Bush and Cheney: Above Even Their Own Rules

I haven't posted in quite a few days so it's no surprise that I have compiled a very large collection of articles for the Roundup. In fact, it would have been larger still had my computer not shut down with a lot of open windows yesterday - I couldn't find all the articles (or remember what they were all about).

It's Sunday, I got some Frosted Flakes by my side...I'm ready to begin the latest roundup.

The LA Times revealed Saturday morning that President Bush is claiming that he and the Vice President are both exempted from following their own Executive Order that requires an independent federal watchdog groups to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

You remember that executive order that Cheney's office said didn't apply to him, because he wasn't really in the executive branch, since he was also President of the Senate? It's in the news again.

But not just because Cheney conitnues to make that ridiculous claim. No, today it's in the news because Bush is making a claim equally stupid. Possibly even more stupid:

Bush claims oversight exemption too
The White House says the president's own order on classified data does not apply to his office or the vice president's.

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2007

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

Does anyone else find it extraordinarily dangerous that both the President and the Vice President say they don't have to comply with their own orders regarding the tracking of classification and declassification of information that passes through their hands?

They have balls, I'll give them that. And it really must take some 20 pound ones in order to lack the shame in putting forward an argument stating that: Well, the Vice President is NOT in the Executive Branch of government because the Vice President also has a role as President of the Senate.

Yeah, let that marinate for a minute............more..............a little more.......OK.

Lets put aside that for the 200+ years of our Republic it has been universally accepted that the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch.

No, what Vice President Cheney is essentially arguing is that he is not a part of ANY of the 3 established Branches of Government, almost that he is a Branch unto himself because it does not fit anywhere. Its funny how often new powers and privileges this vice president has "newly" discovered (it seems all the other VP's just didn't realize?).

Another argument is that Executive Order is only meant to be applied to Executive "Agencies" and not to them specifically.

But the Executive Order itself mentions itself that:

"Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

Any other "entity within the executive branch" clearly references not only departments but individuals with who come into possession of classified documents - which both the President and Vice President do (as do many others)

In fact, the Executive order makes specific mention of the VP and President (its rights, its duties and responsibilities etc regarding classified material) no less that 30 times. They simply cannot argue that the Executive Order somehow does not apply to them when it specifically refers to them so many times.

The White House Press Secretary even tried to lie to reporters who questioned this supposed exemption for the Vice President: (Think Progress)

Yesterday, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Dick Cheney’s claim of existing outside the Executive Order (EO) that governs the preservation of classified data, a directive which applies to all Executive Branch officials.

Dismissing the topic as “a little bit of a nonissue,” Perino said President Bush “gets to decide whether or not [Cheney] should be treated separately, and he’s decided that he should.” She then suggested there was textual evidence in the 2003 Executive Order to support the claim that it was not applicable to Cheney:

PERINO: If you look on page 18 of the EO, when you have a chance, there’s a distinction regarding the Vice President versus what is an agency. And the President also, as the author of an EO, and the person responsible for interpreting the EO, did not intend for the Vice President to be treated as an agency, and that’s clear.

Last night, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann reported that his staff fact-checked Perino’s claim, looked at page 18 of the order, and found Perino’s claim to be false:

OLBERMANN: No exemption at all for the Vice President on page 18. So we emailed the White House, which referred us to section 1.3 — which is about something else altogether — and 5.2 — which makes no mention of the Vice President. In fact, there is no exemption for the President or the Vice President when it comes to reporting on classified material.

What the hell!? Did they honestly believe they could simply lie to reporters? That someone wouldn't go back and fact check them? Do they even care? The gall...

They want to maintain the ability to destroy or entirely keep secret, classified materials - the Exec Order orders its preservation (even if in secret). Cheney and Bush would rather they be able to destroy what they want when they want.

And why wouldn't they? When you have many potential classified bombshells, some that I imagine may allude to illegal activities...You can understand why they prefer not to preserve their records for the independent watchdog agency. Keeping secrets even from those tasked with keeping secrets. Classic.

Of course, the Democrats hit back with a very clever idea

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue to pursue this measure in the coming days."

Hahaha!! Very clever indeed Mr. Emanuel!! Your move Mr. Cheney...

