Apparently, our "esteemed" Vice President thinks he's above every law, every agency, every oversight, ever set up for the 2nd in command in the United State. We all know he goes to no end to hide everything he does from the American people, and the world. But this time, he's out-done himself.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/22/cheney.documents/index.html

Again, the man is a liar; a cheat; a crook. And, please, no one say "where's the proof", because he hides everything he does. This latest one, however, is just incredible. You don't go to such lengths to hide things if you don't have anything to hide.

A couple of things here.

First, I don't trust Cheney as far as I could throw him. (Between his fat ass and my bad shoulder that isn't far.)

Second, I don't know about the whole thing of trying to get the department in question disbanded and wonder if that is just speculation and grandstanding.

Third, what he is doing is slimy at best and against the spirit of the law for what it's worth.

All those said however he might be onto a nice little loophole since the Vice President actually falls under the Legislative Branch in the definition the Constitution gives.

Not saying it is right but damn he's good with the loopholes. How many more years until he's out of office?

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1): First, I don't trust Cheney as far as I could throw him. (Between his fat ass and my bad shoulder that isn't far.)

Worse on your shoulder, I would think.  

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1): All those said however he might be onto a nice little loophole since the Vice President actually falls under the Legislative Branch in the definition the Constitution gives.

Without looking, I think it's Section II, Article I of the Constitution that lays out the VPOTUS as part of the Executive Branch, with one of his duties being President of The Senate. He's CLEARLY in the Executive Branch.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1): All those said however he might be onto a nice little loophole since the Vice President actually falls under the Legislative Branch in the definition the Constitution gives.

I'm not sure if that's true. Certainly when he acts as President of the Senate, that's a legislative branch position but the position is also present in Article II. In fact Section IV of Article II provides for the removal of the VP along with other civil officers of the US.

Wouldn't it stand that if the VPOTUS was a legislative branch position, the removal provisions would be found in Article I of the Constitution?

..and how many times has "executive priviledge" been cited by the VP.

There's less dirt on my dog's butthole than on Cheney's little finger.

Yes but the VP only serves the role as tiebreaking vote in the Senate and nothing more.

Quoting Sean1234 (Reply 6): Yes but the VP only serves the role as tiebreaking vote in the Senate and nothing more.

Again, not true. He serves as President of the Senate and therefore is entitled to, if he wanted to preside over every Senate session and rule on points of order under Senate rules. The power is there, though it hasn't been exercised.

Article 2, Section 1 states that the VP serves the same term as the President but makes no specific rules about the position itself.

Article 2, Section 4 does cover impeachment but it lists civil officers in addition to the President and Vice President. Who exactly are these other folks referenced.

Article 1, Section 3 covers the VP serving as VP of the Senate.

I can see where the murkiness might come from and lead to a legal fight over it.

So what, Falcon? What are you going to do about it? If there was irrefutable evidence that he single-handedly cured global warming you'd be criticizing him for that too because he "kept it secret". I knew when I read title who started it.

You can say whatever you want to about Cheney, he's out of there soon anyway. But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way.

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): What are you going to do about it?

Guarantee that he gets defeated in 2008.

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way.

There's no question in my mind that the VP does and should know things that are none of our business. That's not the point here.

From the article: "The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office is charged by presidential order with ensuring that classified information and documents are properly handled by executive branch agencies."

This appears to me to be a matter of inter-governmental document handling, not some public right-to-know issue.

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): You can say whatever you want to about Cheney, he's out of there soon anyway. But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way.

Then I'll say this, to keep things on point: if Cheney's business includes anything that does, in point of fact, pose a threat to national security, directly or indirectly, it's damn well every taxpayer's right to know.

The whole lot of it stinks any way you slice it...government has checks and balances for a reason. Cheney didn't like the checks so he attempted to unbalance them. Underhanded and cause for suspicion at any rate - take the flag off of this man's lapel already.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 1): How many more years until he's out of office?

As I write this there are still 577 days left in this administration.


Edit: for grammer

[Edited 2007-06-23 03:04:41]

Y'know, I always used to birdfinger the Eurotypes who lumped all Americans in with their disgust for Bush&Co.

But if Americans let this fucker get away with something like this, because they're too busy waiting to see NBC's $1million interview with the Hilton sisters.... then I dare say that we friggin' deserve to be the laughing stock of the world.

