substance of my arguments.

Let's save some time then. The next ten posts will look like this.

Me: As I was saying...

You: You're dumb.

Me: What has that got to do with what I said...

You: I take that back, you're really dumb. and a liberal, ick.

Me: What are you talking about...

You: Icky pants! Icky pants! Kooties! Kooties!

Me: You need help.

You: Aha! you descend to the level of personal attacks. You moron.

Me: Wha?

You: Ha ha. I'm sooooooo much smarter than you because I love W.

Me: Whatever.

A glimpse into the future.

[AB]

Typical wussy wingnut response, clarice. As expected. Wingnuts can only deal with fixed fights. Cowards in their purest form.

[topsecretk9]

AB
Are you for real? Cue the forumulaic ridicule? Get over yourself. Principled? Primitive? Dark Ages? You are a joke. You're not here to engage in meaningful debate, your here to drop off sanctimonious insults in some weird attempt to make yourself feel better or right because you have nothing more to offer than hate.

Recycling GGreenwalds ideas (that by the way, the irony in taking "authoritarian cultists" from one blog and rushing out to sprinkle it at another is rich) isn't all that persuasive meat to engage.

Your here to try and score points, with who I don't know.

[Specter]

I can't believe how many subjects are being tied into this one thread....incredible.

Let me start with lazerlou. You said:

With all due respect to you wingers, even if this provides a legit excuse for Scooter, doesn't it bother any of you that the White House explicitly denied any role in outing Plame, and the President ahs called such actions reprehensible and worthy of criminal investigation? Do you not see how badly the whitehouse lied if this is indeed the strategy the Bush administration takes? Do you see how this only changes the legal implications and not the ethical ones? Mb>The fact is, even if "legal" Cheney still outed a CIA operative and teh Bush administration lied repeatedly about it?

And then you take exception to someone calling your vacuous? Don't you get it? The discussion is not about Cheney declassifying Plame's identity. It has nothing to do with that lame fiasco. Instead it is specifically about the statement that Libby passed on some information from the 2002 NIE. Cheney says he had the authority to declassify that particular document. Yet you rant on that we "wingers" should feel bad because you think that the whole thing revloves around declassifying Plame's identity. You were called vacuous because you are trying to connect two separate things that have nothing to do with each other. And if you had bothered to read, you would either know what you were referring to, or you are too vacuous to understand it. Simple.

Now David M. Let's take your diatribe one point at a time:

1. He lied about WMD to start an illegal war.

This is so old as to be ridiculous to keep bringing it up. Based on the intelligence known at the time, everyone, not just the US, but many other countries believed that Hussein did have WMD. That was not a lie. It was what was believed. Prior to the invasion - sometime after 1998 but we do not know exactly when - Saddam did something with his WMD. We do not know what yet. But he did have them - Clinton attacked Hussein because of that. Old issue - get over it.

2. He covered his lies by abusing the power of his office to defame those who questioned him.

The presumption here is that he lied. That has never been proven in any way shape or form. Who did he defame? Joe? Get over it.

4. He authorized the indefinate imprisonment of two americans, without the writ of habeus corpus being suspended by Congress.

Seems to me that in Hamdi it was clearly stated that if a person is declared an enemy combatant that they can be detained. Without Congressional permission - based on AUMF. Get over it.

5. He authorized the toture of detainee's in contrevention of internation treaties, which, once signed by a president and approved by congress, become the law of THIS country.

Who was tortured? Has anyone come forward yet - I mean besides prisoners that say they were?

6. He authorized spying on Americans in direct contravention of established laws.

Even Congress is letting this go. Clearly he has constitutional powers to authorize this. Get over it.

7. Because the war is illegal, every person killed by the U.S. military in connection becomes a case of murder for hire, and at last count that amounts to at least 30,000, by the Presidents own admission.

I believe your number of 30K is correct. But I think that the majority of these Iraqi casualities were caused by the insurgents. Oh I know - but if we hadn't gone there they wouldn't have been killed. But the next logical question to that argument is how many more would Hussein have killed? I guess we are just supposed to turn our backs on that. Stay at home. Don't worry about anybody else. Right or wrong we are there - and now we must finish the job. Get over it.

And now we have the "drunk" claims, which are unfounded. And we have the "you should have notified the press" claims which are hogwash. And even jerry's claim that this was giving Cheney the power to declassify information was a pre-meditated strategy so that it could be used politically. Geez...what next? And you wonder why people call the left a little (or a lot) looney?

[AB]

Refute the point, topsekret.

[Barney Frank]

So clarice, do you live in a double-wide or a mansion? If its a blue blood mansion, like one of these fellers is insinuating, maybe I could get myself all straightened out for that proposal, if you know what I mean. ;)

[David M.]

A bunch of you keep insisting that Wilson lied, and Bush/Cheney were just trying to correct that. But lets examine the issue. The GOP talking points only claimed that Wilson lied about 'who' sent him to Niger, not about the administrations fabricated claims of yellowcake to Iraq.

