KERRY Responds To Addington Regarding His Bullshit Explanation Of Imperial President & VP

[kpete]

“It comes as no surprise that the ‘imperial president’ and his vice president are once again trying to dodge scrutiny with a ridiculous claim that Dick Cheney is not part of the executive branch of government,” Kerry said. “This is an unprecedented break with hundreds of years of history, and undermines the integrity of executive power and the Executive Order as an institution.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=277749

Kerry Released This Statement Today After Receiving A Letter From Addington:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Cheneys_chief_of_staff_rebukes_Kerry_0626.html

June 26, 2007

David S. Addington
Chief of Staff
Office of the Vice President
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20501

Dear Mr. Addington,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter dated June 25, 2007 in reference to the Vice President’s refusal to comply with Executive Order 12958. However, your response raises more questions then it purports to answer. My letter posed two separate and specific questions to your office: 1) Does the Office of the Vice President believe it does not fall under the executive branch and if so, what reasoning is there behind that determination?; 2) What steps is the Office of the Vice President taking to protect classified information if they are not adhering to inspections from the Archives? Your letter did not address either of these critical issues.

Additionally, you stated that, "The executive order gives the Information Security Oversight Office, under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, responsibility to oversee certain activities of ‘agencies,’ but not of the Vice President or the President." However, on June 21st, Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman said, ''the White House complies with the executive order, including the National Security Council.'' If the White House complies with Executive Order 12958 then why does the Vice President feel compelled to adopt a different approach?

You also characterize these constitutional questions as occurring in a "theoretical discussion" but that is not the case. The Vice President’s non-compliance with this executive order came to light through an investigation done by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and questions raised by Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of that committee. The care and handling of classified information is not a theoretical issue, it is a justified concern of Congress executing its oversight function.

Executive Order 12958 clearly states that, "‘Agency’ means any ‘Executive agency,’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any ‘Military department’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information." Your view that the Office of the Vice President is not an "agency" does not address the fact that Vice President Cheney is clearly within the executive branch and it is through that position that he is privy to classified information.

Again, I ask you to respond to the questions raised in my first letter and the additional question posted herein. These questions include:

Does the Office of the Vice President believe that it does not fall under the executive branch and, if so, what is the reasoning behind this determination?
What protocols or procedures does the Office of the Vice President employ to ensure the safety of classified information?
Why does the Office of the Vice President differentiate itself from the White House in its compliance with Executive Order 12958?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=277838

[IChing]

1. Thank you John that was a quick reply and to the point

I never thought it would come that fast myself. Great Job Mr. Kerry!!!!!!!!

[blm]

26. He's familiar with this road they're taking. Poppy Bush used to block documents

all the time when Kerry was investigating IranContra and BCCI.

Kerry kept taking Poppy to court until he got as many released as he could - still not enough, but - one of the reasons we were even able to HEAR about the Aug6 PDB terror warning was BECAUSE of Kerry's court efforts that forced Poppy to present that type of material to congress when required.

[babylonsister]

2. Keep on him, Senator! He's reading and spinning an answer as I type!

:patriot:

[blm]

3. Kerry the prosecutor ripping their case apart. Same old corpmedia ignoring and downplaying this.

.

[wordpix]

4. Kerry, ever the gentleman, whacks Addington & Cheney here

:woohoo: Kerry and Waxman are closing in. :applause:

[rosesaylavee]

5. Perfect!

Get 'em Senator.

[Island Blue]

6. Thank you Senator Kerry.

Please keep hittin' them until the cry "Uncle Dick"!

[blogslut]

7. I voted for him

I would do it again too. Continue on, sir.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Back atcha Mr. Addington.....nt

[politicasista]

9. K&R

Thanks Senator Kerry :kick:








:patriot:

[liberalpragmatist]

10. His loss in '04 will go down as one of the greatest tragedies in American politics

... second only to Bush's stealing of Al Gore's electoral victory.

Seriously - I'm under no illusions that a Kerry presidency would have been some glorious utopia. He'd have been constrained by an adversarial Republican congress, a quagmire in Iraq that Kerry would likely have tried to salvage for a year (possibly with more troops) before pushing for withdrawal, and a sour mood overall.

