Shorter Bush: I Wrote It in Invisble Ink

/in /by

Kagro X says almost all that needs to be said about BushCo’s claims that Bush intended to exempt he and Cheney from rules on classification. I’ll come back later to expand on Kagro’s point about the insta-declassification theory of leaking Plame’s identity. But for now, I’d like to make a teeny tiny point. Even according to BushCo’s own flack, the Executive Order doesn’t say, in writing, what Bush is now claiming: that Bush and Cheney are exempt from all rules on classification. Here’s Tony Fratto:

"We don’t dispute that the ISOO has a different opinion. But let’s bevery clear: This executive order was issued by the president, and heknows what his intentions were," Fratto said. "He is in compliance withhis executive order."

Fratto conceded that the lengthydirective, technically an amendment to an existing executive order, didnot specifically exempt the president’s or vice president’s offices.Instead, it refers to "agencies" as being subject to the requirements,which Fratto said did not include the two executive offices. "It doestake a little bit of inference," Fratto said. [my emphasis]

So we’re to understand for this EO, at least, we’re just supposed to trust Bush. We’re just supposed to believe that Bush means what he didn’t say.

But why would we believe that, coming as it does, from an Administration that has made a point on hundreds of occasions of providing a written statement telling you exactly how Bush interprets particular laws? We’re to believe, in spite of the record of Bush’s hundreds of signing statements, that BushCo doesn’t care about letting you know precisely how he understands a law.

Nut uh. It defies all logic to suggest that Bush’s expects his own EOs to achieve only "inferential" exactitude while he strives to insist on explicit descriptions of his interpretations elsewhere.

  1. Mimikatz says:

    In an earlier comment thread I refered to M. Scott Peck’s book â€People of the Lie, the Hope For Healing Human Evil.†Though not as well known as â€The Road Less Traveled,†it is really fascinating. Basically, he defines evil as sin plus denial. He discusses psychopaths he saw in his practice (a population that is vastly less represented in psychiatrists’ offices than neurotics). His patients were unable to face some truth about themselves or what they had done, or had done to them, and had to construct ever more elaborate psychic mechanisms to hide the truth from themselves. (In some cases his patients were people whose lives the psychopaths had warped, in some cases they were referred by courts for treatment.)

    Bush/Cheney reminds me of this in their ever more intricate (and preposterous) attempts to hide what they have done from Congress and the American people and, on some level, probably from themselves as well. As the more sane among the Administration repudiate its doctrines and some leave the sinking ship, Bush/Cheney will surely become more desperate.

    The rest of us just need to hold firm and understand that ultimately they are more scared than we are.

  2. marksb says:

    This really is beyond any concept of Real Life; it’s some kind of Vonnegut story, mixed with a healthy dose of Hunter S. Thompson, with some Keasy thrown in for character development. I wonder if the boys are up in writer’s heaven having some fun with us down here? Either that or some kind of a spec Hollywood absurdist script got lost and accidentally ended up at the White House. â€Why do I say this? It doesn’t make any sense!†â€I dunno, sir, it’s in the script.†â€Oh, OK, I guessâ€

  3. ExcuseMeExcuseMe says:

    Mimikatz

    Many of us are aware of what horror they have wreaked upon us, and that makes us scared. What is it that you think makes them scared — relative to what they have been able to do and hide so far with little notice?

    Is it the accumulation of the drips?

    Honest question – not snark.

  6. marksb says:

    Mimikatz, interesting, I’ll add Peck’s book to my stack waiting for a little personal time.

    ExcuseMe, which is a great blogname, BTW, especially if you are lost between threads, I think they are scared of a number of things:

    They are scared of losing. Losing the country, since they are convinced that only they can save it, only they can lead to fulfill it’s righteous destiny, only they see the Truth of the situation. They are the only true patriots. Also, like most of us, they are scared of losing power, losing money, losing status, losing love and loyalty.

    I think they are scared of being caught. They are intelligent, well-educated high-achievers, and they know they’ve bent or broken the law to get where they are. The enemy (anyone that threatens to prevent their dominance) can stop them and they must therefore have the ’right’ to do anything they need to do to stop that process.

    And I think they are scared of the howling dark demons in their psyches that replay hurtful and traumatic scenes from their past and run renegade programs in their heads. It’s the origin of their sickness.

