I have been ignoring all the usual scandal mongering by the Dems, but via Oliver I see something that if true is outrageous and utterly unacceptable (not to mention illegal):
Despite receiving this letter, Cheney still claimed to Congress, a few weeks later, on August 2, that responsive documents had been produced.
Of course, Cheney is a busy man. Yet there can be no question as to whether he was aware of the July 18, 2001 letter from the Comptroller complaining about the 77 pages of documents’ being unresponsive: He even attached it to his own August 2 letter to Congress, as part of a chronology. And again, he personally signed that August 2 letter.
Nor can there be any question that Cheney knows what it means to produce responsive documents – and not to do so. In the same paragraph of the August 2 letter in which he claims he was responsive to the Energy Task Force request, he makes a lesser claim with respect to another GAO request – stating that there, he had merely “provided substantial responses.” (Emphasis added.)
Plainly, Cheney knows the difference between being responsive; offering a substantial response; and sending insulting non-responsive materials, featuring unexplained phone bills, columns of unidentified figures, and a pizza receipt.
Stay tuned.
andy
ever hear of complying with the letter of the law, but not the spirit? That’s all Cheney’s guilty of. “responsive” simply means “Answering or replying; responding.” (dictionary.com) clearly, since the GAO asked for documents, and he sent them documents in response to them asking, he sent responsive documents.
andy
It also might be worth noting that John W. Dean is a pretty vocal critic of the Bush Administration across the board, weighing in very heavily on Uraniumgate and the like, so I’ll continue taking everything out of his mouth with a shakerful of salt, thanks. =]
M. Scott Eiland
It would be deeply amusing if all of this sniping led to Cheney shrugging and saying, “OK, I’m off to a comfortable retirement and won’t be on the ticket in 2004.” Bush/Rice 2004, anyone?
carol
IMHO this is much ado about nothing. A member of the executive branch of government recommended a policy to the legislative branch of government. What’s the difference who he got ideas from. The legislature can hold hearings and meet with whomever they want to make a decision as the worth of what has been recommended.
“Findlaw” is giving his opinion in disagreement with a judge, I am sure this is not the first decision some attorney disagreed with.
Rey
Lets keep this in perspestictive. Like it or not, there is such a thing as separation of powers in the US constitution. The same way that the White House can not demmand Dick Gephardts or Se. Hillary Clinton’s personal papers or official memos, no government agency can demand Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force minutia. Let me rephrase this. They can demand all thay want, the VP can just ignore them. Not even the Supreme Court can demand that documentation. Remember Hillary’s health care planning group? It was conducted by an unelected official (Hillary) using tax payers funds, in secret. When the congress demanded information on that meeting (after all, the first lady is not covered under the separation of powers) the President ignored all requests under the separation of powers clause (She was his “representative” in those meetings).