Weekend Open Thread
In Iraq, there are fears that yet again the the militants fled before the latest US offensive . On the positive side, US forces captured two senior al-Qaeda leaders
.
The on again/off again debate on whether to close Guantánamo is on again .
I hope your weekend goes well.
Submitted by Specter on Sat, 2007-06-23 09:10
Tags:
Comments :
Should we lower the flag for soldier's deaths?
I remember hearing complaints around the time of the Virginia Tech. killings that it was unfair to lower the flag for the students Cho killed but not lower it for the sacrifice our soldiers pay in fighting for our country.
This article
discusses the issue, and it goes into more issues such as who has the right to declare the lowering of the flag, state governors or only the president?
What do you think? Does lowering the flag cheapen the act (especially when war deaths are a commonality), or should we give this honor to our soldiers?
Anyone?
I thought this would start more interesting discussions.
Well, my take (for what it's worth):
I think that both the president and state governors should be able to declare the lowering of the flag without either being able to step on one another's toes. In other words, one can't tell the other that they cannot lower the flag. So if the president thinks it is worthy to lower the flag to commemorate an event or a person, the governor can't prohibit it and vice versa (obviously within the governor's state only).
I think the lowering of the flag to commemorate soldiers is also important, but perhaps it should be limited to places of importance to the soldier, such as in the soldier's native vicinity whether that is state, county, or city where the soldier is originally from (governor's decision) or where the soldier was stationed to limit and prevent the cheapening of the honor.
Seems like a fair compromise. Any other thoughts?
Thanks for the Open Thread Specter
How's the wife?
It is the economy, stupid.
Ready
Her mom comes in town today, so we have to drive to DIA to pick her up (an unpleasant two hour drive for my wife should she choose to go which she probably will). Her midwife said to take her mind off of the pregnancy as she was getting a little anxious about it, so we've been taking lots of walks and driving to the mountains and such. Thanks for asking!
P.S. No need to thank me for the OT. It is my pleasure (and part of my responsibilities here).
Just looking for an
opening for conversation!
BTW doing a fine job keeping up with your responsibilities.
It is the economy, stupid.
World's ugliest dog
was crowned yesterday in CA
(edited-the dog is from NJ). It is ugly alright, but the previous winner was downright scary 
.
I thought they pasted that tongue in it's mouth.(n/t)
Still stuck on natural constructs
per pico's post. (begging for more pico)
Sez who?
and this reply by the infamous GR:
I am just stunned that someone could see a clump of cells that require extraordinary conditions to have not even 100% potential for human life, if they were say removed from the petri dish as 'killing'.
Also just wondering, when the argument is
~ 'the word of God'~
or because God says so.
God sez
If God wrote the bible and it is the 'word', what man that was God wrote Genesis, before Jesus. And if this man spoke as God, then he would have been a fallen man (not innocent), because he had not accepted Christ into his heart.
I find this explanation of God's word, so imperfect.
Edit: The only way I can see this working out is if Jesus is a Time Traveler. He could have traveled back in time and written Genesis, the world was created in six days, as the not guilty God that had already been saved by accepting Jesus (or himself) into his heart.
It is the economy, stupid.
RE: Still stuck on natural constructs
As you note, the ball is in pico's court, and I note the crickets chirping ... although I haven't checked lately.
You'll have to ask the theologians about this one. I am not religious.
I am surprised that you are still unable to think out of the box on this type of thing, especially given that you have been such a fan of the God planted false memories meme.
Maybe God used some poor unsuspecting person and simply planted the appropriate conditions in their mind to cause them to write what he/she wanted?
EDIT:
In fairness to pico on my crickets chirping comment above, he may not have been around to make a reply to my other comment yet.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Thanks for the edit;
I have in fact been away for the weekend. Your reply is here
, although I'm not sure it 100% addresses what you were asking.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Off politics-
Barry Bonds hits #749 against the NY Yankees.
And the Giants (my current team) lose their 8th in a row to the NY Yankees (my childhood team) in their first meeting in SF since 1962.