You know, they were pissed because Wilson credited Cheney with sending him to learn the truth. Fuck him! Cheney would never send someone to learn the truth! How dare he!

Oh yeah, and in addition to my response above about this quote by clarice,

"I cannot imagine an act which was more damaging to the nationa's credibility at a time when it was important to keep Allies onborad, keep up morale and maintain trust in the Administration."

How about the Secretary of State spouting lies and waving imaginary vials of biological weapons infront of the U.N. security council. I'd say that's game, set, match against any schred of credibility this country had. Poof.

[larwyn]

1) Would ask if there was a FULL
MOON last night - except with the side the FAR LEFT prefers in the GWOT -was it a CRESCENT?
(see publishing of ABU GHRAIB years
old photos, touting of UN'S HUMAN
RIGHTS report on GITM0 - Heck, just
look at the front pages and lead stories on LSM today!)

2)Again, sheer Brilliance, Clarice!

I'm takin out ads on Kos advertising a surgery free implantation of an off swith people can push to block the Bushitler/Rove mind rays.Post surgery, just press the magic spot and be Patriot Act and NSA surveillance free.(Saves a ton on tin foil and doesn't muss one's hair.)

If just 20% of the ~49,000,000 who voted for Kerry are MOONBATS -
you have a potential market of:
9,800,000 - almost 10,000,000 DIE HARDS!

Just consider what the NFL pulls in from fans every year.

Must come up with some products -- it will also help the BUSH ECONOMY
and we could donate profits to campaigns such as PA Rep.Curt Weldon's.

The CLINTON $$$$$ MACHINE is pouring bucks into defeating him
which will quiet ABLE DANGER!

And thanks for the American Thinker post on CSPAN's neglect to
broadcast anything on the ABLE DANGER HEARING.

As a matter of fact, while Senate was in recess today -- they reran
PELOSI AND FRIENDS ON KATRINA PRESSER!

DISGUSTING!

[topsecretk9]

AB
WHY? Your point means nothing to me.

Why do you spend the energy you have arguing about and with a party you don't like, instead of trying to fix your own?

[clarice]

It's big with a large pool in the backyard located in an area full of Ambassadorial residences (so it's well-patrolled). The master bedroom is taken, alas..But I was born the child of a poor immigrant and my husband who had a similar background and I earned it, the hard way--work.

[BN]

Where has anyone said Cheney ordered a political hit on the Wilsons?

I think Scooter Libby said it.

[hrtshpdbox]

there isn't a man or woman here who can defend themselves. >

What nonsense. Conservative principles are entirely sound and in no danger of imploding. The administration did not lie about WMD, they relied on the same intelligence everyone else had - and they were probably right (only time will tell). The war was "justified" not just because of WMD, but because Saddam was a terrorist who backed other terrorists, and because Saddam was the world's biggest human rights abuser (liberal organizations had called for his overthrow for years). The administration did not authorize or condone torture, nor did they break any laws in monitoring Americans who communicated with overseas terrorists. Valerie Plame was a tool of CIA goofballs who hated this administration, and if anything at all comes of this "investigation" it will be the further sullying of the reputation of the left and their minions in the press. The liberals continue to lose all the important battles, including the ones conducted at the ballot box.

[Sue]

My God. Who let the dawgs out today? It must really suck being a liberal.

Did anyone see the poll where republicans are happier than democrats? I didn't need a poll to know that. All I needed was a day at the blog...

[Sue]

BN,

No he didn't.

[clarice]

Thanks, larwyn. Instead of cursing the darkness, let's exploit it. You can be managing director. (And when the FDA comes after us, you never heard of me. Get it?)*wink*
___________
They're barking everywhere online today. Tells me something about their confidence level and the state of their disappointment. No Fitzmas (and the Libby case gets weaker every day) ; No NSA scandals; Katrina hype and Cheney hype exploding like cheap cigars; no Cinco de Abramoff; No Sheehan groundswell. Just stuck with eachother and some unsaleable dreck merchandise.

[Specter]

From the Demoncratic Brain Trust (the heads of the Society of Subversion):

"I took the initiative in creating the internet." - Al "Seditious" Gore

"We defeated the Patriot Act." - Harry "I got $68K but didn't Take Any Money" Reid

paraphrased: "I gave the OWL club $100 per year, but I'm not really a member - and I'm going to quit the club ASAP." - Ted "Splash" Kennedy

And the Grandaddy: "AAAAIIIIIIYEEEEEEEEEEE" - Howlin' Howie Dean

[Extraneus]

There is simply "Us" and "Them"...and we're not talking about foreign enemies here. These folks would much rather fight their own countrymen than try and find a common ground upon which to strengthen our Union and defend against any outside dangers.

