Cheney says he would not testify to congress, even if subpoenaed. Now, Worst Vice President Ever subscribes to the notion that the executive branch can never be wrong and is essentially imperial (working under the failed Nixon and Ford presidencies will give someone that impression) but it really doesn’t matter what he thinks. If we get the House, we will engage in the traditional oversight role of the House that the GOP has neglected. If that means issuing a subpeona to everyone shy of the vice president and president, that should do the job.
Please let this happen.
Makes no difference. Dugger would explain to America that regardless of evidence or whether Cheney broke the law or not, we will never know what Cheney’s ‘intention’ was at the time because we cannot read minds.
Move over liberal elitists, the reactionary elitists have arrived.
Cheney was a CEO crook when he ran Halliburton and now he bends the law to his advantage to grow Executive (his) power.
Once you place yourself above the law you become the law?
Hey Ollie, you better get on the horn to the DNC, cause Rahm Emmanuel just got off MTP telling america that the dems were NOT going to supoena everyone…
by the way, you were right, almost no one mentioned kerry, although I guess I was right too, once he apologized the thing just went away. You aren’t given your party very good advice I guess.
I thought you said he hadn’t apologised at all.
we will never know what Cheney’s ‘intention’ was at the time because we cannot read minds.
Except in the case of John Kerry, weher we just know that his joke flub was a freudian slip that revealed his hidden feelings (so says pedrugger, not me)
once he apologized the thing just went away
I think you mean that once it was clear that the Republicans were viciously distorting and exploiting the incident it just went away. Unfortunately, Republican hackery just isn’t news these days. It’s a dog-bites-man story.
dr pedro | Nov 5, 2006 11:35:20 AM
“by the way, you were right, almost no one mentioned kerry, although I guess I was right too, once he apologized the thing just went away. You aren’t given your party very good advice I guess.”
Your posts are hilariously subdued these days, dr pedro.
Wilbur | Nov 5, 2006 11:48:05 AM
“pedrugger”
Brilliant nickname, Wilbur! pedrugger, it is.
The immortal words of pedro:
“I agree a strong response to something like that would be appropriate…if you were RIGHT!”
Tell us agin who was right, pedro?
It’ll be interesting to see Bush/Cheney face up to a non-friendly Congress.
Virtually since 2001, these two have only faced a friendly Congress, friendly interviewers (Fox, Limbaugh); friendly, hand picked audiences to photo op in front of…and the list goes on.
An unfriendly ANYTHING may expose these men for the cowards they’ve been since day one.
Who said they wouldn’t subpeona everyone? Let’s leave out the WhiteHouse cook. That satisfies that.
Virtually since 2001, these two have only faced a friendly Congress, friendly interviewers (Fox, Limbaugh); friendly, hand picked audiences to photo op in front of…and the list goes on.
Actually, Bush himself has never faced anything but . . . well, “friendly” is as good a word for it as any. He’s never, ever got by just on his merits. If he did, he’d be selling insurance in Houston.
Uh, if Cheney doesn’t obey a subpeona, that’s a criminal charge, no? Like with jail time and stuff? And President Loves-Watching-Others-Suffer (his boyhood Indian Guides name) trying not to show what a hoot he thinks Cheney is in an orange jumpsuit? (Heh-heh-heh.)
Do you think we could get Congress to sell tickets?
Hell, Bush was even wired during the presidential debates.
Disobeying a subpoena from Congress is different than from a court. If memory serves me right, the House (in this case)can vote to find the violator in “contempt” of Congress and refer the matter to the Department of Justice for review. The DOJ can take action or not. What do you suppose the chances are that Generalisimo Gonzales is going to go after Dick? The other two actions the House could take would be hearings for impeachment or I believe censure. There is one slap in the face that the House could invoke that would be better than any of the other actions. The State of the Union address is given in the House. It is entirely up to the House leadership who gets to attend and who must leave if asked. I would love to see Cheney sit down all high and mighty only to have the Sargeant-at-Arms and the Capitol Police come down the aisle and remove Cheney.
This raises some interesting Constitutional issues, especially chuck’s. The principle is that the branches of government check and balance each other, but in very circumscribed fashion. The power of the Congress is not in enforcing laws, but in impeachment and the budget.
They could start cutting funding to the White House and other executive divisions, which would be a truly fascinating tactic to see them employ. But as far as subpoenaing a sitting president or vice president… I think that would be a violation of the Separation of Powers. It would be granting the Congress a power over the Executive above and beyond what they already hold by merit of the Constitution.
As far as the House removing Cheney… as amusing as I think that might be, I don’t think it could happen, either. The State of the Union is an event when both Houses of Congress meet in joint session; it just happens in the House chambers because they’re bigger. And since the vice president is, Constitutionally, the President of the Senate, I think he has every right to be there.
On the other hand, the Cabinet and the Supreme Court are NOT required to be there, so they could be excluded…
This is actually kind of fun, seeing what sort of petty, petulant irritations one branch can inflict on the other two within the Constitution. As I said, the Congress holds the purse strings; what would happen if the Supreme Court found its clerk budget reduced to zero? Justices would actually have to research and write their own opinions…
J.
Plus, practically most of the new Democrats being elected are moderate or conservative (for Democrats) and aren’t going to put up with the left’s ‘hate Bush’ obsessive compulsion. And it looks like the Dems will fall short in the Senate. Let me say it now: Thank you John Kerry!!!!!
the left’s ‘hate Bush’ obsessive compulsion
You genuinely believe that’s all it is, don’t you? You just cannot comprehend even the possibility that this guy might simply be a bad President.
Chickens. Eggs.
You know?
By the way, I wouldn’t consider splitting the senate to be falling short, myself. It looks like there’ll be just one guy in it, which’ll change a lot of things whether he’s got an R or a D next to his name.