I can't believe Peter Magowan (SF Giants President/Owner) gave Bonds so much money. No one else was going to sign the guy. We coulda gotten Bonds AND a good pitcher for 15M. My only guess was he thought the marketing for Bonds breaking Aaron's record was worth it. I disagree. But he will break the record. Only 6 to tie, 7 to own*.
*-the record will be listed in the books with an asterick I bet.
So what do you think of Pakistan building a new plutonium
breeding reactor?
. They're doing it right now.
Why isn't the US doing more to stop this than it is? For all you who are scared of Iran's nuclear ambitions and links to insane groups, Pakistan & it's Secret Service should scare you even more.
This development
really shows the hypocrisy in the Bush administration (especially in regards to the escalating rhetoric on Iran
) and their nuclear program.
Bush considers Pakistan
and its dictatorial leader, Musharraf, our "ally", yet guess who is supplying Iran 
and North Korea 
(the axis of evil) with their nuclear technology? Yep, Pakistan. Specifically, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who was pardoned and declared a hero 
by "our ally", General Musharraf. (Good overview here 
.)
Not to mention, Pakistan is still the most likely hiding place of Osama bin forgotten.
Ridiculous!
Osama's there. He's in the north-western self governed zone.
Our government knows where he is. Pakistan's Secret Service certainly knows where he is. And he's safe with everyones tactic agreement. We won't kill a very important international friend's (the Bin Laden family) son.
At this point I have to figure that everyone knows where he is and they're all listening and leaving him be just because he's more valuable alive & bugged.
Me...I wish they'd kill the guy tonight. But that's just one liberal talking.
One more thing
The India-Pakistani border is considered the 'most likely place for a nuclear war' in the world currently by several sources including Scientific American
, President Clinton 
, and GlobalSecurity among others. 
Old analysis
It seems to me. AQ Khan is old news, and the iranians do ot need him now.
India is now focused more on China as a rival than Pakistan as a nuclear threat. (I know it's true because i saw it on Fareed's show.)
I say, nuke 'em.
(I like to channel Curtis LeMay.)
Khan's retired.
They all have his data. They don't need him now. They're just refining what he gave them.
But nuking anyone?????
Have you ever heard of the phrase "mutually assured destruction"? I have to think not. No, Pakistan nor Iran would be able to retaliate tomorrow if we did that to anyone today. But it would insure that it would happen to us at some point in the future.
Nuke them....you're either insane or bulls---ting. Either way, you are a tad extreme at times in my view.
Lighten up, kindness
Do you know who Curtis LeMay was?
Here are some indicators of the snarkiness of that remark:
1) I made the same remark yesterday with regard to the tax evaders holed yup in their home.
2) I referenced Curtis Lemay, who was a WWII
General under whose command the first A-bomb was sent, and who advised several presidents. He is known for offering the same advice for most any crisis, that is, "Use nuclear weapons."
3) I used ''em,' a rather informal way of saying 'them,' indicating that this wasn't formal.
4) Context, context, context.
btw, I once had a T-shirt with a picture of a whale with a mushroom cloud coming out of it's head somewhat like a blow hole ejection, emblazoned with the logo, "NUKE the WHALES." Some people couldn't get their heads out of their whale call recordings to see the humour in that either.
Let me just say up front: I'm a gadfly, and demythologizing is my game. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same.
If this is true... who knows for sure?
But giving the author the benefit of the doubt...
It would be the third such reactor they've built and being in a mutually assured destruction (MAD) nuclear deterrent situation with India. One could see the sense in wanting to stay current and up to speed.
Comparing Iran (whose borders are not threatened by a nuclear neighbor) with Pakistan shows total lack of international political understanding and realities.
It makes for a good partisan attack, don't get me wrong, but the two are not analogous.
Hypocrisy and international politics go hand-in-hand no matter which party is at the helm.
After all we’re taking about real world politics not theoretical politics!
Stopping a country from becoming nuclear and tamping down the further production of a country that is already nuclear are two very different things.
