BCT Editorial – 7/1/07

This page was last updated on July 1, 2007.

Veil of secrecy; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 1, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Vice President Dick Cheney has proved once again that he will do whatever he pleases in his obsessive quest to avoid scrutiny from all quarters, including the very administration he serves.

“Cheney, whose penchant for secrecy is well documented, stunned Capital Hill last week with a ridiculous assertion that his office was not part of the federal government’s executive branch, and therefore immune from a presidential order governing the handling of classified documents.

“The flap centers on a routine procedure used for the handling of sensitive material.

“An arm of the National Archives known as the Information Security Oversight Office, which has the job of ensuring that secret government documents remain secret, requires offices to prepare annual reports on how they are storing such papers. The review also includes an on-site inspection.”

[RWC] As a reminder, in 2003 it was the National Archives that let Bill Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger walk out with top-secret documents stuffed in his clothing. Mr. Berger subsequently destroyed those documents. These were not copies of documents; they were the originals.

“The oversight office, mind you, is headed by a guy appointed by President Bush.

“Since 2003, however, Cheney has refused to comply with requests for the annual report. In 2004, his office blocked an on-site inspection.

“When the security oversight office objected, Cheney’s office tried to shut it down.

“According to the New York Times, Cheney and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, believe that the vice president’s office is ‘not an entity within the executive branch,’ because of Cheney’s role as president of the Senate.

“This is the same vice president who in 2001 refused to cooperate with a congressional probe looking into the workings of his energy task force because it ‘would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch,’ the Washington Post reported.

“Cheney has used the same argument in refusing to release details of his privately funded travels and visitor logs at his official residence.

“‘The vice president’s theory seems to be one almost laughable on its face, that he’s not part of the executive branch,’ Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York told the Post. ‘I think if you ask James Madison or Benjamin Franklin or any of the writers of the Constitution, they’d almost laugh if they heard that.’”

[RWC] I’m sure it was an honest oversight <g>, but the editorial failed to note Mr. Schumer is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate and is chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee.

“Laughable, yes, but also very predictable in an administration with a history of bending the law to suit its own needs.”

[RWC] Did you notice the lack of examples?

“The vice president would be well advised to take all the help he can get in protecting sensitive information. His office has had problems with leaks in the past.

“Does the name I. Lewis Libby ring a bell? Cheney’s former chief was convicted of perjury and obstruction for leaking secret information about former Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Wilson to the media.”

[RWC] I guess a lie is OK when it promotes a talking point. Based on “No complaints” from last September, the Times knows full well Mr. Libby was not charged with “leaking secret information about former Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Wilson to the media.”

“The question remains: Is Cheney a part of the executive branch or the Senate?

“The answer is whatever suits him at the moment.”

[RWC] This editorial is another example of the Times trying to make something of nothing. Whether or not you agree with the policy, the editorial omitted a tiny point. A presidential order by President Bush covered the actions of the National Archives. During a recent press briefing I saw, the White House itself asserted the order did not apply to the VP’s office and was never intended to. As long as there’s nothing illegal with a presidential order, the President is the final authority on whom it covers.