Obama Invokes Executive Privilege; Where Is The Outraged Left?

When George Bush was president there was a trumped up scandal involving a faux undercover CIA agent and her wanna-be ambassador husband. The entire “scandal” was called Plame Gate after Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who was not covert but acted like she was a secret squirrel. There was also a so called scandal involving Bush’s dismissal of several US Attorneys, an act that was completely within his power as president (and something Clinton did as well).

Several of President Bush’s aides and Vice President Cheney were subpoenaed to appear before Congress (with regard to these and other incidents) and explain themselves but their boss declined invoking executive privilege (though he offered limited access). The Democrats were livid and the leftist blogosphere went nuts with visions of people being “frog marched” out of the White House. Here is what Democrat Henry Waxman had to say about the executive privilege claim in the Plame case:

The claim of executive privilege is ludicrous.

We are not seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and the President. We are seeking access to the communications between the Vice President and FBI investigators. The Vice President talked with the FBI investigators voluntarily and he did so knowing that what he said could be disclosed publicly in a criminal trial. Mr. Fitzgerald told us that “there were no agreements, conditions and understandings” that limited Mr. Fitzgerald’s use of the interview in any way.

This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person.

The President is wrong to shield Vice President Cheney from scrutiny. In our system of government, even the Vice President should be accountable for his actions. [from an above linked article]

Here is the big question. Where is Waxman and where are the other Democrats who had their panites in a wad over this incident now that Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege. Yep, Obama has said that his Social Secretary, Desiree Rogers, will not appear before Congress to provide information on how two people were able to get into the White House without an invitation. Congress wants her to appear and she was in the middle of the episode but Obama said she will not appear.

Earlier Wednesday at his regular briefing with reporters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Ms. Rogers would not testify. “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ he said. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’ Jammie Wearing Fool

It appears as if Gibbs is saying that the rules that Waxman and others wanted applied to Bush do not apply to Obama.

Where are you liberals? Where is your outrage? Where is Henry Waxman discussing the “unfounded assertion of executive privilege” and admonishing Obama on how our government works?

The liberals seem to be fairly silent on this and feel that Obama is within his right to keep Rogers from testifying. Personally, I believe that Bush was within his right and that Obama is as well. There is established law to support the decisions each of them made in US v. Nixon which limits executive privilege claims only during criminal proceedings.

That case dealt with people who were subpoenaed. I don’t think Rogers has been subpoenaed yet. Her presence was requested and Obama refused. A subpoena might come next but I doubt Obama would honor it.

In any event, I never blew a gasket over Bush’s refusals, the liberal left (but I repeat myself) did. So, where are they now?

Some much for transparency. So much for an end to politics as usual. They said if I voted for McCain I would get four more years of Bush.

It is beginning to look like that is party true. Of course, I would love to hear the liberals chime in on this. You can be sure that some will comment and justify this behavior. They seem to be able to justify everything that they so vehemently opposed when Bush was in office. Hell, they might even blame this on Bush since that seems to be the way the Democrats address everything.

As an aside, if the government panel’s recommendations on breast cancer screening had been made (and followed) 20 years ago Rogers might not even be here. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003, when she was 44 years old. That is six years before the new recommendation. Under Obamacare, she might not be living through this mess. I’m glad she was able to get it diagnosed and has survived it.

Commentary Magazine
Jules Crittenden

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

58 Responses to “Obama Invokes Executive Privilege; Where Is The Outraged Left?”

  1. Darrel says:

    “The couple — Tareq and Michaele Salahi — and White House social secretary Desiree Rogers were also invited to testify Thursday, but all three declined.” AP


    • Blake says:

      Wow- and you claim to be an “independent” free thunker- what a lie, D-
      In the first place, executive privelege doesn’t, and shouldn’t extend to “social secretaries”- that is for weightier problems than these.
      It is only the fact that Mzzzzzzzzzzz. Rogers had fired the previous social secretary, simply because of the fact that she had worked in the “Bush” WH, and didn’t think that experience counted, nor that the fired SS needed to be replaced- after all, they are with OBAMA, therefore, they are “incapable” of making mistakes.
      Bad News, Bud- O’bamma is NOT infalliable- he is not even close to the Pope.
      This said, the Secret Service will unjustly have to fall on their sword simply because another Residential aide is incompetent.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Like I said folks, there is your first one. If it is an indefensible item and clearly the same as what they harped about with Bush then it is boring or not worth discussing.

    The intent is to make it appear as if they were invited and declined (as opposed to not being invited and crashing) but Gibbs clearly made it known that Obama’s staff does not testify to Congress.

    Some Freethinker…

    • In on it not says:

      Remeber Bill’s BJ and his “…I don’t know that woman!”
      The liberals all said, Boring!, It is just some guy having sex. So what?”

      When it wasn’t about the sex; it was about lying on the witness stand.

      Boring! isn’t an answer for liberlas. It is capitulation.

  3. Adam says:

    Seriously? Plame was covert. You can stop lying about this fact any day now. To top it off an administration official lied under oath in the investigation and went to jail.

    In the US attorney issue, Congress was deliberately mislead in the investigation. It’s a lot bigger than you want to pretend by saying Bush had the right to fire them.

    But yes, the lack of outrage from the left related to the investigation of…wait for it…gate crashers at a party, just shows us for the hypocrites that we are. Right…

    You’re wondering how we seem to justify things were were opposed to under Bush? It’s because you keep fabricating or imagining similarities between said events when they don’t really exist. You have a quote by 1 Democrat and you’re stretching that to be all liberals. Liberals weren’t against every use of executive privilege and you know this. It’s used by every modern president.

    • In on it not says:

      It shows you what a hypocrit you are.

      We already knew it.

    • Blake says:

      Plame was not even CLOSE to “covert”- that is a liberal lie, of which there are many- and we do not need to fabricate things when you liberals do such a nice job of that yourselves- but here is where you all ARE transparent- listening to you libbies is like listening to a child try to lie- it is almost painful, especially when the facts are right in front of you.
      Quit hurting yourself.

      • Adam says:

        The CIA says Plame was covert, but if an old Texan like yourself says the CIA is lying then I guess you must be right and the CIA wrong.

        • Big Dog says:

          Well, you believed they lied when Pelosi said so.

          The CIA believed her cover blown in 1997 which is why she was moved back to the US:

          In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.

          In the spring of the year she was in the process of moving from NOC status

          In fact, in the spring, Plame was in the process of moving from noc status to State Department cover.

          And lastly, she disclosed her own covert status in 1997:

          On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a “heavy make-out” session when she said she had something to tell him. She was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting her to that point, such as money and training.

          She was, she explained, undercover in the C.I.A. “It did nothing to dampen my ardor,” he says. “My only question was: Is your name really Valerie?”

          Vanity Fair Interview

        • Adam says:

          The Vanity Fair interview six years old and factually incorrect. Far more has been said about the status of Plame since that interview that contradicts the unclassified CIA document from the court case that have since become public.

        • Adam says:

          Well, I botched that sentence bigtime but I think you get the jest. The interview is old and is contradicted by the more recently released CIA document.

        • Darrel says:

          ADAM: “The CIA says Plame was covert…>>

          Well there it is in black and white. Now will Bigd and Blake quit lying about Plame’s covert status?

  4. Big Dog says:

    Does the seriousness of the issue matter with regard to the principle? That is the underlying issue and you seem to give degrees of right and wrong.

    Plame was so covert that when someone called the CIA and asked for her they were put through to voice mail.

    Clinton fired all US Attorneys to protect a Democrat lawmaker who was being investigated. Is there a difference?

    • Adam says:

      It’s not about degrees of right and wrong. The simple fact is that you have a thin case to suggest liberals were somehow against all invocations of executive privilege. Without it you’re hard pressed to make a legitimate case that since we’re not outraged over Obama’s case then we’re hypocrites.

      • In on it not says:

        Since there is no outrage from the left…I would have to say liberals are ALL hypocrites, yes.

        I think you stated that well, and I rest my case, your Honor.

  5. Big Dog says:

    It seems to me that you all were against it whenever used and it seems that your guy promised to be most transparent.

    Then again, he railed against deficit spending.

    And the surge.

  6. In on it not says:

    “That report is…giving Obama decent marks in his…days…beyond”
    You spelled descent wrong.

    He is under 50% approval now and dropping like a turd in a whirlpool.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Worst president ever? I think Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and certainly Carter are easily worse that Bush.

    Oh he is getting rid of lobbyists? They infest his administration, he took zillions of dollars from them and they work on his behalf through organizations like the SEIU.

    And Bush’s approval was higher than this after the same amount of time. Let us wait and see what Obama is sitting at at the end of his first and only term.

    He has not been transparent. He promised that the health care debate would be on CSPAN, it has been behind closed doors and the bills have not been published for the time he promised.

    Too much going on behind closed doors to be transparent. Using EP to protect a lowly Social Secretary? Not transparent.

    The difference, of course, is you guys are libs who have you tongue in Obama’s rectum. You worship the ground he walks on and can find nothing wrong.

    Not much freethinking there…

    Just partisan politics, hypocrisy, and blindness

    • Adam says:

      Yes, FDR, one of the worst presidents ever…if you’re living in a Republican fantasy land.

      • Big Dog says:

        Historical fact. He moved us closer to Socialism and his policies created the Great Depression and prolonged it. He had farmer’s crops burned to keep prices high rather than feed the hungry.

        He was so horrible that term limits followed him for a reason.

        • Adam says:

          Historical baloney. Considering the depression started 3 years before FDR took office I’d think it would be pretty hard to say FDR’s policies created it. But then again Republicans have a habit of lying about FDR.

      • Blake says:

        FDR was, in fact, a very lousy president, exceeded only (perhaps) by Carter. It took a World War to pull us out of the depression- nothing else he tried even came close, and THAT’S a fact.
        Add in the widespread belief in progressive circles for Eugenics, and you have, in actuality, Proto- Nazis in his administration- not a good thing.
        Perhaps when you liberals actually begin reading actual HISTORY, instead of your little progressive “cliffnotes” version, you will see that we are indeed correct.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Worst president ever?”>>

      Easily. Let’s ask the presidential historians:

      “Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.”