Should we be encouraging Pakistan to continue nuclear production, no! Would a major public dressing-down on the issue help in the overall big picture relationship? Again, no, it would not.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
At some point
don't you think all countries will be nuclear.
Realistically I don't see anyway to avoid it.
It is the economy, stupid.
Bingo!
Non-proliferation was always a stop-gap measure. Nuclear weapons depend on knowledge, and there is no way to stop the spread of knowledge forever.
Just as the Hittites' advantage of iron weapons help them expand their power, nuclear weapons were an aid to the power of the US, USSR, and a few other countries. But just as iron technology spread, so will nuclear.
Better we be realistic.
(The only weapon I know of that was kept a secret, and still is, was "Greek fire," actually invented by an Arab, who took it to Byzantium when the Arab leaders wouldn't buy it!)
true
and besides, people over estimate the stupidity of these leaders of nuclear countries. Use of such a weapon will surely invited a retaliation. everybody knows that.
Even the citizens that can be led along in fear will give considerable pause to such an action.
The only way a nuclear weapon could be used by a country like Iran with the consent of the people would be to drop one on itself and say Isreal or America did. Not happening.
Skunks don't spry eachother because they don't want to get as good as they give.
Yea well we delveloped napalm.
That's gotta be just as good don't you think?
napalm
when formulated for use in flame throwers, my personal favourite, is thought to be similar. However, Greek fire was used at sea, which must have been terrifying to those on wooden ships.
At some point, yes! It’s inevitable
But that time is not now!
It’s incumbent on nuclear nations who strive for peace and abide by the rule of law to oversee and in effect dictate the timing of developing countries nuclear capabilities.
One might argue that to be unfair but it’s a huge responsibly that must be undertaken... and life is not fair!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It doesn't work that way
Much like with anything, efforts lead to results that foster the opposite of what was intended.
Yes it does! n/t
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
perhaps you could doa little better than that. n/t
Funny...
...I was thinking the same about your convoluted response!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It wasn't convoluted.
I simply said it doesn't work that way. Reality shows us that.
Saying it's important and actually achieving it are two different things.
Your reality?
Don’t parse the conversation or take it into the either... if you don't understand economics just say so....
The very fact that you answered my post the way you did shows your lack of understanding…
It’s OK… practice makes perfect…
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There are many ways of the art of persuasion.
Force usually isn't the most effective.
If this administration had a wider breadth than it's given credit for, we could easily get Pakistan to agree to stop production on the new reactor. I mean for god's sake. We could offer to let them upgrade one of the current ones in stead. Now would that solve anything? Yes and no. It would slow the amount of plutonium in production, it would score international peace points and it would allow them to do what they apparently are intent on doing anyhow.
I'd take any advantage along those lines I could. Bush won't. he can't. His force of will on other nations is limited to those we occupy. What a moron our Administration is. A crew of dolts.
Odd statements, kindness
If this administration had a wider breadth than it's given credit for, we could easily get Pakistan to agree to stop production on the new reactor.
And you know this how? I note that there is no 'maybe' in this statement, it is absolute. I will remind you that the reason that AQ Khan was not prosecuted in Pakistan nor handed over to international interests is precisely because he is a national hero in Pakistan, and the nuclear weapons program in Pakistan is one of the few unifying points in that country, and truly a source of national pride.
His force of will on other nations is limited to those we occupy.
I would like you to just step back and consider that statement for a minute.
Pray tell
And which nuclear nations are striving for peace?
They all seem to be striving for a power advantage.
It is the economy, stupid.
Which of the non-nuclear
nations are not striving for a "power advantage?"
It's what governments do.
The response was to
Foley:
His assessment is a little to rosey for my tastes.
Especially since the Mid-east is in chaos, and the rule of law (international) is being downplayed and even ignored by the wing-gerrrs.
It is the economy, stupid.
Rosy, rosy rosy
Agreed. I don't quite know about "rosy," but certainly unrealistic.
And i think we have done enough "dictating" to other nations for a while.