  7. John Lopresti says:

    In the interests of Ockham’s razor I reduced my comment to the links: social security privatization, how to hide info from congress legally: OLC May 2004 study re: HHS: document name: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/crsmemoresponsese.htm
    New study on the increase in executive claims of unconstitutionality of congress law provisor, bypassing judiciary: start here http://appropriations.senate.gov/ click June 16 GAO study link to launch java servlet; NB the servlet’s link retrieves the document from an archive which is accessible only from the appropriations website; you will know you have moused over the proper link if it shows the following in the bubble as your mouse hovers there: download.cfm?file=2007_06_18_Text_of_GAO_Opinion_on_White_House_Signing_Statements.pdf&dir=News’,800,600

  8. katie Jensen says:

    All sociopaths fear the truth. Period. This is what will cause the most vicious attack. The truth. They don’t like to be caught or confronted and when they are they lie, and they come at you. Hard.

  9. Mimikatz says:

    What are they afraid of? Marksb covers it pretty well.

    Above all, I think they fear loss of control. In Bush’s case loss of control over himself and his impulses and in Cheney’s case, loss of control over the whole shebang. He is REALLY a control freak.

    Ultimately one can’t control the universe; all one can do is learn to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty, let go and trust, among other things trust that whatever happens, can be borne. (That isn’t an argument for passivity, but rather for action.)

    And although Bush has never shown much interest in foreign countries, Henry Kissinger still has to be a little careful where he travels abroad, given the interest in some governments in pursuing human rights claims back to the Nixon years.

  10. P J Evans says:

    Um, can we get the preceding incoherent essay on something-or-other deleted?

    I especially found interesting, elsewhere stated, that Perino gave specific places to look for the declassification and exemptions authority, none of which say anything about either one. (Makes me wonder if they’ve actually relesed to the public the version that they’re using. Also makes me wonder if the EO needs clause-by-clause analysis to find out how the h*ll the WH is coming upwith the readings they’re claiming.)

  11. DonS says:

    Marcy, you are so right in your logical deconstruction of Bush/Cheney world. However, we should know by now that no logic matters to the decider. Decider logic trumps everything up to and including his own Supreme Court.

    Now that the WH pronouncements have stopped even trying to make sense, except in an Orwellian way, can it become any more clear that impeachment is necessary? Granted it would likely go nowhere, that the pols and the media would excoriate the upstarts. But at what point do we stop even pretending that we have a representative government?

    Just a rhetorical thought.

  14. dakine01 says:

    BushCo: â€I know you understand what you think I said but I don’t think you understand what I meant to say…â€

  15. mighty mouse says:

    Yeah, right. The executive exercises his authority to exempt himself from executive obligations? Except I think that should be â€exempt him and Cheney.†Pardon the nitpicking, b/c the gist of this is, um, impeccable.

  16. mighty mouse says:

    Yeah, right. The executive exercises his authority to exempt himself from executive obligations? Except I think that should be â€exempt him and Cheney.†Pardon the nitpicking, b/c the gist of this is, um, impeccable.

  17. thevineyard says:

    The Bush claim seems absurd on the face of it because the idea of the EO is to protect classified information. The Order would apply to anyone who has access to classified information or it’s meaningless. If Bush had expressed his â€intention†to exempt the OVP and himself, it would have meant scuttling the order at the time. And now, after ignoring, refusing, coming up with absurd excuses like the OVP being part legislative and part executive, attacking (perhaps) the authority, they come up with this lame idea that Bush knew his intention. It’s like not filing your income tax and then postulatping you were exempt. Cute. I think they are most afraid of going to jail.

  18. MarkH says:

    Move over Paris, Georgie Boy is coming ta visit a while.

    What was that about no underlying crime?

  19. pdaly says:

    Bush and Cheney are not making sense–and insisting on not making sense.
    Can we order a psychiatric evaluation and determine them unfit for office? Brain scan, thyroid test, psych eval. Goodbye! It could be faster than impeachment, but, unfortunately lacking all the fun in discovery that attaches to the latter.

    George H. W. Bush, in his capacity as the Republican Party Chairman during Nixon’s Watergate sent Nixon a letter from the White House NRC office (the NRC IN the White House at the time–interesting) regretfully informing Nixon it was time to step down.
    Wondering whether Bush the Elder is still writing letters and whether Junior is reading them.

  20. Dee Loralei says:

    Hahhaha @ Dakine10. Shorter Bush, Cheney, Perino, Fratto and Snow: †I know you beleive you understand what you think I said,but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.â€

    Hahahahaha.

  21. Anonymous says:

    I can’t be bothered with anything lately, but that’s how it is. Nothing seems important, but what can I say? Shrug.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Parents have no right in spanking you – Or do they? That could be another persuasive speech topic

  23. Anonymous says:

    Males should be allowed to go shirtless at home only – Or vary with places for another persuasive speech topic

  25. Anonymous says:

    My mind is like an empty room. Nothing seems worth thinking about. More or less not much noteworthy happening worth mentioning, but it’s not important. I guess it doesn’t bother me. I’ve just been letting everything wash over me lately.