GAO dropped ball when it dropped Cheney suit

Bellingham Herald ^ | 2/25/03 | editor

[Eva]

Vice President Dick Cheney refused to reveal who the energy panel consulted with.

GOVERNMENT: Nation's energy policy should be created in the most transparent possible atmosphere.

How is it that we can spend millions of dollars and months of time investigating whether Bill Clinton's zipper was up or down, but Vice President Dick Cheney gets to stonewall investigators looking into possible influence peddling and get away with it?

[Eva]

The Bellingham Herald editorial regarding the GAO suit against Vice President Cheney went beyond the usual leftist slant of the Herald’s editorial policy to the point of being a ridiculous attempt to cast aspersions on the Bush administration.

The GAO case was dismissed by the courts in December by U.S. District Judge John Bates because the case filed by Comptroller General David Walker against the vice president was an unprecedented act that raised serious separation-of-powers issues between the executive and legislative branches of government. The case was nothing but a fishing expedition by the Democrats for information that MIGHT tie VP Cheney to Enron. There was never any evidence of any quid pro quo or wrong doing on the part of VP Cheney.

As a matter of fact it turns out that the Comptroller General, David Walker may have had more ties to Enron than VP Cheney. Mr. Walker was an employee and board member of Arthur Anderson until he resigned in 1998 to accept the Clinton appointment to the GAO. Maybe he should release his employment records so that we can all see if he had any dealings with Enron or any other energy company that would have precluded his fair investigation of the energy talks.

The demand for disclosure of private meetings held by the Vice President is very similar to the Senate filibuster of Miguel Estrada. The Democrats were unable to find any evidence of wrong doing but they are sure that if they dig deep enough into private papers and dealings they will find something objectionable.

[Eva]

Bump for some help. I need some help on this, so I can answer this editorial. Come on Freepers!

[kylaka]

This editor should be forced to sit through a tenth grade civics class again. He must have missed the part about separation of powers when the constitution was discussed.
He seems to know all about "spousal privlidge" and "secret service privlidge" as regards Clinton's pecker tracks though.

[Eva]

I could use some comments on my reply to the Herald. Thanks.

[soozla]

"The demand for disclosure of private meetings held by the Vice President is very similar to the Senate filibuster of Miguel Estrada. The Democrats were unable to find any evidence of wrong doing but they are sure that if they dig deep enough into private papers and dealings they will find something objectionable."

Let's not forget that, the Dems think, by putting out "sound bytes" and planting the "appearance" that Cheney and Estrada are "secretive and therefore...EVIL" they'll win the war against facts and common sense with their trick bag of smoke and mirrors......which we all know gets them jacksh*t!

[Eva]

Do you have any comments to add to this?

[sinkspur]

I need some help on this, so I can answer this editorial.

Why answer it? The only people that care about this issue are Birkenstocked liberals, and even they have lost interest since the courts shot the lawsuit down.

[Eva]

You're right, but how do I say that without sounding like a conspiracy theorist?

[Eva]

Thanks, I should emphasize the separation of powers.

[Howlin]

Let's get the REAL writers in here.......and some people who know the facts!

I'd just write profanity.

[Eva]

I have a chance to write a regular column, a conservative side of the news.

[tet68]

Our energy policy should be transparent, but our health care should be nationalized by a murky unnamed council run by the unelected wife of a government official???

Zot.

[kylaka]

The GOP didn't drop the suit. A judge threw it out as being without foundation. The Vice President was within his constitutional rights in witholding the information.

[tet68]

Zot not aimed at you, but writer of article.
Bellingham is very liberal as I remember.

[dalebert]

I just took their feedback surey. Told them how important it is that the press tell the truth.

[Cold Heat]

I need some help on this

A gag alert would have been nice!

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Bump for some help. I need some help on this

Read the order from the court where it was dismissed.

I believe the judge said that it didn't come from any request for information from congress and so really had no standing.

The GAO is a creature of the congress and so is not to undertake anything not instructed by congress.

[Eva]

That's good I like that one. I attended a luncheon where the publisher and the editor were the guest speakers. We kind of let them have it for the liberal spin of the news. I told them that the editorial page was their business but the news pages were a different story and that their repeated use of NY Times news service was offensive. I said that the leftist slant of the NYT was so bad that they were no longer considered a reliable source. I suggested that the paper offer space for a conservative rebuttal of the leftist news stories and she told me to come in and talk to her about it.

[Dolphy]

The White House offered their Energy Policy to Congress. What difference does it make who had input to the a final product that was sent for debate, modification, ratification or to collect dust as Daschle would have it. Clinton had allegedly broken laws, but I don't know of any law that outlines who our elected officials must meet with.

It's a sure bet that my Senators, Levin and Stabenow, don't disclose to me who they meet with when coming up with their cockeyed positions. Heck, Levin won't even respond to constituent inquiries. Are these grounds to have them investigated? Would I have any standing to request the minutes of their meetings or personal appointment books absent any alleged wrongdoing or crime?

Being a Republican with a corresponding set of interests, values and worldview isn't a crime, even as much as the Democrats seem to think.

[Eva]

Thanks, I'll take your advice and read the court docs.