Very disconcerting, and yes folks, I say this as a Republican.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 10): Guarantee that he gets defeated in 2008.

...at what? He's not running for anything.

Queso,

Just wondering: do you implicitly trust Dick Cheney?

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 14): He's not running for anything.

Then let's quit this obsession over what he does. If there is anything illegal that he did, it will be taken care of by any branch controlled by the Democrats.

This reminds me of the obsession with Clinton some in the GOP had, and how the Democrats mocked them. It is sad to see some of the Democrats stoop to the same level of behavior that they themselves would have derided but a few years ago.

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): So what, Falcon? What are you going to do about it? If there was irrefutable evidence that he single-handedly cured global warming you'd be criticizing him for that too because he "kept it secret". I knew when I read title who started it. You can say whatever you want to about Cheney, he's out of there soon anyway. But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way.

Doesn't anything about this Dastardly Duo bother you, Queso? This Administration has tried to hide almost EVERYTHING it does from the American people. This is the most paranoid, arrogant, scared-shitless Administration ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania.

And, now, we have a VP, who is trying to find ANY MEANS NECESSARY, to, once again, come clean with the American people. First, he allegedly tries to shut down the National Archives. Then, when that doesn't fly, he tries to say, contrary to the Constitution, that he's not part of the Executive Branch-although he runs for Executive Privelage every chance he gets.

Let me ask you something, Queso. If you see someone trying to duck every question, hide everything he's done, in some vault for 75 years, not matter what it is-forget that he's Dick Cheney, GOP VPOTUS, doesn't that, in your gut, tell you the man has something to hide? It does me. And, it obviously does to even a lot of Republicans on this board.

But you? You want to DEFEND this nonsense? You want to DEFEND soemone who looks like a crook, moves like a crooks, walks like a crooks, smiles like a crook, talks like a crook? Because that's what we have as a VPOTUS. When anyone goes to such lengths to hide, he's not hiding nothing. He's hiding something. And this guy is, I'm convinced, hiding stuff that would make you turn pale.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 14): t if Americans let this fucker get away with something like this, because they're too busy waiting to see NBC's $1million interview with the Hilton sisters.... then I dare say that we friggin' deserve to be the laughing stock of the world.

Amen to that.

What we need is immediate impeachment proceedings against this guy. The nation would be a lot better off if this creep were at Leavenworth, and the Bush Administration might regain a little integrity with the American people for the last 570 days of its existence.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 14): Bush&Co.

at present, the USA leadership is a strange institution. At he helm there is a president who quite unlike Richard Nixon is not a crook but a moron. And in the second position you have a crook who happens to be competent and intelligent. A crook who is shrewd enough NEVER to leave traces and always covering his actions so shrewdly that nobody can really prove anything. You can conclude that HE arranged all business in occupied Iraq going to companies of Halliburton and that he cashes on that. But how to prove anything '? no way.
-

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business.

About 10 years ago, it was everyone's business where Clinton stuck his ****


And now Cheney is doing everything in secrecy, now trying to abolish an oversight agency and you are defending him?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): looks like a crook, moves like a crooks, walks like a crooks, smiles like a crook, talks like a crook?

And you forgot - he has crooks working for him.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): What we need is immediate impeachment proceedings against this guy.

Well, I do agree with your city's former mayor and my presidential candidate of choice but lets not forget Republicans turned impeachment into a joke. (sad because now we actually need it)

[Edited 2007-06-23 07:02:34]

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 19): looks like a crook, moves like a crooks, walks like a crooks, smiles like a crook, talks like a crook? -- And you forgot - he has crooks working for him.

-
decent crooks are NOT "do-it-yourself" people, but have others doing the "work" for them
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 20): decent crooks are NOT "do-it-yourself" people, but have others doing the "work" for them

nice  


But do decent crooks get greedy?

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 21): But do decent crooks get greedy?

-
yes, they are as greedy as greey anybody can be !

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 18): A crook who is shrewd enough NEVER to leave traces and always covering his actions so shrewdly that nobody can really prove anything

So you say there is no proof nor chance of proving that he did anything wrong, but you are sure he did...OK...

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): Because that's what we have as a VPOTUS. When anyone goes to such lengths to hide, he's not hiding nothing. He's hiding something. And this guy is, I'm convinced, hiding stuff that would make you turn pale.