Ok, I'll bite. At every opportunity, certainly including this whole Wilson/Plame thing, but far beyond that to the more recent Abu Ghraib, bible-flushing, "torture" accusations, NSA leaks, Gore dhimmi-prostitution, etc. ad nauseam, the left has done exactly what you've suggested you're against. In fact, they show no evidence that they recognize any enemies except political ones, or are even slightly concerned with the clear danger right before all of our eyes, and are more interested in trying to score political points than thinking ahead to what their children will face in 20 years if we don't meet this Islamist menace now. Unfortunately, this is way past being a game.

[AB]

OK, so topsekret doesn't believe that his "conservative" party has expanded government, ballooned the deficit, overseen an exponential increase in pork spending, increased spending on entitlement programs, brought the government into our bedrooms and deathbeds, greatly expanded the influence of private money in the legislative process, proposed that the president should have unlimited powers without oversight, been dishonest and secretive to the American public to the point of fabricating a cassus belli out of whole cloth...etc.

He doesn't think any of that is even worth discussing. Anyone else?

Of course, it IS difficult to argue any points when one is "intellectually vacuous".

And why? Because this is MY country too, you cultist. As long as your corrupt, incompetent party has its deathgrip on EVERY instrument of power, that's what we need to debate. You are all very comfortable congratulating yourselves for your obsequious, sycophantic support of the TRUE Bush agenda (basically - reward for unearned wealth and privilege) but there are those of us who have this foolish idea that the Founding Fathers intended something a little more egalitarian.

[topsecretk9]

ere isn't a man or woman here who can defend themselves. > Why should we when we have

Harold Ford Jr. --- THE DEMOCRAT from Tennessee

"Ford said he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, he is against partial birth abortion, he argues we have to stay in Iraq until we get the job done and he says he was encouraged on his most recent of four visits to the war zone. He wants to end pork barrel spending and balance the budget by making every department cut spending, and he wants to reform the tax code.

It was in the area of entitlements that Ford made his boldest statements. He says we need to notify people 40 and under right now that they won’t be getting Social Security until they are 70. Increased life expectancy is threatening the solvency of the program. He also favors means testing so that those making over $300,000 a year would not receive a Social Security check. He is opposed to private accounts."

--

Sue, the shooting story is dead.

[Sue]

I have it on very good authority that Al Gore is visiting with us today. You guys decide which one of our guests is Mr. Gore.

::grin::

[Barney Frank]

Clarice you and that darned husband of yours have broken my heart AND my line of credit. I guess its back to my male escort service in the basement for me.

[maryrose]

David M and lazerlou:
I find your posts most distasteful this afternoon and devoid of facts. Joe Wilson at the time he wrote his lying article was in the Kerry campaign camp. This was his shot across the bow to Bush/Cheney et al.. If you want to be against the Iraq war fine- just don't make wild radical statements against respected posters at this thread on this blog. Remember you are a guest here-Where are your manners?

[topsecretk9]

And why? Because this is MY country too, you cultist.

IT"S OUR country...then get Democrats elected.

[hrtshpdbox]

Libs must be particuarly disgusted that the Dow Jones is making a 5-year high today; I mean, how can that be?? W spends like a drunk sailor, right? America is hated worldwide, right? We've bankrupted ourselves with our war effort, haven't we???

[Sue]

Hey Top. No one has told Rush it is dead. ::grin:: Or his callers. Of course, I get him an hour behind so maybe by the next hour, he will have caught up to it being dead.

[AB]

hrsthpbox = Exhibit A cultist koolaid drinkers. Nice job proving my point exactly. Your regurgitaion skills are in good shape.

[BN]

Sue,

Yes, he did.

[Sue]

BN,

No he didn't.

[topsecretk9]

I get him an hour behind so maybe by the next hour, he will have caught up to it being dead.

Wait till you hear what really happened. The delay was of course so was because Cheney actually killed Whittington and they needed time to find a double and the long hospital stay is for the plastic surgery.

[clarice]

Barney , I could cut you in on that off mind ray surgery free implant thingy..I don't think larwyn is so greedy she'd want to hog all the profits.

[hrtshpdbox]

hrsthpbox = Exhibit A cultist koolaid drinkers. Nice job proving my point exactly.>

Well, tell me AB - it was you who said that W "has expanded government, ballooned the deficit, overseen an exponential increase in pork spending, increased spending on entitlement programs". Who would possibly buy stocks in such a horrible environment? What can they be thinking? Don't they know???

[topsecretk9]

Exhibit A cultist koolaid drinkers.

Mines grape, what flavor are the rest of you drinking?

[Sue]

Top,

YIKES!!!! I think I must have missed something...

[BN]

Sue,

Yes, he did, quitcies, stamped it, no erasies.

[larwyn]

Specter,
Gotta add that quarter of million
$$$$ Gore got from the Saudi's.

Tigerhawk has great battle going
with another set of Moonbats posted
- now the LEFT luvs the Saudis!