International law? That is a bit of an oxymoron, since it exists only by the continued resolve of nations with full sovereignty, who cannot be forced to follow it.
Your halo’s slipping down...
...tell me how you'd fix it? I'm all ears?......
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Well thanks for considering me a half of an
angel. (Does that mean your pitchfork is rising and I can consider you half a devil?)
Since I was adamently opposed to going overseas in the first place, and predicted this enormous mess we are in, while your side was calling me an unpatriotic America hater..... !
I said don't go into the sandpit and now that we are stuck there you want my solution?
Since you supported the effort so staunchly, and now it's a mess. Why don't you do the honors and offer a solution. You first.
It is the economy, stupid.
So… head in the sand...
...or let’s take our enemy's out for an ice cream cone approach doesn’t work... enlighten me!!!
You are so quick to talk sh** but solutions, from you, are absent???
you can keep parsing my comments and acting like you know the answer but sooner or later you have to actually have a solution
Other than Bush sucks!!!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Your forgot
to mention that Cheney also sucks!!! And possibly even harder.
I think the Iraqi's might enjoy being taken out for an ice cream. I hear it's hot in Baghdad. It would be a nice gesture of good faith. If their electricity runs long enough to keep it frozen that is.
What was it grandma always said, 'you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar'.
I am waiting for your answer first, which is I assume is..... keep doing what we are doing, blah, blah we are making progress, blah.
You and your ilk supported this and now its a mess. Why ask me to fix your problem, when I assume you will discredit what I say anyway.
But of course I have ideas. As if anyone would listen. If you haven't noticed Bunker Man (VP codename 'Angler') likes listening to others only when they don't know it. As far as listening to advice, not so much.
It is the economy, stupid.
Heh, funny post
Ice cream for peace, I like it. Also the last paragraph -- maybe you should discuss your ideas in a phone call to someone suspicious if you want them heard!
We actually might be making real progress, finally -- let's see if the latest military operation coupled with diplomatic outreach to Sunnis pays off.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The time is long past
We should have dumped the non-humanitarian parts of the UN years ago in favor of an alliance of democratic nations/. Within that alliance, nuclear technology and weapons would be shared freely. All nations would be invited upon attaining a democratic government. The eventual spread of nuclear weapons to non-democratic holdouts would then be less of a threat.
We still have some holdovers from the day when nuts carried "Outlaw iron swords" oops, "outlaw nuclear weapons" signs on city streets. Today's milder version asks that all nations follow "international law." It is almost as unrealistic.
You know, life is risky. International law can't change that.
It seems the whole placement of the VP's office
in the Federal Government is getting a big go round today.
Crooks & Liars
lists some stuff and links including one to Keith Oberman's show. Think Progress notes that Bush now too claims his office isn't in the Executive office 
and not bound by the inspections and paperwork handling of his 2003 Executive Order.
. Cuts through a lotta stuff.
TalkingPointsMemo is the best today though
This whole thing is going to get way more interesting.
I'm sure
this will get more attention and it should.
Last I understood, there were three branches of the federal government
: the legislature/Congress (Senate and House), judiciary (federal and Supreme Court judges), and the executive (the president and his appointed cabinets and agencies).
How does Bush (and Cheney) claim not to be part of the executive branch???
P.S. Maybe you should show these links to MS as he requests
.
Huh?
I can't help but point this out>>>>
the executive (the president and his appointed cabinets and agencies).
So, is the vice president the president, and appointed cabinnet, or an appointed agency?
Saw the links, already covered. So tell me, why do YOU think these biased links are important?
Here is where the criticism would go if everyone weren't distracted by that truncated quote and the "Cheney is claiming to be a fourth branch of government" bullexcrement: although Cheney can argue that he is not an agency of the executive branch as defined in the EO, the language is broader.
(I will do something unheard of, apparently, hereabouts. I will quote the actual EO!!!)
Isn't it nice to actually have an idea what we are talking about.
