The Shoe Goes onto the Other Foot (and Fits!)

What worked for Bush works for Obama.

How much did we hear during former President George W. Bush’s time in office that he was wielding too much executive power and that former Vice President Dick Cheney was the most powerful man in Washington and a master at keeping secrets?  Here’s what the Boston Globe had to say about Mr. Cheney:

Dick Cheney is the most powerful vice president in US history. Indeed, there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Cheney, not Bush, is the real power at the White House and Bush the figurehead.

As if that was not strong enough stuff the commentary continues further:

After all, Cheney enjoys his immense power not by dint of his office (which a prior vice president, John Nance Garner, unkindly compared to a bucket of warm spit) but because Bush depends on him and allows him unprecedented power.

It should become clear that the former vice president was not loved by many on the Left.  The reasons are numerous but an oft cited one is the issue of “executive privilege,” a definition of which may be found here:

The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decision making processes of the executive branch.  As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation.

Almost every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has claimed executive privilege as some time or another during their stewardship of the country.  There is a constant battle being waged between the Executive and the Legislative branch over what can be kept secret and what cannot.  While it is true that George W. Bush probably pushed harder for privacy from Congress than most recent presidents, he did nothing illegal in asserting what he saw his rights to be.

Obama's imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

When he ran for president, Barack Obama promised, and many on the Left cheered, that his administration would be one based upon transparency.  In fact, on the campaign trail in 2007 Obama said:

“Because when it comes to what’s wrong with this country, the American people are not the problem. The American people are the answer. The American people want to trust in our government again – we just need a government that will trust in us. And making government accountable to the people isn’t just a cause of this campaign – it’s been a cause of my life for two decades.”

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor’s post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of “transparency,” producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama’s actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.

In a federal lawsuit, the Obama legal team is arguing that judges lack the authority to enforce their own rulings in classified matters of national security.

It shouldn’t be too difficult for people to remember the days when George W. Bush would make a similar argument and get lambasted by the Democrats and the media for refusing to disclose information claiming “exceutive privilege” and telling Congress and the courts to go pound salt.

The Wall Street Journal article continues:

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause “exceptional harm to national security” by exposing intelligence sources and methods.

In court documents filed hours later, Justice argues that the decision to release classified information “is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power . . . to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access.” The brief continues that federal judges are “ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive Branch.”

How is this any different from the claim of executive privilege put forth by the Bush administration over firings of legal counsel?

Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded that the department pursue misdemeanor charges against former White House counsel Harriet Miers for refusing to testify to Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors in 2006 and against chief of staff Josh Bolten for failing to turn over White House documents related to the dismissals.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, said he hoped Pelosi’s demand would spur the department to “put the partisan manipulation of our system of justice behind it” and take the issue to a grand jury. “To do otherwise would turn on its head the notion that we are all equally accountable under the law,” said Conyers, D-Mich.

Is this the type of “change we can believe in” coming from President Barack Obama?  Granted, his assertions about executive privilege are something I personally believe in and I think he’s doing the right thing, but my issue with this subject is that when he ran for office he condemned this type of “secrecy” and the Democrats in Congress were all over Bush like a hot sauce.  Now they are silent!

Then again, we are relearning that the “Imperial Presidency” is only imperial when the President is a Republican. Democrats who spent years denouncing George Bush for “spying on Americans” and “illegal wiretaps” are now conspicuously silent. Yet these same liberals are going ballistic about the Bush-era legal memos released this week.

Once again, it turns out that Obama is no better than any other politician.  Maybe he’s worse because he promised that he’d be better.

Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email

No related posts.