But again, you show no proof, and no conviction has been forthcoming, even with a democratic congress.

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 19): About 10 years ago, it was everyone's business where Clinton stuck his **** And now Cheney is doing everything in secrecy, now trying to abolish an oversight agency and you are defending him?

It was the GOPs business where he was sticking his wiener, and plenty of Democrats were DEFENDING him at the time. Even my coworker was blaming Monica for going after him.

Turnaround is a bitch, isn't it?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): But again, you show no proof, and no conviction has been forthcoming, even with a democratic congress.

Nothing has been forthcoming precisely because his secrecy has been so competent. What is so hard to understand about that? This forest has exceedingly tall trees.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): It was the GOPs business where he was sticking his wiener

...only because he made it such by lying under oath.

Had he just come out and said "Yeah, I did it; it was a mistake, now move on".... then about the worst the GOP could've done is whine about him being a cheat, and disrespecting marriage/the office of the president--- neither of which would've had any legal ramifications whatsoever, and probably wouldn'tve lasted more than a week in the news.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 25): Had he just come out and said "Yeah, I did it; it was a mistake, now move on"....

That's completely true. And what the hell where his critics (myself included) had he admitted what he did?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24): Nothing has been forthcoming precisely because his secrecy has been so competent. What is so hard to understand about that? This forest has exceedingly tall trees.

Read your own paragraph several times. Now this whole thing about him being so 'competent' and 'evil' to hide his (yet to be proven) wrongdoing sounds nothing more like a pathetic excuse used by his detractors to justify why he has not been found guilty of anything, especially after all the effort expended to do so.

Perhaps the reason nothing has been found is because there is nothing to be found.

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): You can say whatever you want to about Cheney, he's out of there soon anyway. But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way.

I hope you believe that Cheney uses that secrecy to make decisions for the safety of the USA, and not to give KBR every illegal unnecessary defense contract in sight, thus bankrupting the nation.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 26): Perhaps the reason nothing has been found is because there is nothing to be found.

I hope you are not a police detective.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): A crook who is shrewd enough NEVER to leave traces and always covering his actions so shrewdly that nobody can really prove anything - So you say there is no proof nor chance of proving that he did anything wrong, but you are sure he did...OK...

-
There may be a chance that it gets proven, but that may be in a few decades time. In case of Richard Nixon, the "deeds" became at least partially known due to those tapes.
-

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): It was the GOPs business where he was sticking his wiener, and plenty of Democrats were DEFENDING him at the time. Even my coworker was blaming Monica for going after him.

So, what I don't understand is this whole administration (Bush, Co.) is secretive and doing everything in their power to keep the American people terrified. Defenders of the current administration run around saying "Clinton was nearly impeached so get off the back of Bush!" But, let's compare:

Clinton lied about what? National security? No. No-bid government contracts? No. Energy meetings? No. Hiding documents? No. He lied about having consensual sex with another adult.

Bush and company have lied about or covered up what (that we know of)? And people are still defending him! This latest Cheney cover-up is just more proof these people are not to be trusted and gives good reason as to why their approval rating is so low!

GO CANUCKS!!

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 27): I hope you are not a police detective.

In this country you need evidence prior to conviction.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 28): the "deeds" became at least partially known due to those tapes.

The robbery was the beginning.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): gives good reason as to why their approval rating is so low!

And why is congress' approval rating LOWER than that of Bush?

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): You don't go to such lengths to hide things if you don't have anything to hide.

Most often true, though, in this case, hard, if not impossible to refute.

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 11): Quoting Queso (Reply 9): But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business. And for the sake of the security of the country let's hope it stays that way. There's no question in my mind that the VP does and should know things that are none of our business. That's not the point here. From the article: "The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office is charged by presidential order with ensuring that classified information and documents are properly handled by executive branch agencies." This appears to me to be a matter of inter-governmental document handling, not some public right-to-know issue.

     

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): What we need is immediate impeachment proceedings against this guy.

That would fly if it was introduced by a Republican - but Cheney probably has them all too scared to even sneeze w/o his blessing.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24): Nothing has been forthcoming precisely because his secrecy has been so competent. What is so hard to understand about that? This forest has exceedingly tall trees.

