As an ex-republican I totally agree.

In my shoes, as someone who is often conservative-minded, I have been outraged - more lately than ever before. I also realize that it is not indefensible to some people. We need people on here with opposing opinions - without it, we'd just be preaching to a choir - so I welcome that they are on here and bringing up things that make us question our various stances.

No. Henry Waxman;)
It's ok. I've had things get me going too(this just happens not to be one:))

That's a good point and I would tend to agree. But surely you can see where the argument comes from and why given that possible loophole the VP would want to cling to it until told by a higher authority then Henry Waxman(D) that he can't?

Except that's not even the "argument" the White House is using. Their entire "justification" is, "Oh, we know what it SAYS, but that's not what it MEANS."

If that is what they want, the president that should just write a new executive order that does it the way he wants. That is the beauty of executive orders (that's the beauty of them).

Seems obvious to me that the office of the president would be exempt if that is what the president wants, not so obvious about the office of the vice president. But if he wants new rules, unless I am missing something, this is one venue where he gets completely free rein in making the rules, so he should just do so.

I like what they said in the first link

Except, Republican Presidents are not allowed to exersise all of their powers for some reason(ie. Firing of Prosecutors)......It would be called an abuse of power and a whole new round of calls for the Administration to be Impeached/beheaded/quartered/etc.

That is funny.....It would be interesting to see how Cheney and co. try to squirm out of that:)

A problem with this administration is that even when they didn't do anything legally wrong they lie about it or otherwise look like they've been caught sleeping with the babysitter.

Odds are no law was broken in putting out the work on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (after all, it is now known, and admitted, who first gave that information to the press and no charges have been brought). But rather than standing up to the public scrutiny of it, they lie.

Odds are the firings of the attorneys general were legal but rather than standing up to the public scrutiny of it, they tell lies about what happened and then drag the story on for months.

The president would be completely within his powers to adjust the executive order however he wants but rather than just standing up to the potential scrutiny of why that change would be wanted, they ignore it and then make up silly excuses.

If they didn't feel the need to cloak absolutely everything they do in secrecy and behind a form of presidential omerta it would probably help. No, the people who hate them or are otherwise opposed would still make a fuss but the people who agree with the president's side could do so without having to feel so retarded in doing so.

Well put!

What one person suggested was that Cheney is trying to distance himself from any long-term responsibility for the actions of the administration, and thus let Bush be the fall guy for all of it. Granted, the person I was talking to was VERY "foil hat" in her political opinions, but I can see where she's going with it. As she points out... there's nowhere you can hide from international law if they decide to put you on trial for war crimes. So perhaps Cheney is trying to avoid responsibility for something bigger and more global in scope than domestic actions.

Of course, this is the same lady who thinks that Ken Lay's death was faked... so take her opinions with a road deicing-sized grain of salt.