Did Cheney ‘throw in the towel’?

I think this report, from Politico’s Mike Allen, is rather misleading. We know that the Office of the Vice President has come up with a new (and ridiculous) defense for ignoring an executive order about classified materials, but Allen argues it’s part of a “flip-flop” and an example of Cheney “throwing in the towel.” It’s really not.

Dick Cheney’s office is abandoning a justification for keeping the Vice-President’s secret papers out of the hands of the National Archives.

Officials working for Cheney had tried to claim he is separate from the executive branch, but they will no longer pursue that defense, senior administration officials tell The Politico.

The decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office’s $4.8 million in executive-branch funding. […]

David S. Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff and counsel, wrote in a three-paragraph letter to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Tuesday that the executive order on classified national security information does not give the archivists authority over the president or vice president. Addington said that therefore it “is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning.”

That amounted to throwing in the towel, according to administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity. The White House has no plans to reassert the argument there is any vice presidential distinction from the executive branch, the officials said.

In a rhetorical sense, I suppose some of this is true. Last week, the White House and the OVP argued that Cheney was neither part of the executive nor the legislative branch. This week, they’ve decided to stop using the ridiculous argument. To this extent, sure, they threw in the towel.

But Allen’s report characterizes this as some kind of major reversal, when in fact, the Bush gang is simply giving up on one vapid talking point and replacing it with another. That’s not capitulation; that’s more of the same.

What’s the new talking point? That the executive order in question specifically exempts Cheney and Bush from oversight on handling classified materials. Does the executive order include such an exemption? Not at all — the new argument is sheer nonsense. Cheney’s lawyers came up with a new defense by fabricating a provision that doesn’t exist.

“Throwing in the towel” suggests Cheney and his team have come around to a more reasonable position. That isn’t even close to being true — they’re still lying, they still won’t comply with the executive order, they’re still opposed to oversight, and they still won’t even acknowledge that they’re part of the executive branch. Allen sees a “flip-flop.” If only that were true.

Indeed, Allen’s report says Cheney’s “decision follows a threat by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the No. 3 House Democrat, to try to cut off the office’s $4.8 million in executive-branch funding.” This suggests that the OVP has backed down in the face of congressional pressure.

But that’s wrong, too. The problem, as far as congressional Dems are concerned, is Cheney’s resistance to oversight and decision to exempt himself, without justification, from an executive order. That’s why Emanuel & Co. are talking about using the power of the purse, not Cheney’s use of a silly talking point.

All in all, anyone reading Mike Allen’s report comes away with the very wrong impression that Cheney has given up. Just the opposite is true.

The Politico sucks ass. If they say Cheney threw in the towel, it means that Cheney just gave congress the finger. Again.

But get this:

…Two senior Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the rationale had been the view of the vice president’s lawyers, not Cheney himself…

Yeah, we’re supposed to believe that Dick Cheney let his lawyers use an argument that he didn’t agree with.

Right.

  • According to Allen, “Dick Cheney’s office is abandoning a justification,”

    Is it just me, or are we confusing a “reason” with a “justification?” A “reason” would tell us why he did what he did, which I’d love to hear. A justification seems like an excuse, which is all we ever seem to get from these jerks and something I don’t want to hear.

    Put another way, you can’t abandon a reason after the fact, but you can abandon a justification anytime.

  • How can it possibly be true that the White House budget for the Office of the Vice President is only $4.8 million. In January, Laura Rozen estimated that at least 88 people were on Cheney’s staff (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0701.rozen.html) and I guarantee that people such as Addington earn the maximum allowed by law. Throw in travel, security, office supplies, communications, etc, and the number must be far higher. Something is not kosher.

  • I love this line: “is not necessary in these circumstances to address the subject of any alternative reasoning.” That’s diplomat-speak for, ‘our previous excuse was complete bullsh*t.’ However you parse it, it’s an admission of bullsh*t. That raises the basic question of why should anyone listen to them now?

  • Sure, Deadeye has thrown in the towel. On trying to justify his intransigence. Why not; I bet what passes for his heart wasn’t in it to begin with. To that extent, I’d accept the “it was his lawyers’ argument” statement. *They* felt something was necessary; he didn’t. So, he didn’t care what they said.

    He can now revert to the position which comes more naturally to him: “I’ll do what I want and you suckers won’t stop me”. Polish has a nice phrase which is used to express just such an attitude: “jump on the sharp edge of my arse” (skocz mi na kant dupy)

  • The Politico is the “fair and balanced” version of Faux Noise on the Internet.

  • Comments are closed.