The Roundup

Case Studies: Neoconservative Psychopaths

Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, his psychopathic outlook, and his quest for war in Iran

Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz followed up his Commentary article titled "The case for bombing Iran" -- excerpts of which were re-published in The Wall St. Journal -- with an interview elaborating on why he "hopes and prays" that we bomb Iran and how he envisions the bombings. Though he generously acknowledges that such an action would likely "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest" -- consequences to which he is transparently (and revealingly) indifferent -- he goes on to suggest that Europeans and even the Muslim world might be grateful for our attack; the bombs will be greeted as Bombs of Liberation and Protection:

Gleen Greenwald proceeds to quote Podhoretz to that effect.

'Europeans and even many in the Muslim world will be grateful for our attack'

Sound familiar?

Will this be the same 'gratitude' that these same neoconservatives predicted would welcome the US when it invaded Iraq. It seems to me that neoconservatives have refused to learn any of the lessons from their mistakes and flawed assumptions regarding Iraq.

Instead they are engaged in pushing a policy based on assumptions that are just as fault, and a action itself that promises to be just as much a failure as Iraq, and also just as counterproductive.

Normal people faced with this situation would have modified their beliefs and policy prescriptions...these guys think more of the same will work this time.

What is it that they say about people who do the same exact thing and expect different results....

As Think Progress notes, not only would a bombing campaign fail to stop the Iranian nuclear program, it would be far more likely to accelerate it, just as the Israeli attack on the Iraqi program did. And a military bombing campaign, guaranteed to kill untold numbers of Iranian civilians, would obviously unite Iranians in anti-American hatred and generate unified support for the most militant political elements in that country.

But beyond those rather obvious points, just contemplate the level of bombing and slaughter that would be required merely to have a chance of fulfilling Podhoretz's goal of "entirely depriv[ing Iran] of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more." How would that be remotely possible without bombing them until Podhoretz's real goal -- regime change -- were achieved, a goal which, if achievable at all, would require bombing so widespread and brutal that it ought to be unthinkable. Yet Podhoretz sits there, in the most smug and casual manner, and blithely "hopes and prays" that we do it.

The chances of successfully eliminating its nuclear program are extremely low, and as the Carnegie Endowment study argues, the most likely result of such an attack will be a substantial increase in the speed of its development.

The reasons for this are simple: Nuclear weapons are developed by nations in no small part to act as a deterrent to interference or attacks from other nations (especially those who are larger and more powerful militarily). To put it in street terms:

You don't fuck with somebody with a nuke or you can get your ass nuked.

To strike Iran would only validate and strengthen that defensive sentiment and that perceived need for a "deterance." The point I and many others (like in the article) make is that a strike will also unite the Iranian people behind its leadership, an outcome that is counterproductive to neoconservative goals of regime change in Iran.

So, why? Because they are hawkish idiots who put too much faith in the use of the military in furthering its goal of permanent (and increased) US Hegemony through the 21st century. And no I didn't make that up! lol

Need more proof about the moral wasteland that is a neoconservative brain?

Norman Podhoretz son, John Podhoretz wondered why the US didn't commit quasi-genocide in Iraq:

What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?

If you can't imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?

And if America can't do it, can Israel? Could Israel - even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel - possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?[emphasis added]

Basically: The US should have decimated the 15 - 35 year old Sunni population of Iraq early on in order to 'make them so afraid of us, they'd do anything with us' and to rob Iraq of the prime demographic necessary in the rise of the insurgency.

They talk about quasi-genocide of such a scale as if they were talking about last weeks football game. Scary isn't it?


Need even more proof of Neoconservative craziness?

Happy to oblige...

Palestine

Hamas Calls for Talks With Abbas (Reuters)

Not likely.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Palestinian government dismissed by President Mahmoud Abbas, called for power-sharing talks on Saturday with Fatah rivals routed from the Gaza Strip.

"There will be no dialogue with Hamas," responded Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Fatah official in the West Bank.

I found this except from the article illuminating because it gives us a glimpse into the difficulties that Mahmoud Abbas will have even from those in his own Fatah faction.

In Gaza, a Fatah official who has broken ranks with Abbas warned Israel not to expect any help from the emergency government which the Palestinian president established a week ago, and said militants in the coastal strip could retaliate.

"More pressure and more closures will explode in (Israel's) faces. The government which is collaborating with the occupation (Israel) will not be able to bring them security," Khaled Abu Hilal said. "Remember that we are ready to do all we can to preserve our dignity and we will race for martyrdom."

Abbas' government has to tread a very fine line between receiving some assistance from Israel and the West and being seen as collaborators with Israel.