As I read this actual material, I can see some sense in the VP's assertion. The Office of the Vice President is established in the Constitution with one duty, that of presiding over the Senate. In fact, the only place a duty of the vice president is mentioned in the Constitution is in Article I, Section 3, where it is noted:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
Clearly a legislative function, enumerated in Article I, devoted to the legislative branch..
In Article II, where executive functions are described, the vice president is given no duties. Instead, it states:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
So it is clear that if the vice president has any executive powers, it can only be because they are granted him by the president. The Constitution does not do so.
Article II does mention the vice president thrice. The first is in regard to elections:
He [the president] shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
which then goes on to describe the elctoral college and such.
The second is in regard to removal:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I am not sure that it can be argued from this passage that the vice-president is a part of the executive branch, based, I suppose, on its mere inclusion in Article II. For if we3 argue this, then surely we muct argue that the vice president's inclusion of and enumeration of a power in Article I puts him in the Legislative branch.
The third mention is the most famous, that the vice president will become president on the death or incapacity of the president. Again, if this were tomake the vice president in itself a part of the executive branch, then Pelosi would also be a part of the executive branch.
It's odd, but the more I look at this, the more it seems to have some substance. i admit that swhen i first heard it, it sounded silly, but maybe my old Civics teacher just didn't go deep enough.
Aside from "we always thought of the vice president as being in the executive branch," where do you see a constitutional basis for considering him in the executive branch?
Is the office of the vice president an "independent establishment" within the executive branch, and, if so, why?
Finally, going over the definitions provided, where does the office of the president fall?
Listen,
I avoided your posts for the past few days because the last time we interacted, you threatened to leave
.
If you are going to directly call me out, then I will respond. Please do not get sensitive on me and leave if we engage in discussions. :-)
Secondly, I never claimed that the VP is part of the executive branch. I asked why anyone would think Bush is not which is different--Cheney/the VP position was more of an aside as shown by my parentheses. I think it is clear that Bush is (see below), and I believe Cheney is, but you are correct that the Constitutional wording is slippery regarding the VP. Also, you must have me confused with kindness, because the only link I gave was to a Wikipedia article explaining the functions and departments of the federal government.
You are correct that I forgot to place the vice-president under the executive branch, but the article I link to explains his position as falling under the executive branch. I do not claim Wikipedia as the definitive source to finalize this discussion, but I think it shows the common understanding of the executive branch as it is legally (currently) understood. This of course could change as more attention is brought to this matter and the government has to further define its roles/categories.
You raise some good points, and I hope that Congress passes a bill similar to the 25th Amendment
to clarify the VP role. I think most legal scholars accept that the vice president is part of the executive branch, but I am not (nor are you) a legal scholar, so our blathering and speculations are just that.
As far as I can tell, you've made no argument that the President is not under the 'Executive Branch' as Bush claims he is not
. Most of the Constitutional evidence you give seems to clearly place him as the executive, even if the VP is more ambiguous, especially the beginning of Article II, Section 1:
Lastly, why do you continue to make snide comments such as this:
and recently
Since you remain a contributing part of this discourse community, you are not outside of this community so your criticisms here (and elsewhere) also reflect back on you. Please stop with the juvenile insults about the posters here. Thanks.
I wasn't calling you out
I was actually responding my remarks to the whole thread on the subject. In fact, i did this here because you seemed to be rational about it.
Here's the thing: you are taking me too seriously. this was a jab:
I will do something unheard of, apparently, hereabouts.
Why? Because those who wanted to break this story should have put up these links!!! How can anyoned hope to discuss an Executive order without referring to the actual executive order? And since the definitions there depend on the US Code, how can anyone reasonably discuss this issue without referring to the actual US Code cited?
Could it be that the intention was not to shed light on the issue, but just to keep everyone in the dark so as to make political hay? I don't know, and i am not making any accusations, but if i were breaking this kind of story, it would never occur to me to leave out the NECESSARY document links.
This one:
So, everyone, open your mouth wide, and rapidly tap your chest.
in that context is simply joking. It refers, of course, to the image of the tea, and is a description of the reaction all over to this story. Geesh! Are frowns the only thing required here? I thought I was oversensitive, but...
