|
Edited on Sat Jun-23-07 03:56 PM by KoKo01
TPM....Steve Benen For a White House that has offered a bountiful stream of substantive scandals for six years, the latest dust-up might be the most bizarre. Perhaps it's best to take a moment to summarize the questions that need answers:* Why did Bush and Cheney abide by the executive order in question in 2001 and 2002, and then stop in 2003? Is it a coincidence they started ignoring the E.O. on handling classified materials just as they started mishandling classified materials?
* Why did Cheney abide by the E.O. in 2001 and 2002 if he's not part of the executive branch?
* Why did the President exempt the Vice President from an executive order he was already following? Why did he later exempt himself?
* When, precisely, did the White House decide that Bush and Cheney should exempt themselves from their own rules?
* Does Bush consider Cheney part of the executive branch? Why has the White House thus far refused to respond to this question? Does the President consider this a trick question?
* In its response to questions about the E.O., why did the White House point to a provision of the E.O. that doesn't exist?
* The White House insists, "There's no question that is in compliance" with the E.O. If there is no oversight, and Cheney is unaccountable, how does the White House know?
* In yesterday's press briefing, the president's spokesperson dismissed the oversight provision of the E.O. as "small" six times. Does the White House believe only "big" provisions need to be followed? How does the administration make the distinction?Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday, "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic. In the end, neither Mr. Cheney nor his staff is above the law or the Constitution."more at.. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014782.php |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