Are they doopy or demented?
Probably both. I have personal
experience with one of my daughters
who sends me emails about all the poor who are going to die because
of the CUTS. So far gone that with
a husband between jobs, she pays the $50 to read Krugman and Dowd.

Just another of those high IQ'd who have no common sense and are just astonished that are not CEO's
in the real world.

Makes me very sad and I pray for
God to grant her wisdom.

[Sue]

I personally don't like grape. Could I have something red, please?

[hrtshpdbox]

Mines grape, what flavor are the rest of you drinking?>

I'm still drinking that Capitalist Cola that came out during Reagan's first term.

[topsecretk9]

Sue

SHHHH, you'll let the secret out.

[Sue]

BN,

No he didn't.

[David M.]

Specter,

Finally, someone willing to actually debate. I like you already.

"Who was tortured? Has anyone come forward yet - I mean besides prisoners that say they were?"

Yeah, who was tortured, except those that say they were, which you can't trust, because this administration says they are lying. You know, the old it's our word against yours. You trust those who have more credibility. So who do you trust? By itself this is not enough, but as part of a larger pattern of administration lies, it starts to look like maybe the administration doesn't deserve the benifit of the doubt.

6. He authorized spying on Americans in direct contravention of established laws.

"Even Congress is letting this go. Clearly he has constitutional powers to authorize this. Get over it."

A republican controlled congress is taking a pass on holding a republican controlled white house responsible for breaking the law, because if they pressed further, it might lead to impeachment. By itself, the powers that be might be able to let it slip, but then, there's that pattern of actions.

4. He authorized the indefinate imprisonment of two americans, without the writ of habeus corpus being suspended by Congress.

"Seems to me that in Hamdi it was clearly stated that if a person is declared an enemy combatant that they can be detained. Without Congressional permission - based on AUMF. Get over it."

Hamdi yes, Padilla No.

2. He covered his lies by abusing the power of his office to defame those who questioned him.

"The presumption here is that he lied. That has never been proven in any way shape or form. Who did he defame? Joe? Get over it."

Valerie Plame, Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, Tenet, just to name a few.

The real issue with the Plame outing wasn't to punish Joe Wilson, it was to punish the CIA, who was starting to get some balls about contradicting the administrations absolutist assertions about nebulous intelligence. This was a Cheney shot at the CIA, telling all covert operatives that he could ruin their career's just as quick if they got out of line. (basically treason, but who's counting).

1. He lied about WMD to start an illegal war.

"This is so old as to be ridiculous to keep bringing it up. Based on the intelligence known at the time, everyone, not just the US, but many other countries believed that Hussein did have WMD. That was not a lie. It was what was believed. Prior to the invasion - sometime after 1998 but we do not know exactly when - Saddam did something with his WMD. We do not know what yet. But he did have them - Clinton attacked Hussein because of that. Old issue - get over it."

Oh, I forgot, the statue of limitations on starting an illegal war has expired. I mean, that act of treason is sooooo yesterday.

"Oh I know - but if we hadn't gone there they wouldn't have been killed. But the next logical question to that argument is how many more would Hussein have killed? I guess we are just supposed to turn our backs on that. Stay at home. Don't worry about anybody else. Right or wrong we are there - and now we must finish the job. Get over it."

Ah, the old, Saddam would have killed more innocents routine. You know, I'm sure the Iraq's are just thrilled to peaches to know that we have killed only half as many innocent people as Saddam.

Let's make something clear. It is not the job of the US army to remove every despot in the name of human rights. If it were, get ready for the draft, because we have to go to China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc. next.

Even if that were a good idea, all we have effectively done is turn Iraq into Iran light, and I suspect that the light won't last very long.

[topsecretk9]

I'm still drinking that Capitalist Cola that came out during Reagan's first term.

with a side of freedom fries too!

[clarice]

See what you get for your efforts, Specter..another long bumper stickers pasted together rant?

[Specter]

A little off-topic - the final police report on the Cheney shooting is here. Get this - according to the police report, it was the police who decided not to question Cheney until the next morning....imagine that!

[topsecretk9]

I'm sure the Iraq's are just thrilled to peaches to know that we have killed only half as many innocent people as Saddam.

Nice channeling, have you actually engaged any Iraqi bloggers who feel differently, or do they not count?

Let's make something clear. It is not the job of the US army to remove every despot in the name of human rights.

Oh you mean that quagmire in the Balkans?

See, the problem with these debates is that one side must erase/ignore/deny 8 years in order to make the rightous argument, and that in of itself isn't credible.

[topsecretk9]

according to the police report, it was the police who decided not to question Cheney until the next morning....imagine that!

And Whittington who said alcohol wasn't a factor! Imagine that. (lying bastard! --- oops I mean poor victim)

[David M.]

Maryrose,

The truth can be radical, yes.

As I said above, the Cheney et al outing of Plame had nothing to do with getting back at Wilson. I don't give a crap about Wilson. He's a partisan.