Anyway, here is another problem. it took me a long time to det to the LATimes link because they kept wanting me to sign up. when they finally let me in, i found the same Josh Meyer story that i think I quoted before. I reread it, but in fact did not find any quotation indicating that Bush said that he is not in the executive branch. In fact, above I already discussed this kind of lying. Why do it?
If you can show me where Bush is quoted, please tell me where it is. I missed it. That includes indirect quotes from his spokesman quoted in the article.
Second paragraph:
I think this is quite clear. It doesn't say that Bush or anyone else says that he is not in the executive branch.
Eighth paragraph:
No such statement here.
Twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth paragraphs:
I'm not sure about the inference, but no such claim here. But let's say that the ISOO were to go to their ultimate boss for an interpretation on the matter. What do you think he would say?
Page 2, paragraph two:
These security experts put it correctly. They did not say that Bush was saying that he was not in the executive branch.
Last paragraph:
Still no claim that Bush or his office are not in the executive branch.
I think I hit all the references to Bush and the EO. I could have missed some. But nowhere do I see any attribution or quote from Bush that he is not in the executive branch. Did you have a different version of the article?
What i read is that Bush claims that he never intended his or Cheney's offices to be subject to the ISOO oversight when he issued the EO. Why can't people simply report that?
But, IU will wait for you to show me some evidence that he actually made that claim.
Finally, I like to smile when I interact with people. Is that against the rules here?
Direct claims and logical inferences
First off, I was not trying to be insulting last night. I was trying to clarify why some people find offense in what can be interpreted as personal attacks within your comments. You mean them as humor, but when they are based upon insulting other posters (whether it is 'This is just another chance for the left to act like society ladies at a garden tea where the gardener's penis falls out of his fly. They all gasp and have airs, some faint, but a few secretly are glad it happened.'--in which 'the left' is represented by many posters here--or your implication that we do not do basic research). The best humor in a contentious board is either neutral or self-deprecating instead of insulting to others. If it is insulting to a party, try to make sure that it cannot be interpreted as individual posters here. Just something to watch if you want better reactions. Believe me, I love good humor. Making jabs at your opposition is not going to be seen as funny by the opposition; rather, it will be interpreted as antagonistic.
You spend a lot of time looking for the claim that Bush said he is not in the executive branch in the article. You are correct that it does not say that in those precise words. As per our discussion on implications
(mixed throughout the thread, but here is where I find you most accepting of 'indirect evidence'), I hope you find value in what I see happening in this situation. The Executive Order states:
Notice the 'and' which entails a necessary inclusion. The president's office (and perhaps the vp's office) falls into the latter part of this definition since it is part of the executive branch and it comes into possession of classified information. Now follow: saying that this order does not pertain to the president must mean that either 1) the president is not an agency (ok, I will buy that), or 2) the president is not part of the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information (blatantly false). #2 is clearly a violation of this law regarding the president's office.
I hope you can see that this is not too far of a stretch and it accommodates a fair use of implication to come to the conclusion I stated: Bush claims he is not part of the executive branch.
My problem is not with Cheney as a person (in reference to the 'Cheney haters' comment below) but to the blatant disrespect of any oversight this administration feels it can supersede. You said in another comment that this episode is equivalent to Clinton's BJ. I respectfully disagree. A BJ is a personal matter that has no bearing on the executive branch. Attempting to consolidate power in the executive branch by limiting checks and balances does have a huge bearing on the power share in our government. I hope you can see the difference. Is this the end of our government? No, not at all. But I think it is up to patriotic citizens to be vigilant about how power is shared within our federal government to prevent a tipping of the scales toward one branch (or section outside of a branch wherever that may be in Cheney's case--see that is humor that does not attack another poster :-) ) and to raise our voice in protest when we see a transgression in this area as I and many others see this episode as.
RE: Direct claims and logical inferences
From the reading that I have done in these threads, I agree that the segment that you have highlighted above is the weakest part of Bush's claim.