But his tenure would have been a breath of fresh air compared with Bush. We'd have made strong progress on repairing our relations with the rest of the world, we'd be engaged in peacemaking in the Middle East, we'd have a LIBERAL supreme court (he'd likely have replaced O'Connor, Rehnquist AND Stephens), and we'd at least be bringing our budget back into the black even if we were unable to get more health care legislation and what not through.

[blm]

24. People forget that Kerry is close with Kofi Annan and knew what circumstances Annan

needed to bring UN and also NATO into Iraq BEFORE their first elections.

Kerry said he would make it clear the US would have NO PERMANENT BASES to put an end to being seen as 'occupiers' and would start withdrawing troops within 6months of taking office.

I think his private talks with Kofi Annan and other world leaders gave him the confidence to make those statements.

[beachmom]

11. Wow. Imperial president. Pretty good rhetoric, Senator Kerry!

This whole thing just seems so preposterous. Why aren't we discussing issues? Why are a bunch of thugs and criminals running the "executive" branch?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

29. Rhetoric my ass!!!

His are MORE SUBSTANTIVE, IN FACT, than the empty oratorical speech of which you and, by coincidence i am sure, the RW accuse him.

Rhetoric, MY ASS!!!

[ohtransplant]

12. Stay on 'em Senator...

and maybe some piece of our corporate media might pick up the story. Maybe we'll have to read this one in The Guardian too!

They're wrong - dead wrong - and they know it. The excuses/explanations get more tortured every day. (Hey, Cheney's authorizing torture again.) I hope enough 'murkins wake up before we get more of this in '08.

I too voted for Senator Kerry in '04 and would consider it a privilege to do it again.

[WinkyDink]

13. Don't say it's a "break" with history; plainly call it the INSANITY IT IS.

[anotherCTliberal]

22. Exactly! Stop being so polite and call it out for what it is.

Thank you Senator Kerry and please DON'T BACK DOWN!!

[Toots]

14. Sometimes the right people are in the right position to effect change.

Senator Kerry is no lightweight to be trifled with. Addington and Cheney both are about to discover that I believe. I know I would sure hate to have Representative Waxman and Senator Kerry both on my tail for something....

[blm]

28. Exactly - that's why I will support ONLY anti-corruption , open government

Democrats running for office. That is the only wing of the party that respects citizens enough to tell them the truth they need AS citizens.

Time for Democrats to PROTECT the citizens' right to know and STOP protecting the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes and their cronies.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

>>>>>
Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

>>>>>>

[Unbowed]

15. The good senator certainly doesn't mince words.

Imperial president!

It should be interesting to see if Addington comes up with a justification.

[Major Hogwash]

16. Kerry is just being too damn polite about it.

I think it's time we hear Teresa's opinion of Cheney.

LoL

[politicasista]

20. Ooh I want to hear her too

I miss her. :(

[ejbr]

17. I wish Senator Kerry was this relentless in securing our

votes in Ohio in 2004. We wouldn't be concerned about the dismantling of our laws if he had.

[blm]

25. Unfortunately, that was actually McAuliffe's duty for the 4yrs before election day.

That would be Terry "Hillary2008" McAuliffe.

[ejbr]

27. I stand corrected, I meant challenging the votes n/t

[blm]

30. Well, there are these reports which haven't been denied or refuted......

(btw, I believe that if Kerry had even one little bit of legal evidence to make a case in court that day he would have)


Anyway, here's a few dots if you're interested:

This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:



http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354



Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."


Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward




Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg





Wonder why?



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[ejbr]

33. Thanks for the links...

my concern is that the election of 1960 took several weeks to certify, but in light of the completely unlikely events that put Bush back in the White House, I find it odd that our side seems to give up in a fraction of the time it took for the 1960 election to be settled, only to find out that we had a case well within an acceptable amount of time to prevent a tyrant from stealing office. That's all. :)

[blm]

34. I'm down with paper ballots and handcounts in rooms with security cameras

no matter how long it takes. People can wait an extra day or two in exchange for knowing they are getting the most accurate recording of votes.

[SalviaBlue]

18. K&R

[politicasista]

19. Kick

Darth Cheney is evil. :grr:

[bdamomma]

21. can we also call him (cheney) an enemy of the state.

[politicasista]

23. Yep. Good idea n/t

[ellisonz]

31. KABLAMOO!

[quiet.american]

32. I like it. n/t