This is off the top of my head so the facts are probably a bit muddled, but let me see if I've got this right:

Cheney says he's not part of the executive branch so he doesn't have to explain how he's protecting sensitive documents.

Congress asks Gonzales if this is correct.

Gonzales says they've been reviewing it for 5 months and no decision's been made.

A freedom of information act request turns up no review of Cheney's claim over the last 5 months?!?!?

Mean while since Cheney has said he's not part of the Executive branch he can't invoke executive privilege, so he's opened his office up for Congressional review.

This should be interesting :D.

I do not consider this acceptable. This very same logic could be used to imprison people for merely owning a handgun in order to prevent post office/school/mall shootings.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

I normally agree with Wayne, but I have to differ on this one. I think the fact that there hasn't been a major terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 is mostly due to dumb luck, rather than any kind of outstanding leadership or skill on the part of this administration. Keep in mind that 9/11 DID happen on this administration's watch - only weeks after they handily rejected recommendations by the former administration (Clinton) to keep a very close eye on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, because they believed he was planning a major attack. Bush DID find it more appropriate to "phoo-phoo" the reports and take a lengthy vacation on his ranch in Texas, probably to stay out of the media spotlight as much as possible in wake of the 2000 election fiasco. That IS a failure on this administration's part. Yes, I hold them directly responsible for letting it happen.

Granted, they responded appropriately (initially) to the attack, but when you cut through all the grandstanding political crapola and get right to the essence of it, most efforts are just gingerbread house facades - they look good on TV, but there isn't much substance inside. Port security is still absolutely dismal, the TSA is the biggest bunch of incompetent buffoons imaginable, cargo security is still a joke and our borders have MILLIONS of people streaming across at will while Bush/Dick back amnesty for those who engage in it. We're more secure? Don't think so.

Bush has been lucky since 9/11 - not good. Unfortunately, most Americans are too stupid and indiscriminate to make the distinction - as the 2004 election showed. If 1/10 the effort of the war in I-Wreck was put into legitimate domestic security measures or border enforcement, I can honestly say I'd think the administration was doing something right - but I can't.

nor is it toilet paper.

Historical revisionism.
You "think" so, huh? What evidence do you have? Do you have access to classified CIA and FBI information? I didn't think so.

The briefing didn't come from the Clinton Administration. And the warning wasn't actionable.

If Clinton had killed bin Laden when he had the chance (at least 4 excellent opportunities that were aborted, according to Michael Scheuer), this thread wouldn't exist. Too bad Clinton and Sandy Berger conspired to destroy the documents that outline this failure.

You and your type are the ones who will criticize Bush for not stopping 9/11, but if Atta and crew had been arrested before the attack, you'd say "How ridiculous. Bush arrests these Saudis and tells us that these guys were plotting to hijack jets and fly them on suicide missions into high-profile American buildings. Yea sure they were." Then you'd quote the ACLU and be bothered that their rights to privacy may have been violated.

I agree with the "dumb luck" theory. It is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative.

"Historical revisionism" my ass.

The 9/11 commission testimony clearly stated that there were NUMEROUS attempts by the outgoing administration to "pass along" information, individuals (in key positions, which who were ousted as part of "housecleaning"), policy and recommendations to the incoming administration. As a matter of routine snubbery, these were all ignored. As was the "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack United States" P.D.B., which was from Bush's OWN people, but cited information obtained under the Clinton administration.

The hell it wasn't actionable. ANY action would have been better than the "thumb-up-the-ass" response by Bush and a "it-ain't-important-y'all" smile as he drove off to Crawford. Hell, something so simple as a "let's put someone in charge of monitoring this guy directly and trying to keep tabs on his day-to-day activities then" would have been better.

9/11 was a direct failure of the Bush administration (and no other) to take seriously the threat OBL posed to the US. Period. Any claim to the contrary is your "historical revisionism" for you.

Respectfully...I disagree. If there was a direct cause/effect relationship, then I might go along, but I'm still VERY leery of the path this approach has taken us down. I'm not niave enough to think we will never be attacked again. But...you know what, in spite of how terrible 9/11 was, we (as a nation) are strong enough to prevail without sacrificing the freedoms this country was founded on.

I don't buy dumb luck myself. there are only 2 logical explanations:
1. terrorists don't want to attack the U.S.
2. terrorists are still formulating a plot to attack the U.S.

1. We have an entirely open border down south

2. 4% of cargo containers are screened at our ports

3. watchlist persona can stroll onto U.S. bound flights and land in the U.S. with ease

4. I can walk in South Station here in Boston with any given explosive, arrive in Penn Station in NYC, walk out and detinate just as easily as ordering a Big Mac.

Given all of those, it is clear that the Bush Admin is completely incompetent in terms of National Security, and 1 and 2 above are the only logical explanations for why we haven't been attacked.

But back on topic: Cheney. How long after leaving office (forcibly or term ended) will he create his own dictatorship where his wiggly rules apply when he wants them to and not when inconvenient.

Well, it looks like Tricky Dick II is backing away from the "not in the executive branch" defense

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4679.html

Maybe he should just say "There is no controlling legal authority". :D

Shaun; aren't you overlooking the rather obvious 3rd explanation: Terrorists have tried to attack the U.S., but have been blocked or intercepted.

Legal support to conjure up a conflicting smokescreen of secrecy: $346,845 taxpayer dollars


1 Industrial Paper Shredder: $2,199 taxpayer dollars



The Constitution:



<pause>




meaningless, uh, I mean priceless

No John, that's not obvious at all, nor is it even plausible. first, in the link you provided, it starts off "According to the White House..."

Since when does the White House have any credibility on anything? That's an honest statement.

Second, I don't think you can count all the various completely contrived or completely inept or completely false attempts. Like those guys in FL that turned out to be nothing.

of course, the White House can say aaaaaallllllllllll day long that we'd like to give you the details, but WE CAN'T BECAUSE AMERICAN LIVES WILL BE AT RISK.

no, it's not credible. If there were real attemps, the Press from Fox to CNN to the blogisphere would know all about them and report them vigorously for ratings alone.

When (and I don't have the exact number) 500,000 to 1 million Mexicans freely cross the border every year and then get jobs here in the US and live among us with little or suspicion, my 1 and 2 are the only possible scenarios.

it's too easy. all you'd need to do is:
cross the border
go to Oklahoma
buy some guns
hold up a farm for fertilizer and diesel
blow something up

When Hillary is President will the Bush haters also now hate Hillary for continuing the same military policies as Bush?

If anything, they're catching sloppy, second-rate "copycat" terrorists looking for their 15 minutes for posthumous fame and their 72 virgins. I seriously doubt if Al Qaeda (or anyone else) tried to orchestrate another plot on the scale and with the level of diabolical secrecy and originality of 9/11 that we'd catch it - even today. Guys like the "shoe bomber" are second-rate buffoons nowhere near having the level of sophistication and training that the 9/11 hijackers had. Even on getting those, I'd say we've been more lucky than good.

It's funny how some folks are willing to dismiss the work and efforts of a lot of civil servents and military personnel to protect our country, and the successes that they've achieved just because they don't like the current President in the White House.

Ron, there are no Bush haters anymore. He's irrelevant from here on out.

absolutely.