I have a small quibble with your assertion #2 where you claim that denying that the highlighted portion of the statute implies that you are claiming that you are not part of the executive branch.
In a strict sense, it only implies that you are not an entity within the executive branch. Given that this term is not actually legally defined, it is hard to say whether it necessarily encompasses the President and his office staff or not. This is especially true when one considers that the language requires the entity to be "within" the executive branch (as opposed to actually BEING the executive branch).
Given that the powers of the executive have been invested by the Constitution solely in the President, it hardly seems a stretch to say that the President (and his direct office) for all intents and purposes IS the executive branch of our government and that everything else is just an extension thereof by delegation. As such he is the root of the executive branch and, therefore, is not an "entity within himself".
This is not mere semantic trickery on my part. For example, we often speak of rooms as being within a house, but we never refer to the house as being within itself. Both a room and a house can be considered entities, and we can consider the room to be an entity within the house, but we never consider the house to be an entity within itself.
Thoughts?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You may have a point
about the 'within' terminology, but I do think you are playing semantic games.
(deleted non-relevant part--sorry, but this comment got a bit confusing even to me)
((edit): vested means 'settled, fixed, or absolute' so I can see your point a bit more about the 'is', but I still think you are playing semantic games with the word 'within' as I state below.)
To go back to your analogy, it would be like saying 'the rooms shall be vested in a house' and then turn around and say we are going to have oversight of all the rooms in the house, but the house is not under the oversight. Make sense to you? Not to me.
(edit): a better example might be to say that the police are going to bug every room in a house, but then claim to a judge that the house was not under surveillance. Does that make any sense? That is clearly semantic games if you ask me.
Really, getting into the semantics is playing spin games with legalese. If you wish to give more power and secrecy to the federal government, fine for you.
RE: You may have a point
I just want to say that I am not personally vested in the particular discussion more than simply exploring the nooks and crannies of the over-all edifice of Bush's claim. So please take my comments as merely being provided in that light.
On the issue of playing semantic games, I just what to highlight that this is, in fact, a two way street. If we find ourselves arguing ... again in good faith ... over the semantics of something then neither side inherently has the higher "moral ground", correct? In that sense both sides are "playing semantic games" since they are arguing over detailed semantics.
So while I accept that the current discussion is in the realm of what some might term "semantic games", we are both now making arguments at this level. I claim no particular higher ground, nor do I cede any such to you in this respect. Fair enough?
I didn't want to go down the path of discussing some distinction between Executive Power and Executive Branch. So, I am glad to see this edit on your part:
My point would have been that there is no meaningful disctinction between the two that I can think of since, in effect, the power is what really matters, is it not? And as you now recognize having that vested in the President sort of makes him the ultimate repository of that power. Agreed?
As for my house analogy, I understand your point and I am trying to find a means of extending it that is clearly analogous. The concept is one of the President, as the sole respository of executive power, delegating that power to certain other entities which merely operate on his behalf. Your point is only valid if the President has, in fact, delegated every vestige of his power to some entity other than himself. If the President has, in fact, reserved any of his power for his sole use then you argument is not really complete.
Sticking with the house analogy, then, let us view the totality of the Power of the Executive as being represented by the total space encompassed by the exterior of the house. The President then decides to delegate some of that power to other entities. In our analogy he does this by constructing a room wherein that entity will operate. Each such entity then receives its own room which represents the power which has been delegated to that entity.
Thus, as the president explictly delegates his power to various entities there always remains some unallocated space (which represents undelegated power). After the all of the normal living space has been allocated to these various rooms, the attic and crawl spaces still remain. So in a way we can view these as representing that power which the President has reserved for himself.
Now, it is true that you can make the argument that attics and crawl spaces are ALSO entities and thus subject to oversight but in this somewhat revised perspective that is equivalent to demanding that the President have completely delegated all of his power to some other entity, correct? I assert that no President would ever admit to having done such a thing.
So, to now use your analogy of the police bugging the rooms in the house, the police would be able to legitimately claim that they had only bugged the normal living spaces within the house (i.e. and NOT the attic or the crawl space).