What is at issue is that Cheney declassified Plames status to punish HER for sending someone to look in on his bullshit. Cheney wanted to punish Plame, and warn the CIA to keep their mouths shut.

That's why Tenet asked the Dept. Justice to look into the leak. It was the CIA's way of fighting back. It was also the breaking point for Tenet, who had done his best to kowtow the CIA to adhere to the White house talking points.

Then, when Tenet left, they installed someone to 'clean house'. supposedly to erase the group think culture that the white house was blaming for the WMD skrew up. In reality, it was to give the boot to anyone who might latter accuse the administration of stretching the intel. That way you could always claim that these were disgruntled workers. A favorite Rove defense.

It's those damned patterns again.

If you want evidence of this, go see the blog of Robert Dreyfuss. It's chock full of insigtful commentary. That man knows more about the inner workings of the CIA than anyone else reporting.

[Extraneus]

Forget Iraq. We've already spent the blood and money to give them a chance at democracy. Let's try to look forward. What do you guys propose to do about Iran, or are you cool with leaving that alone for now?

[David M.]

topsecretk9,

Let's make something clear. It is not the job of the US army to remove every despot in the name of human rights.

"Oh you mean that quagmire in the Balkans?"

Who said I thought that was a good idea either?

[Specter]

You know you should try to catch up on current events David. Even Democrat Senators are backing down on the NSA deal. Of course Rocky isn't yet - but he'll still be saying that when he's in jail.....But I know - to you it's a great big conspiracy....

Let's see....By your statement we should trust enemy combatants held prisoner more than our own people. What kind of logic is that? If an inmate in one of our regular prisons claims he has been abused by the guards who do you believe? The authorities or the prisoner? Get a grip.....But I know - to you everything is a conspiracy. Maybe you should see someone about that....

Now what did Bush do to Plame? I'm not sure I understand....it was a conspiracy....Oh and what is your basis in fact for saying that Plame/Wilson affair was a Cheney plan to discredit the CIA? Where did you get that - Kos?

I'm also not sure what you refer to when you say "illegal war". Wasn't there this AUMF thingy that everybody in the Senate voted on to authorize the use of military force? Oh...silly me...that's what AUMF stands for. Imagine that. Wnat me to post some of the speeches that were made by Democratic Senators on the floor the day the vote was taken?

It may not be the job of the US Army to remove every despot in the name of human rights. But as a country, is it right for us to ignore that? Is it right for us to turn our backs on it? That is a ridiculous argument. Especially with someone like Hussein who even gassed his own people.

And you may suspect anything you want. But that does not make it a valid argument. Iran light? Pulllleeaaazzzze.....

[kim]

David, I want you to look very carefully to see if you can find an internal consistency in your last rant.
============================================

[Specter]

Who said that Cheney declassified Plame's status (if she was classified to begin with)? You are mixing two things together just as lazerlou did. Cheney said he declassified the 2002 NIE. Why can't you get that right?

[clarice]

Dreyfuss? Ah, we are talking to a fever swamp denizen--Mr. Downing Street.

[TM]

My God. Who let the dawgs out today?

This post was linked by Peter Daou (who tilts a bit left) at Salon.
Naturally, we are delighted, and I am certain (from having been to his secret site) that most of his readers and commenters are emphatically *NOT* clowns.

HOWEVER - "AB" is posting from the same IP address as the talentless hack formerly known as "JayDee" (as well as, briefly, "Katrina", and a few others.) And AB is doing a Great Job recycling Glenn Greenwald's talking points.

And Whittington who said alcohol wasn't a factor! Imagine that. (lying bastard! --- oops I mean poor victim)

Are you seriously telling me they did not dust his clothing for traces of peyote or coke? What kind of "investigation" was this, anyway?

[David M.]

Specter,

The Saddam was a bad, bad man, justification for the war is just the current one. It wasn't the orginal one, nor is it the real one.

If you want the real one, just look to where the money is being spent. Not on reconstruciton, but on building PERMANENT US military bases. Bases that are needed to house all of the troops we need to pull out of Saudi Arabia. In addition, we needed to deversify our oil purchasing, so that if we need to, we can go to war with Saudi Arabia (the Neocon wet dream) without desrupting our consumption.

Of course, the neocons couldn't tell the american people that, they wouldn't have bought it (as Wolfowitz pointed out, WMD's had a much better fear appeal).

AUMF was authorized based on fabricated intel over WMD, you know, lies presented to congress. That makes it illegal, and treasonous.

[Sue]

TM,

My post was linked at Salon? I don't know whether to be amused or bemused.

[larwyn]

Friday's Plot lines???