There's been a certain level of competence from him I'd say (but I haven't seen everything) concerning legal questions about him and his office, but there's been way too much reliance upon privileges that come with his position. I just wonder if Cheney can be prosecuted once he's out of office.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): Clinton lied about what?

It was the mere fact that he lied (as mentioned in this thread previously) - that he did it so obviously is what got him in so much hot water.

-R

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 30): In this country you need evidence prior to conviction.

In the USA you get that evidence by investigating suspicious activity. Hiding everything and suspiciously conducting deals with large corporations should be enough to warrant an investigation. Then using the information collected from the investigation you decide if there is a case for a conviction-before even going to the courts.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 30): And why is congress' approval rating LOWER than that of Bush?

Because they have not been able to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq due to the fact that the Bush administration wants to keep them there until at least 2008. Remember, it was Bush who vetoed the Iraq spending bill because it held the Iraqi government accountable for the progress or lack of progress in Iraq and because it set a timetable for withdrawal. It was the Republicans who would not go along with an override. Bush, with his veto power and powers as Commander In Chief, has sunk us deeper into the quagmire that the American people want to get out of. Congress' approval ratings have everything to do with not being able to change the course in Iraq.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): But again, you show no proof, and no conviction has been forthcoming, even with a democratic congress.

What did I say at the outset, Andes: there isn't any proof because Cheney hides everything he does. Now, in an impeachment proceeding, it's quite possible Congress can subpeona everything this lout has done, to prove or disprove his guilt or innocence. That's why impeachment proceedings should begin-simple because of the absurd lengths he's going to hid stuff from the American people.

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 19): About 10 years ago, it was everyone's business where Clinton stuck his ****

I did not know that "finger" was spelled with only four letters in the US!   

It does appear that a fair few of this Administration's problems tie back to VPoTUS. It could be that the POTUS is as benign as some kindly suppose. I think however, he well knows what he does. The VP is convenient but it seems more likely that he is the means not the overall driver. Bush comes across to me when in trouble as a more or less permanent Nixon in his Chequers speech style.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): But again, you show no proof, and no conviction has been forthcoming, even with a democratic congress.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 30): In this country you need evidence prior to conviction

Considering that they suspended the writ of habeas corpus evidence is completely unnecessary   

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 26): And what the hell where his critics (myself included) had he admitted what he did?

...in English please??

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): "Clinton was nearly impeached so get off the back of Bush!"

Clinton wasn't nearly impeached cher....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 34): there isn't any proof

Conviction without proof is what you are advocating. Do you want to go down that slippery slope?

Quoting Queso (Reply 9): But in the meantime there are things that the VP does that are none of your, or my, business.

   big big big   

One thing the President says that always sets me off (one of the many things, but anyway) is when he refers to the government as "my government". Bullshit. It's our government, not his, ours! The last time I checked there was no provision in the constitution for a monarch, and I teach the fuckin' thing!!! The President and Vice President are civil service employees, and temps at that. So as an American citizen everything the VP does is my business.

You know everybody talks about freedom as if it is some gift. A present to be bestowed upon the serfs when the monarch sees fit. It isn't. It is, in fact, a burden. Citizens in a democracy do not have the luxury of saying that what the government does is none of their business, they hired them and they have the power to fire them, violently if necessary. Freedom demands that every citizen be diligent in watching their government and be ready to speak out and act at any time. The moment we cede that responsibility to any authority is the moment that we can no longer consider ourselves to be free people.

Therefore I will decide what is, and is not, my business!

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Again, the man is a liar; a cheat; a crook. And, please, no one say "where's the proof", because he hides everything he does.

Then where is your proof? All you seem to have is your opinion, which isn't enough to convict anyone.

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 27): I hope you believe that Cheney uses that secrecy to make decisions for the safety of the USA, and not to give KBR every illegal unnecessary defense contract in sight, thus bankrupting the nation.

Perhaps you should check the difference in defense contract earnings between KBR and Boeing.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): No. He lied about having consensual sex with another adult.

In a court of law, under oath.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): Bush and company have lied about or covered up what (that we know of)?

I don't know, why don't you tell us with some proof to back it up.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 29): This latest Cheney cover-up is just more proof these people are not to be trusted and gives good reason as to why their approval rating is so low!

But still higher than Congresses.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): This Administration has tried to hide almost EVERYTHING it does from the American people.