Israel has to tread carefully and not push the Palestinians (even Hamas) to hard with its road closures etc...Fatah cannot be seen as callaborators. And elements inside Fatah will rebel as well.

Iraq

Gen. Petraeus' Report Will Have Competition (New York Times)

Last month, Congress set a deadline for the American commander in Iraq, declaring that by Sept. 15 he would have to assess progress there before billions more dollars are approved to finance the military effort to stabilize the country. The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said in recent days that his report would be only a snapshot of trends, strongly suggesting he will be asking for more time.

Last month, Congress set a deadline for the American commander in Iraq, declaring that by Sept. 15 he would have to assess progress there before billions more dollars are approved to finance the military effort to stabilize the country. The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said in recent days that his report would be only a snapshot of trends, strongly suggesting he will be asking for more time.

It appears that there will be many reports out there: From Gen. Petraeus, from Congress, the Pentagon (surprisingly outsourced to Center for Strategic and International Studies).

Some good discussion about the political dimensions and effects these reports could have on the Iraq withdrawal debate.

Odierno Denies, Gates and Pace Confirm (DailyKos)

When the Commanding General of the multinational corps in Baghdad contradicts the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who should we believe? Yesterday, Lt. General Ray Odierno:

...denied reports the U.S. is arming Sunni insurgent groups to help in the fight against al-Qaida. [...]

Odierno also said that while coalition forces are cooperating with some Sunni militants, they are not arming them — something observers caution could come back to haunt U.S. troops later.

"I want to make one thing very clear: We are not arming these groups," Odierno said.

But two days ago, during a joint press conference, Robert Gates and Peter Pace were telling a different story:

SEC. GATES: ...And I think I have to defer to the judgment of those on the ground -- and after all, we also are working with the Iraqi government in all of this -- in terms of making the decision of deciding whether to work with these people and whether to arm them. After all, it's a strategy that has worked extraordinarily well in Al Anbar province in terms of working with the local tribes, and so on.

And so I think this is -- trying to get more of the people who have been shooting to stop shooting and work with us I think is really the pathway forward in terms of accomplishing our objective and getting them to work with the Iraqi government. [...]

GEN. PACE: All I would add to that is that in addition to Al Anbar, you also have about 130 sheikhs in the Tikrit area who have banded together to fight against al Qaeda.

So, is there risk involved with arming groups with whom you've been fighting before? Yes. But I think the greater risk is in not seizing the opportunities as they become available, and as individuals and groups determine that they are willing to team with the Iraqi central government, that they no longer want to be cowered by the al Qaeda, for example, that we should seize those opportunities and work with them and try to get the Iraqi family to pull together.

So, the reports that Odierno was denying were from the head of the Defense Department and the highest ranking military officer of the United States? It seems that it is becoming more and more difficult for this administration and their enablers to keep their stories straight.

And what about the concerns that this policy could "come back to haunt U.S. troops later"? Well, it's a good thing that Odierno made it clear that the reports weren't true, eh?

Wierd...

House Democrats Skelton and Conyers Introduce Major New Habeas Reform (reinstitution) Bill

Today, House chairmen Ike Skelton (D-MS) of the Armed Services Committee and John Conyers (D-MI) of the Judiciary Committee announced legislation that would finally restore habeas corpus rights to U.S. detainees being imprisoned indefinitely without trial. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed habeas legislation earlier this month.

In a statement, Skelton said the legislation takes aim at the “seriously flawed” provision in the Military Commissions Act that stripped detainees of their habeas rights. The support of Skelton, considered a leading moderate in the House, suggests the bill will have broad-based support. Conyers added:

Habeas Corpus is one of the fundamental touchstones of our constitutional democracy. We cannot preach freedom abroad if we are not willing to give prisoners the ability to establish their innocence; and, we cannot advance the cause of fighting terrorism at home if our government takes constitutionally dubious short cuts.

Rock on...

Read Josh Marshall of TPM. He write, you listen.

Adding that this dishonest conservative-hawk flak he references - Col. Buzz Paterson - is the same Col. Buzz Paterson who said this in July of 2005:

"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story."

The war has gone shitty and now this lame-ass wants to blame our failure on the one group who had no power over the policy and execution of the Iraq strategy: The Left, liberals, progressives, and the anti-war crowd. (Read the Talking Points Memo link for proof).

It's funny how the "personal responsibility" crowd always likes to blame everyone but themselves for the shit holes and failures they create.

And sad, considering the consequences of those policies...