Wait till you hear what really happened. The delay was of course so was because Cheney actually killed Whittington and they needed time to find a double and the long hospital stay is for the plastic surgery.
...Posted by: topsecretk9 | February 16, 2006 at 12:41 PM

Barney , I could cut you in on that off mind ray surgery free implant thingy..I don't think larwyn is so greedy she'd want to hog all the profits.
.....Posted by: clarice | February 16, 2006 at 12:42 PM

Thinking of some New Age type pamphlets with mantras and tea recipes.
Also, special Yoga mats and mattress pads and pillow cases -- of course
we need a travel pillow for the Jet Setter Hollywood crowd.

And we need some BLING-BLING, so bracelets* and small clips that can be attached to eyeglasses or sunglasses or just placed in hair.
* Think we could away with a piece of string? Not up on the string colors
already designated.

Then of course we'll have some Birkenstock clips,pads and socks---
with all those nerve endings in the feet- need protection there too!

Naturally, all our bagged teas would be natural!

[lazerlou]

Specter,

We can see the writing on the wall. We are actually able to anticipate arguments that will be advanced to absolve scooter when this investigation is complete. Nobody is saying Cheney declassified Plame, yet, but all signs point there to Scooter's defense if he is ultimately charged with being the leaker. "vacuous?" You just learn that word?

And yes, the war would be illegal if the President as granted war powers based on knowing misrepresentations or fraud.

[clarice]

I knew you'd be right for the job, larwyn.

[larwyn]

BREAKING
Pat Roberts, Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee, announces
no investigation into NSA.

CNN HAD BIDEN ON AND DIDN'T SHOW
THE ENTIRE ROBERTS STATEMENT -
BUT LET BIDEN COMMENT ON IT - NOT
HAVING SEEN OR HEARD IT!

GOOD ONE WOOOOOOOF!

[Lew Clark]

Latest news/rumor. President for Life Kos has removed the Kenedy County, TX, sheriff and replaced him with Cindy Sheehan. Cheney's execution at 9, video highlights at 10.

[kim]

Rather than the baying of a pack of dogs it sounded like the howls of a litter of orphaned coyotes.
==========================================

[topsecretk9]

This is pretty funny.

[larwyn]

I knew you'd be right for the job,

I'll make you proud Clarice!

[clarice]

TS The link doesn't work--Is it this one?

Hours after laughing about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting mishap, Josh Kayser was himself shot by a friend during a hunting expedition. The 21-year-old Lafayette man was taken to the hospital Monday night after his girlfriend accidentally shot him while they were trailing a raccoon that had been preying on chickens on his family's property. "I read that thing about the vice president and said to myself 'how can you shoot your friend with your gun?' And look what happened," he said Tuesday. http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_047101455.html

[topsecretk9]

fixed, sorry.

[Specter]

David M.

That is where you are wrong. It was not lies - it may have been bad current intelligence, but it was not lies. Have you read the Intelligence Committee report?

You see - you wanted to debate. When I actually ask questions you go to spouting opinion. Show me one single vaild document that says that the President lied. I already know you can't. It is just your OPINION. Get over it.

lazerlou,

If you go back to your post and to David M.'s - both of you said that Cheney declassified Plame's name. You said:

lazerlou said: With all due respect to you wingers, even if this provides a legit excuse for Scooter, doesn't it bother any of you that the White House explicitly denied any role in outing Plame, and the President ahs called such actions reprehensible and worthy of criminal investigation? Do you not see how badly the whitehouse lied if this is indeed the strategy the Bush administration takes? Do you see how this only changes the legal implications and not the ethical ones? The fact is, even if "legal" Cheney still outed a CIA operative and teh Bush administration lied repeatedly about it?

And David M. said:

What David Actually Typed: What is at issue is that Cheney declassified Plames status to punish HER for sending someone to look in on his bullshit. Cheney wanted to punish Plame, and warn the CIA to keep their mouths shut.

So - please don't try to say that:

Nobody is saying Cheney declassified Plame...

Because you obviously did. If you think you didn't then you are even more a dipstick than I though you were.

[larwyn]

TS
"funny" link didn't work here,

[David M.]

"Dreyfuss? Ah, we are talking to a fever swamp denizen--Mr. Downing Street."

Maybe, but he's been right on with predicting the military strategy of the US, and the inevitable outcomes. Read his book, "Devils Game". It points out how shortsighted american foreign policy is.

As for how we should have dealt with 9/11, consider this.

What if, we had put 70,000 boots on the ground in Afgahnistan, instead of saving them for Iraq (which was predetermined). Further, we had spent the (Now 400 Billion) dollars we've spent on Iraq, actually rebuilding Afgahnistan. Helping it recover from the desimation it suffered at the hands of the Soviets (which the US supported), instead of turning our backs on them again. You know, showing actually Christian values. All that could have shown the world that the US will,

1. defend itself.

2. show compassion as a hyperpower.

That would have won the support of moderate muslims the world over. Instead we attacked Iraq, and lied to the world repeatedly to do it. We told Afgahnistan to fuck off, gave up trying to find Bin Laden, and concentrated on securing oil for our industrial complex. Nice.