Once again, where is your proof? Anything else is just conjecture.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): This is the most paranoid, arrogant, scared-shitless Administration ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania.

More opinion.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): First, he allegedly tries to shut down the National Archives.

Nice try.
The National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office is hardly the entire National Archive office. Perhaps if you could get simple facts like this straight the rest of your arguments might merit some debate.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): If you see someone trying to duck every question, hide everything he's done, in some vault for 75 years, not matter what it is-forget that he's Dick Cheney, GOP VPOTUS, doesn't that, in your gut, tell you the man has something to hide? It does me. And, it obviously does to even a lot of Republicans on this board.

And if a democrat is elected in '08 and see's that there are things in the vault that were illegal, do you think they will remain quiet on the subject(s)?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): What we need is immediate impeachment proceedings against this guy. The nation would be a lot better off if this creep were at Leavenworth,

Come up with one single charge that has any validity behind it and I'm sure that the democratic majority in the House of Represenatives will vote articles of impeachment. Heck, they might even stay in session over a weekend or postpone a vacation to do it!

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 19): Well, I do agree with your city's former mayor and my presidential candidate of choice but lets not forget Republicans turned impeachment into a joke. (sad because now we actually need it)

Democrats effectively said, in defending President Clinton, that it is ok to walk into a court of law and lie under oath to protect yourself. So impeachment has been turned into a joke because the majority party at this time doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to bringing charges of lying or obstructing justice.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 24): Nothing has been forthcoming precisely because his secrecy has been so competent.

And upheld by the courts to boot!
In 2001, the office refused to divulge the names of energy executives who had consulted with Cheney on U.S. energy policy.

The decision was challenged and upheld by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court referred the case back to a lower court.

Nixon was facing impeachment proceedings and effectively had been indited and had charges presented. He would had faced a trial by the Senate for his 'cover ups' of the various scandals he had knowlege of realating to his re-election in 1972, but he resigned before the trial could start.
Clinton was not indited and ended up not facing impeachment trial proceedings for his act of purgery in a deposition as to truped up charges of his sexual assult of Paula Jones, prior to when Clinton became President, in a civil lawsuit she brought. Clinton would have to face and plead no-contest to felony (impeachable) offenses in a Federal District Court, but didn't get any jail time, although his Ark. Law license was suspended for 5 years.
Cheney is more like Nixon in these circumstances. Don't forget that like Nixon, he believes in an unbalanced and superior position of the Executive branch that he is part of. This is espeically critical as to issues of National Security and Executive Privileges (such as political appointments jobs in an adminstartion, like Federal Proscutators). He is trying to 'cover up' his sins until he leave office and well beyond it. The Democrats in Congress and the Senate are reluctant to go too hard on Cheney as know from what happened to Clinton, it distracted the country and the President from much more critical issues and events and from their agenda. An impeachment proceeding or the preliminaries of it would take too much time as well. This doesn't stop Congressional/Senatorial Commitees from continuing to subpoena Bush and Cheney on various issues and investigate. I the meantime, Congress/Senate must pass legisgation to try to rein in the powers of Bush and Cheney. Of course, both Bush and Cheney have lost the trust of most Americans due to their abuses in office, especially as their use of questionable intelagence and their overall decision to send our troops into Iraq and depose Saddam Hussain.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): Clinton was not indited and ended up not facing impeachment trial proceedings for his act of purgery in a deposition

? He did face impeachment proceedings.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): but he resigned before the trial could start.

He resigned before articles of impeachment were introduced to the House because a number of Republican Congressmen and Senators came to him and said they could no longer support him. If the democrats had done the same thing with Clinton they would have a much stronger leg to stand on when it comes going after lying and obstructing justice in office today.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): as to truped up charges of his sexual assult of Paula Jones, prior to when Clinton became President

? The President agreed to a an out of court settlement to vacate the case. It was a huge settlement, not the kind an individual is in the habit of agreeing to if they feel they are innocent.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): Don't forget that like Nixon, he believes in an unbalanced and superior position of the Executive branch that he is part of.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): I the meantime, Congress/Senate must pass legisgation to try to rein in the powers of Bush and Cheney.

So you are evidently in favor of an unequal amount of power residing with the legislative branch?

