Everyone's talking about it -- the blockbuster Boston Globe story by Charlie Savage on the real power behind the "signing statements." It's Cheney, of course. All the presidential signing statements are vetted by Cheney's counsel and chief of staff, David Addington.Cheney formulated his theory of the omnipotent executive during the Iran/contra scandal, when he was in Congress. Back then, he was one of those people who argued that the Boland amendment (preventing the expenditure of funds on a war in Nicaragua) appplied only to Boland.
We already knew about the signing statements, but Savage's piece proves another point that we had long suspected: Dick Cheney really is the president:
Knowing that Addington was likely to review the bills, other White House and Justice Department lawyers began vetting legislation with Addington’s and Cheney’s views in mind, according to another former lawyer in the Bush White House.Why didn't Cheney just run for president himself? Probably because he couldn't stomach pretending to be bathed in the blood of the Lamb.
All these lawyers, he said, were extremely careful to flag any provision that placed limits on presidential power.
I guess W really is a man who thinks with his Dick. But Bush is still the titular leader, which means he is open to impeachment if an opposition party gets into power. What we need are as many clear examples as we can gather of disobeyed legislation. The signing statements simply announce a willingness to disobey.
7 comments:
joe, i'm increasingly of the opinion that we should just put a hold on the cries for impeaching bush and go after cheney. especially given the growing evidence that he may well have been the force behind making plame's name public, which is nothing short of treason.
but cheney has committed another interesting crime, in that his office has not submitted a report of classified/declassified documents in at least four years, i think, defying a direct order of the president.
in any case, it would sure seem that taking out cheney would accomplish a large part of what we're after, which is to get rid of the evil mastermind behind all the criminal treachery. besides, bush is utterly worthless without the dick (a sentiment i don't necessarily harbor in the innuendo), and with rove likely being removed from the mix, it seems bush would then be pretty much castrated and beheaded.
Joseph:
David Addington, the prime proponent of unchecked (and uncheckable) power of the Executive Branch, argued in White House meetings for Congressional prerogatives when lawmakers made their objection to the FBI seizure of William Jefferson's files.
Everyone knows that by defending Congressional immunities in the case of a corrupt Democrat, the GOP is trying to derail ongoing investigations of Republicans on the Hill.
But still, Addington, of all people, arguing against the Justice Department position (an Executive Branch agency) is raising eyebrows in Washington.
I don't think there's any question that Dick Cheney is the defacto President, at least from a policy-making standpoint. Since there's no way he ever could have won the presidency on his own - I mean, just look at and listen to the guy; he's creepy - he needed a face, a voice, a personality, and a name in order to shield the silent candidacy of Cheney himself. That shield was George W. Bush. And the secrecy that shrouds the office of the Vice President is positively unprecedented in the history of the republic. There's a reason for such secrecy. And it's finally beginning to come out.
Yeah, considering the PNAC's plans, there's no way I believe its members would have wanted to move forward with Cheney as the front man--not enough of any kind of personability there to lead the sheep during the post-9/11 eradication of our everything. Not to mention the fact that even getting Cheney elected--or rather, making the fraud that would have put him in Washington believable--would have been a long shot with liabilities like his ugly health profile in play.
The only reason a vice president has never been impeached is that no vice president has been influential enough to justify it.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from impeaching and removing from office both the president and vice president simultaneously if the Congress concludes that they are both guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
- oddjob
Ah, if wishing (or a Reid-less Democratic Party) made it so, oddjob.
But about what III posted above reagarding dropping the Bush impeachment crusade and aiming at Cheney...egh. I think Joseph has actually done fine work laying out the case for why we must demand impeachment of Bush. Despite how lofty and impossible a goal this yet seems, I think that's what we should continue to do, no matter what happens to Dick. Bush remains the amiable, likeable figurehead for these not-so-thinly concealed travesties, and serves as the symbol that allows the bigoted, misogynist, ignorant, cowardly sheep, Jesus zombies and mainstream media whores to justify having supported his agendas and to call them "conservative" (instead of fascist) until they can engineer the next backlash.
If we allow Cheney to be made the bigger scape-goat, something it appears to me that a large portion of the left has been doing for a while--inadvertently or not--it will give the Jesus zombie sheep whores something they can cling to until their last gasps with which to rationalize their culpability. "Well, you know, if it hadn't been for that nefarious Cheney, Bush would still be regarded as one of the greatest presidents ever, blah, blah, gaysandwomenandlatinpeoplesuck..." It has to be Bush who gets crucified, leaving the "historians" especially as little room as possible to sweep his crimes under the rug in the name of being "fair" to the "less libral" among us.
And that's just the strategic side of it. It's not like Bush didn't do anything wrong, illegal or treasonous here. Wanting to see him held accountable for everything is also a "principle of the thing" thing for me.
Which is not to say I think Cheney shouldn't be punnished and defamed--of course he should. Letting him get off any easier would also be both morally and strategically deplorable, particularly as it appears Dick may have committed more actual, documentable crimes than W. Still, spending more time angling for Cheney than Bush, especially now? That idea sickens me, and gives me visions of my father, on his death bed, blathering, "But, but, surely you must admit, he did a good job dealing with the Middle East after 9/11...a brave leader, then...gah..."
Do you people really think the Dems would impeach? Why you would think that is beyond me. I mean look at the 5 Democratic candidates in 2004. None of them was anti-war. That includes Howard Dean. As Jeremy Scahill said in his lecture that is available here...
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/dahr_jamail_jeremy_scahill_3_14_2006.php
Post a Comment