You may not agree with me, but I think I've got some good points, and I just ask everyone to consider them for a few moments. Is it possible that you have given the Bush administration a free pass because of your own partisan politics?

It's possible that I have taken an opposing view because of mine. I admit that. As a Libertarian, I like the tax cuts. I wish the personal tax free savings accounts would pass. I love the dividend and cap gains tax cuts. I just don't like pre-emptive war.

If you make two enemies for every one that you kill, you're in trouble. Attacking Iraq was the foriegn policy fuck up of the last fifty years. Yeah, Clinton abused his power too, but I'm no Clinton fan.

Don't say, "my president abuses power as no more than the last guy". It's immoral. It says might makes right. That's wrong.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I stand against anyone to whom this applies, even if it means sacrificing social security reform, or repeal of Roe v. Wade. I refuse to sell out.

For that I'm called a "wacky" liberal. A vacuous, bankrupt Micheal Moore lover. Funny.

Well, it's been fun, but I have to go pick up my son from day care.

Do me a favor, just for a today, allow yourself to believe that the other side might just have a point.

[Sue]

David M,

Why? Because you yourself have, for just one day, allowed yourself to believe the other side might just have a point?

[AB]

Good to know that although TM and others are familiar with Glenn Greenwald's essay (although cultists might need to understand that 'talking points' are the things that are issued as actual marching orders, such as on the RNC site, NOT the analyses of private citizens), they are absolutely HELPESS at defending against them. Complete, total inability to counter them. Linking to out of context documents issued by whitehouse.org isn't useful in displacing the obviousness of their truth.

Your silence is the ultimate proof of how cogent these ideas actually are, and how useful they will be in our shifting political discourse. Thanks again, and keep drinking that koolaid, Cultists!

[Specter]

AB,

I suppose that Howlin Howie doesn't issue talking points? But from that brain trust we already know what he is going to say:

"AAAAAIIIIIIIIIIYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeee"

[clarice]

My silence is all I can speak to, and it stems from my loathing to waste time debating nitwits when I could be knitting or something else more productive.

[larwyn]

David M,
Do you look at actual maps of the
region - have you ever played Risk or Stratego?

Any rememberance of Saddam sending $25,000.00 to every family
of a Palestinian suicide bomber?

So in your dream world, our 70,000 troops would be in Afghanistan only fighting and cleaning out the existing Taliban
and AQ that were there right after
911????

While you are looking a an Atlas
also check the topological maps -
more important in picking where to
fight than just polical maps.
You might note that Afghanistan is
land locked and we only are at the
forebearance of some very "uncertain allies" for supplying our troops.

I'll remind you of Turkey's denial of our offensive to come down from the North. Most of the
"insurgents" from those Republican Guard regiments - fled without the
benefit of tasting the full power
of U S MILITARY.

As Victor Davis Hansen writes
history shows that more suffering is caused when enemies are only semi- defeated. Not having the
Northern front allowed this prolonged struggle.

I give Gen Franks for turning
that Lemon into Lemonade by not
waiting and taking the south and
Bagdhad by essentially surprise.
Even with the horrendous sand storm
it is a military offensive for the
historical record book.

And all that "broken" military
crap is just crap. Find me a commander that wants to go into any
situation with green troops that have been at home for years. We
have got the best and more of them
simply because so many are now battle hardened and so are our weapon systems and on and on. So
take that BROKEN CRAP AND THE SAVE
IT FOR CHINA CRAP AND REALIZE IT
IS CRAP!

AND THE MILITARY WANTS ALL OF OUR
ENEMIES TO BELIEVE THAT CRAP - THANKS FOR HELPING OUT THE CAUSE!

[maryrose]

Well things seem to have calmed down a bit and now we have rational discourse. BTW I'll have some strawberry Kool-Aid please.

[KM]

Martin Knight,

Unfortunately for Waas, Cheney apparently does have the power to classify information. From my reading on National Security laws, classification authority includes the power to declassify, or, in other words, raise or lower the level of classification of a document or some other bit of information.

Nobody, Waas included, ever disputed that Cheney has the power to classify information. He has had it ever since Bush so conveniently amended the rules on 28 March 2003. His new status as an "original classifying authority" gives him the power to declassify information that he himself has originally classified. I trust we can all agree that the NIE would not be information that he originally classified. I have yet to see a decent argument stating that an originally classifying authority can unilaterally declassify information that was originally classified by someone else. If you can derive such powers from EO 13292, please share your reading. Such a reading would appear to entail that the Secretary of Agriculture, say, could declassify CIA documents.

P.S. All you know about my politics is that I revile the current Administration. You know nothing whatsoever, I assure you, about my positive political allegiances, if any.

[Barney Frank]

I've been quiet because I was busy e-mailing AB and a couple others to see if they wanted to go quail hunting with me.

[Earl F. Parrish]

I just had a thought. If the Bush Administration claims that the President has unlimited authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military, how can we prosecute Saddam Hussein for advocating the same thing on a lesser scale? Can only the President of the United States be above international law?