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 41): Of course, both Bush and Cheney have lost the trust of most Americans due to their abuses in office, especially as their use of questionable intelagence and their overall decision to send our troops into Iraq and depose Saddam Hussain.

But more Americans distrust the Congress according to polls out now.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 42): But more Americans distrust the Congress according to polls out now.

That to me is very interesting. To me, it says a few things. I have to ask myself why the Congress has such a low approval rating especially compared to President Bush (besides the blindingly obvious that they haven't done much of anything except dissapoint). I think you'd find that a majority of Dems don't approve of the Congress, who as you all know, is controlled by the Dems.

[tin foil hat]So it would seem that Republicans on the other hand seem to have a tougher time admitting that their side screwed up. It's really not that much of a reach to come to that conclusion. Plenty of examples here in this very forum that, no matter how badly the Bush Administration mishandles something (the War in Iraq, immigration, spending, etc, etc) you still will have loyal apologists coming out defending them. It's not a rule written in stone, as you can see on ConcordeBoy's Bush approval/support thread, that some used to support the administration, but don't anymore. But I think in general, those 25-29% of Americans have a hard time admitting the administration hasn't performed up to their standards. Hell, I don't even know who the 25-29% of America is anymore. It can't be all conservatives can it? When this administration is about 100 miles downstream of core conservative values. I know Evangelical Christians support President Bush. I know some people do agree with him on most issues. I know some approve of him because he's better than some lefty. And then there's those, who I think are influenced by the late former President Reagan's 11th commandment.[/tin foil hat]

Sound plausable?

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): So it would seem that Republicans on the other hand seem to have a tougher time admitting that their side screwed up.

It would depend on where you are saying he screwed up. I don't think he or the last Republican led Congress did near enough to control spending. I don't think any Republican led Congress since 96-98 has done much to put a dent into entitlement spending. I think this President, if it hadn't been for 9/11 would have brought that issue much more to the forefront of policy.

I think the war has thrown more than its fair share of curveballs at the administration and they have taken their lumps over it. That being said, I didn't hear anyone on the other side of talking about providing body armor or uparmoring humvees prior the invasion as one example. All that stuff was availabel so why weren't they crying about doing it then? I think the democrats have taken any little thing that could be construed as a mis-step and used it for political advantage which I think is pretty shameless.

I think the press has been extremely hard and has gone out of it's way to avoid providing any good news from either Iraq or Afghanistan. If you do nothing but broadcast the bad news of the day, no matter what is happening in the rest of the country, sooner or later people will start to think the whole country is in that kind of shape. During Katrina and in the '04 elections the press was almost derelict in their responsibility to confirm the facts before reporting them.

So yes, in some areas, most lately immigration, I think the President and Vice President have failed in their responsibility to the nation. But on the whole, and after hearing what some others would have done, I would prefer the Presidents and Vice Presidents methods over all others.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): It would depend on where you are saying he screwed up. I don't think he or the last Republican led Congress did near enough to control spending.

Sorry I wasn't more specific, I guess along the lines of overall job performance, i.e. approval raiting. "Do you approve of the way President Bush has performed throughout his presidency."

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): I don't think any Republican led Congress since 96-98 has done much to put a dent into entitlement spending. I think this President, if it hadn't been for 9/11 would have brought that issue much more to the forefront of policy.

True. I wonder what his presidency would have been like if it wasn't for 9/11. Although in the same breath, 9/11 has been a scapegoat for him, sometimes justified, more often not.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): I think the war has thrown more than its fair share of curveballs at the administration and they have taken their lumps over it.

Oh definately, but I don't think it's too off for me to say most of it was and is a self inflicted wound. The anti-war, anti-Bush just for the sake of being anti-Bush crowd non-withstanding.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): That being said, I didn't hear anyone on the other side of talking about providing body armor or uparmoring humvees prior the invasion as one example. All that stuff was availabel so why weren't they crying about doing it then

Well, I'd think, or I'd hope, that that would be a given when you send brave young and women off to war. Furthermore, the Bush Administration went to war on a cheap budget. They didn't give the Troops the tools needed to complete the objectives set out before them.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): I think the democrats have taken any little thing that could be construed as a mis-step and used it for political advantage which I think is pretty shameless.

