Cheney’s Office Subpoenaed
June 27, 2007
“Senate Committee Seeks Information on Eavesdropping”
(Story Written by Laurie Kellman, AP)
WASHINGTON - The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration’s warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.
“If there have been lies told to us, we’ll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate,” Leahy told reporters.
The escalation is part of the Democrats’ effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.
The White House contends that its search for would-be terrorists is legal, necessary and effective - pointing out frequently that there have been no further attacks on American soil. Administration officials say they have given classified information - such as details about the eavesdropping program, which is now under court supervision - to the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.
Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply with the new ones.
“We’re aware of the committee’s action and will respond appropriately,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. “It’s unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation.”
Fratto defended the surveillance program as “lawful” and “limited.”
“It’s specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans’ civil liberties,” Fratto said. “The program is classified for a reason - its purpose is to track down and stop terrorist planning. We remain steadfast in our commitment to keeping Americans safe from an enemy determined to use any means possible - including the latest in technology - to attack us.”
Click here to view full AP story
Comments
10 Responses to “Cheney’s Office Subpoenaed”
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Podcast Feeds
-
Honestly wouldn’t you think they would have sometinhg better to do when their approval rating is at 14%
Soapbox! Thank you!
So…ummm….what can u tell me about a mutual friend of ours?
Gabi
Bit early & the brain ain’t in gear. Make you a deal, you tell me who & I’ll tell you what.
There numerically Dyslexic,,, 14% looks like 41%….
soapbox did you get my email?
Mr Diehl
That would explain ALOT !!!!
Heard form MikeB or Joe 66 lately? Hope Joe’s family is O.K. looks like way too much rain in Texas, but I guess you know that.
Gabi
Haven’t seen an email. It’s mental health day so didn’t go into the store. I’ll see it first thing in the AM
Soapbox i am fine thanks for asking the family back home is ok they say if it keeps raining they are gonna have to grow gills
Why is this even posted here, it has nothing…ZIP…NADA…NOTHING to do with what gathering of eagles is about…IF I understand it correctly…BUT, THEN AGAIN, I have been wrong before.
Camp DuBeau
TSN AB
Saigon, RVN
1970-71
RobertT
Because most of us care about what is going on with our country perhaps !!
Focus good. Tunnel vision bad !!!
Not my words. Check out the WP opinion page today (Sunday).
An inexperienced leader, facing a serious global threat, grows increasingly arrogant, spurns lawmakers, grabs unprecedented power, bullies skeptics, stifles the press, and decides to spurn advice of seasoned hands and go it alone. Sound familiar?
Lynne Olson, author of a new book about the British Parliament replacing Neville Chamberlain with Winston Churchill in 1940, has a fascinating piece in the Washington Post today comparing our current president with the wartime British prime minister. Bush may claim the Churchillian legacy as his own — he reportedly keeps a “stern-looking bust” of Churchill in the Oval Office — but Olson makes the case that he has far more in common with Churchill’s predecessor.
Inexperienced: “Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders.”
Arrogance: “Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.”
Power grab: “Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government…. Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister.”
Go it alone: “In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany — ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a ‘Grand Alliance’ of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent. Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone.”
Public dissent: “Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration’s years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the “war on terror” and the conflict in Iraq — tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain’s attempts to quiet his opponents.”
Civil liberties: “Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister’s subordinates…. Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment.”