[larwyn]

Bottom line is that "useful idiots"
can be very useful.

Of course the "useful idiots" ignore our forthright informing them of R/S/S.

Pretty hopeless!

[Sue]

I don't want to doubt your original thought, Earl, but I just don't believe it is original.

[Barney Frank]

Earl, some thoughts are best left unspoken.

I suppose the Nuremburg trials were a sham because we interred Japanese Americans.

[TM]

they are absolutely HELPESS at defending against them. Complete, total inability to counter them.

JayDee, I doubt you tried very hard to look for a rebuttal. That particular meme got a lot of attention after A Sullivan picked it up; here is part of James Taranto's reax, concealed at the scarcely-noticed WSJ:

An interesting kerfuffle has broken out over a post by a blogger named Glenn Greenwald, who offers what he seems to think is a devastating critique of conservatism in America. Greenwald argues that the terrorist surveillance program is anathema to "conservative ideology," which stands for "a restrained Federal Government which was to be distrusted." This is a narrow point that is arguable either way, but Greenwald wants to make a much more ambitious indictment of contemporary conservatism, to wit:

[EXCERPT from Greenwald]

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day--social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required--a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal"--or, for that matter, a "conservative"--is now no longer a function of one's actual political views, but is a function purely of one's personal loyalty to George Bush. [END]

There are two separate claims here: first, that conservatives improperly label people "liberal" for their "failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush"; second, that such blind loyalty is common in conservative ranks. Neither claim withstands scrutiny.

The claim about labeling people liberal, Greenwald writes, is "most illustratively" seen "in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan." But Sullivan, whom we like personally and about whom we've written extensively in the past, is sui generis--so idiosyncratic, both ideologically and psychologically, that if he is the most illustrative example of a trend, it probably isn't a trend at all.

Greenwald lists five other conservatives whom he claims other conservatives have called "liberal": ex-Rep. Bob Barr and Sens. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, John Sununu and George Voinovich. But he provides no examples of conservatives labeling McCain, Hagel or Sununu.

The examples in the other two cases are weak: He links to an Oliver North column that harshly criticizes Voinovich for opposing Ambassador John Bolton's nomination but does not call him a liberal; and (via a post of his own on another blog) to a Washington Post piece about the tepid response Barr--who since leaving Congress has worked with the ACLU in opposing antiterror measures on civil-liberties grounds. Particularly revealing, according to Greenwald, is this quote:
[EXCERPT]
One man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed. [END]

This is the closest Greenwald comes to showing that conservatives label other conservatives "liberals" because the latter are not blindly loyal to Bush. Note that in this quote Sorcinelli does not actually use the word "liberal" and does not refer to Bush by name (hence the brackets).

It's certainly true that conservatives have their differences with the five men Greenwald mentions--but those differences are over substance: (among other things) with Sununu on the Patriot Act, with Hagel on Patriot and Iraq, with Barr on security vs. civil liberties, with Voinovich on Bolton, with McCain on free speech, taxes and "torture." Blind loyalty has nothing to do with it; indeed, many conservatives still feel betrayed by Bush for his signing the McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law.

...Greenwald cites several conservative pundits and bloggers who he claims are "authoritarian cultists"--i.e., blind followers of Bush. In at least two of these cases, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, we can rebut his assertion off the top of our head: Coulter opposed--harshly--the nomination not only of Harriet Miers but also of John Roberts. As for Malkin, Google "immigration" and "Bush" on her site and you'll see she's anything but an uncritical follower of the president. (Greenwald also calls them extremists, and we won't argue--but that's a different criticism.)

Assertions without evidence - you wonder why we ignore the polemicists engaged in a permanent competition to see who can use the most words to write "Bush Sucks"?

Without Sullivan's pick-up, that meme would have bounced around the fever swamp and been ignored by any serious Dem. Personally, I don't think it is nearly as self-defeating as Greenwald's meme du jour of a few weeks ago - roughly, 'We Dems can win once we convince Americans to be more afraid of Bush than they are of terrorists'.

However, you keep talking 'em up, and I'll keep hoping that Howard Dean picks 'em up. We're together on this!

[clarice]

Publicly delegating this power to the VP(Federal Register) iS exactly like behaving like Hussein. Right on. That moral equivalency crap has now become such thin gruel it is insufficently nutritous to sustain a cactus.

[The Unbeliever]

Earl, the short answer is (1) the Bush Administration is not claiming the President has unlimited authority, and (2) Sadaam used his "authority" to gas his citizens, invade Kuwait, support terrorism, produce and hoard WMDs (and the framework necessary to create them), take potshots at our planes, subvert the Oil for Food program, bribe certain members of the UN, etc. On the other hand, Bush used his power to... um... listen in on international phone calls.

No moral equivalance or comparison exists between the two, except in the fevered mind of Howard Dean and a few of his friends.