Now, let us put the entire oversight issue into perspective. This is an executive order issued by the President. Does it seem a stretch to say that where the President delegates his power to other entities that he might want to formalize and insure the proper oversight of those entities (since he, himself, is no longer able to observe first hand the day to day activities occuring within each of those entities, i.e. rooms), yet not intend for that oversight to extend to those areas where he, himself, actually CAN observe first hand the day to day activities of the areas he has reserved for himself?
[ I sense some jokes regarding weird uncles residing in attics coming up ... :) ]
That last paragraph is probably kind of hard to follow. Basically it boils down to whether you think that a President might setup a formal process of oversight for those things he has delegated (and thus in some sense are outside his direct control) yet not intend that oversight to extend to his own personal activities (since he presumably is confident that he can oversee those on his own)?
Make sense?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ok,
but this could have been made explicit if Bush made it clear in his EO that it was for all offices not under his direct personal activities. Agree to disagree on this point.
I do not know what you mean by 'under his direct control' as he relies heavily on his advisers and cabinet heads (Rice, Gonzales, etc), but I don't want to belabor this point.
Lastly, the intent of the EO was to create standards for the National Archives (as I understand it, since this is where the problem started), so it makes no sense to restrict the most important parts of the executive from standardization.
RE: Ok,
I absolutely agree it could have been made clearer. I will say, however, that it is probably a case of he never actually thought about it this explicitly, nor had we until now. Agreed?
Oh, the "direct" word again. Damn. I mean in the strictest sense of that word. If you are ever in doubt as to what I mean by "direct" ALWAYS assume that I mean "in the strictest sense of the word".
Another way to say this, is "his first hand control". What I mean is that Bush cannot possibly be involved first hand in the day to day operations of all of these agencies, departments, governmental corporations, etc. This is the primary reason that these things exist, because no one person can be in first hand control of the totality of the executive branch.
They always remain under his control in the sense that they report to him and he can override them at any time in any decision (i.e. the control part of direct control). This control is indirect, however, in that it occurs through various layers of bureacracy.
To the extent that this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, I agree ... sort of. I am not actually sure that I would term the day to day mundane activities within the White House to actually be "the most important parts" in the big picture. It is the things happening within the living spaces where the real action happens, not within the attic or the crawl space. Still, a valid point none the less.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
For once
I think we can safely say consensus! :-)
Nope
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's implausible. Highly improbable. Silly, even.
Frankly, it's surprising to see someone who professes to be a proponent of Occam's razor create such a breathtakingly tortured and convoluted argument. The truth is bound to be simpler.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
:) LOL
There is nothing tortured or convoluted about observing that the meaning of a statement depends on the meanings of the words in it.
I merely claim that the statement means exactly what it says. What could be simpler than that?
Reading more into it than is warranted, THAT is making it more complicated than it needs to be.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Disingenuous?
Here is your exact statement (if my powers of cut and paste hold):
As far as I can tell, you've made no argument that the President is not under the 'Executive Branch' as Bush claims he is not.
It makes a direct claim about what Bush claimed. There is no, "as one could through tortured implication for purely partisan purposes conclude without a shred of direct evidence that" in front of the "Bush claimed." See? Don't you think that this would be more honest? I'm not perfect, but I like to use phrases like, "a case could be made that Bush thinks that...." In fact, that is what i am saying here, in a way, that a case can be made that the vice president is in the legislative branch. As you pointed out, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but i can at least remark on the prima facie reasonableness of the proposition.
In this case, however, this is all irrelevant, and is only of interest to those wanting to make politically damning vitriol against Cheney and Bush. You see, the explanation, based on what the spokespersons actually said Bush said, is that Bush never intended the ISOO oversight provisions of this executive order to include his office or the vice president's office. One could of course argue the wisdom of this, but it includes no claim that either office is not in the executive, nor can such a claim be argued from it. One could argue also that if that is what Bush meant, he could have said it more clearly.
For instance, take this exclusion: