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.