True, although as you can see in the 2004 elections, they didn't do that great of a job  . And, of course, the Republicans are guilty of the same. The real sin is when both sides use the Troops as political pawns.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): I think the press has been extremely hard and has gone out of it's way to avoid providing any good news from either Iraq or Afghanistan. If you do nothing but broadcast the bad news of the day, no matter what is happening in the rest of the country, sooner or later people will start to think the whole country is in that kind of shape.

I agree, I'd love to hear the good news. But to use the media as a scapegoat for political mistakes is intellectually dishonest. It's not media when you hear Generals on the ground telling you how bad the situation is. It's not media spin when you see how wounded Soldiers can't even get proper health care when they come home. But again, I agree with you that there needs to be reports of progress being made.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): During Katrina and in the '04 elections the press was almost derelict in their responsibility to confirm the facts before reporting them.

Uhhhh, the Media was ON THE GROUND right after Katrina hit. Didn't take them 4 days to get down there. So I believe them over President Bush or his friend Brownie when he said he didn't know people were stuck in the convention center when the MEDIA reported that there were people there. Hell, I knew there were people there. Brownie was IN New Orleans.

As far as the '04 elections, I'd tend to agree with you.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 44): But on the whole, and after hearing what some others would have done, I would prefer the Presidents and Vice Presidents methods over all others.

Fair enough. It's hard for me to understand that perspective given all that they have done, but nonetheless you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.  .

Dave

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 38): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 34): there isn't any proof Conviction without proof is what you are advocating. Do you want to go down that slippery slope?

Absolutely not, Andes. Never. What I want is impeachment hearings, all his records subpeoned, what can be released to the public being released, and the Congress seeing EVERYTHING. Then, based on that, you can impeach him or not.

And if he refuses to give up his secrecy game, you can impeach him just on that, for being in Contempt of Congress, if I'm not mistaken.

Either way, the truth about this thug has to come out. He's dirty. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Apparently a few people on this forum can't. Well, they can, but they're so beholden to the GOP they simply cannot bring themselves to let the light of the truth about this guy in, lest their whole view of the world go up in flames.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): Again, the man is a liar; a cheat; a crook. And, please, no one say "where's the proof", because he hides everything he does. Then where is your proof?

Hidden by Mr. Cheney. Again, you didn't read the first part too well.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): This Administration has tried to hide almost EVERYTHING it does from the American people. Once again, where is your proof? Anything else is just conjecture.

Again, locked up. It's conjecture, yes, but based on a pattern by said subject, who has gone to great lengths to hide everything he does from those who elected him to his office.

It's amazing, RJ, as smart as you are-and you are-that you are so politically blinded that you cannot see the truth about this man. Doesn't it bother you IN THE LEAST, that this guy hides everything? Not in the least? And, if not, why do you even bother supporting open government in this nation?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17): This is the most paranoid, arrogant, scared-shitless Administration ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania. More opinion.

That, my friend, is fact. It's fact to those, on both sides of the aisle, unlike yourself, who have been totally brainwashed and blinded by the lie that is this Administration. I can only shake my head that someone as seemingly as intelligent as you are in such an amazing state of denial over everything to do with this arrogant, paranoid, secretive Administration, most notably, the Vice President.

It defies description.

Mark my work, RJ, the truth will come out about this man. And, when it does, whenever that may be, you'll be stricken with such a case of guilt at having supported a criminal that was 2nd in Command of this nation.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): who has gone to great lengths to hide everything he does from those who elected him to his office.

Let's use a relevant example, Falcon. Using only two words:

Vince Foster

Of course I have no proof of this being a murder, but I can certainly find a pattern where Clinton associates met an untimely demise (remember Ron Brown?). But I call for an investigation over my suspicions. What would you say to that?

Now, let's not get into a political quagmire by creating more Libby situations, where an investigation was done to find any crime committed.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 47): Let's use a relevant example, Falcon. Using only two words: Vince Foster Of course I have no proof of this being a murder, but I can certainly find a pattern where Clinton associates met an untimely demise (remember Ron Brown?).

Who's plane hit a mountainside, in fog, in a foreign country?

Uh, Ok. Whatever you say.

You're deliberately deflecting the conversation. Tyipcal. Amazing, again, that soemone as smart as you cannot see what's going on here.

It's not that they're unable to see, they're completely unwilling. Big difference. I for one would welcome investigations into the various mishaps that befell those who crossed the Clintons.