      Bigd: “and certainly Carter are easily worse that Bush.”>>

      According the Forbes ranking I have referenced several times, using normal measurements by which we measure the success of presidents, Carter comes in squarely in the middle beating your Nixon, Eisenhower and beating the pants off of both papa Bush and baby Bush *handily.*


  8. Big Dog says:

    Adam, let’s see if Obama ends up where Reagan did. Reagan brought us out of a worse recession and made the economy better. If Obama does that his numbers will be up there.

    Lucky to have a terrorist attack to rally the country. I hope you just chose your words poorly.

    Obama might get his terror attack when KSM is tried in NY. The difference is that if there is an attack because of the trial Obama will not get support because people will know he brought it here. If we are attacked during this trial it will be the end of Democrats for a long time. Very risky move for the libs.

    • Adam says:

      I’ve never understood conservatives think a trial will put the country at more risk of terrorism. They sat idle by while their friends were held in a military prison and tortured…but a trial…a trial they just won’t stand for? They must attack?

      • Big Dog says:

        That is the difference. They could not attack at Gitmo but there is greater access in NY. It will make a prime target with the circus that is sure to follow.

        Military tribunal for a military criminal.

        I don’t live in NY (but my taxes will pay for the circus) but I would hate to have this in my neighborhood.

        I hope they are right in what they are doing.

        • Adam says:

          What is it about the trial that makes it more likely to be attacked than any other time?

          • Big Dog says:

            It brings the terrorist to a populated center that will draw huge crowds making it a high value target. What better way for a suicide bomber to make a statement than to blow up a bunch of people near ground zero?

            But that is their decision. If something bad happens promise me you won’t blame it on Bush.

            • Adam says:

              Republicans love to spread fear about terrorists as if we’ve never had terrorists on trial or we don’t have terrorists in prisons right now in the US. These trials are the right thing to do. If terrorists attack it won’t be proof there shouldn’t have been trials. It will just be proof that we still have work to do to secure our cities.

              If 9/11 could be the fault of Clinton I’m sure we can find a way to blame Bush for any fictional terrorist attack under Obama. We’ll use the Republican playbook on this one.

      • Blake says:

        Because these ragheads will rant on the stand, and incite any radicalized elements inour society to come make a statement, and they make their statements by blowing things and people up. In a military tribunal, they could not do this. If I was the judge, I would bar TV cameras from the courtroom.

    • Adam says:

      And it’s a myth that the Reagan recession was worse than this one. Yet another thing Palin got wrong.

      • Big Dog says:

        I wonder who fact checked Obama?

        This is from the article you linked:

        They’re close, but the current recession will likely end up somewhat worse

        Will likely END UP worse. This is because of the way it is being handled (and that includes what Bush did and what Obama followed with).

        It is being made worse.

  9. Big Dog says:

    I know what you reference Darrel and it is a lot of bunk. The measurement of the presidents is done a number of ways but those who have removed the most freedom are the ones I mentioned.

    Stop citing your BS. You spew it here and act as if it is the only reasonable information. You disregard anything presented from someone else because only you have the answers.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Quit with the bunk.

    Carter, one of the worst, FDR, one of the worst, Teddy Roosevelt, one of the worst, Wilson, one of the worst. Several of those did more to subvert the Constitution than should have been allowed.

    • Adam says:

      You don’t have to hate FDR just because we can’t have a Reagan dime. Your side has Salmon P. Chase after all.

      • Big Dog says:

        We have a Nimitz class nuclear powered supercarrier named after Reagan with the motto Peace Through Strength because that is what he gave us.

        We have the FDR dime because that is about all anyone had left…

        And we do have Lincoln who is on the cent and the 5 dollar bill…

        What bill is FDR on?

        And Chase was a Republican and a Democrat…

        • Adam says:

          Lincoln is considered a greater president than FDR by many historians so I think it’s fitting that he be commemorated in such a way.

          Maybe when the Republicans regain control in Washington the Reagan Dime can get back on the legislative table.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The measurement of the presidents is done a number of ways”>>

      Yes it is. If you don’t like referring to presidential historians, and you don’t like the normative objective standards used by the Forbes study (inflation, job creation etc.), you could always just poll the populace. Let’s do that:

      “President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush’s final approval rating at 22 percent.

      Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.

      Mr. Bush’s final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.”


      Got any other yard sticks you want to use?

  10. Big Dog says:

    If they pulled her home because her cover was felt to be blown, they changed the date on when she was removed from covert, she had been in the US working for years and not undercover (you could call and they would put you through to her), if she revealed herself and if it was commonly known she worked for the CIA then how was she covert?

    The other thing is, one has to knowingly reveal a covert agent. If they knew she worked at the CIA but did not know she was covert (assuming she actually was) then what crime was committed by saying she worked at the CIA. If you are covert then people should not know you work there.

  11. Big Dog says:

    And the CIA says Pelosi knew about water boarding, she said it was a lie and the Dems defended her.

    I do not believe that she was covert based on what she was doing and what was taking place. It is possible her status was listed as covert but she was anything but.