If that's what the Vice President considers to be assault, then the Vice President is a giant sissy.

If that's what the Vice President considers to be assault, then the Vice President is a giant sissy.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the charge... we had gotten word that the vice president did not wish to prosecute Howards."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the charge because we didn't think we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because we had gotten word that the vice president did not wish to prosecute Howards, ...Originally, he was going to be charged with assault because the information we got from Secret Service was that he had pushed the vice president. We learned later that it had been only verbal."

What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned.

ya posted it.... did you read the article? The "young man" was 54 years old.

at first glance it sounds like an abuse of power, once I read the article, it sounds like a miscommunication and that the guy has a case against the Secret Service.

and the text of the link you put up is incorrect. he was arrested for assulting the VP. Fact is though that the assult never happened. That's why he may have a case.

The young man Im refering to is his son who had to witness it and apparently had to be picked up by social services while his Dad was "Under Arrest"

And I never said the guy didn't have a case. So yeah I read the article,

The young man Im refering to is his son who had to witness it and apparently had to be picked up by social services while his Dad was "Under Arrest"

And I never said the guy didn't have a case. So yeah I read the article,

pwned

yeah, but the guy still wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion."
though that's the way I'm sure it would read if it is picked up by national news.

And just how do you know this. Of course they are going to try and justify why they arrested the guy.

And just how do you know this. Of course they are going to try and justify why they arrested the guy.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Vice President should apologize for.... he didn't arrest the guy, the USSS did.

I think this comment is an example of the decent from Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" to the current whenever possible, shift the blame to "a few bad apples" plausible deniability strategy. For a party/group/organization that prizes personal responsibility, I find this telling. And just because Democrats do it doesn't make it OK.

Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility. Yes...the underling would reap my wrath, but his/her actions would be a reflection of my command.
Cheney should be sorry.
But he's not. It's not in his nature.

Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility.

Here's the essential problem, the assumption that the VP or POTUS or anyone else under USSS guard get to TELL the SS what to do. In fact, in cases of security it is the SS that tells the VP what to do. The protectee has very little say in alot of those matters. They get to say when and where they need to go, but what security will be used in their defense while they are there is simply not up to them.

Now was Cheney smirking and laughing at a detractor getting roughed up? Possibly. Did his not-so-secret power monger side get satisfaction from the exercise of force on his behalf? Likely. But did he have to issue some "order" for it to happen, absolutely not. It really could have happened completely independent of him. The way the structure is built he really could have known nothing until after the fact, at which time he did the right thing in not pressing charges.

So, the Treasury Dept. is second in line to the presidency?

1. The USSS is headed by the Treasury Dept., actually, not the VP.

So, the Treasury Dept. is second in line to the presidency?

Huh?

Traddad, I don't think you need me to tell you the history of the Secret Service, but the mission profile of the USSS is two-fold: Protection detail (President, VP, various VIPs, foreign dignitaries, etc.) and financial crime investigation (mostly counterfeiting.)

Began in 1865 (I think... 1866, perhaps?), as a branch of the Department of the Treasury. Presidential Protection was added to the scope after McKinnley was shot (1901).

*ahem* Homeland Security, not the Treasury.

Tell me that you didnt have to look this up. 8^)

Huh?

Traddad, I don't think you need me to tell you the history of the Secret Service, but the mission profile of the USSS is two-fold: Protection detail (President, VP, various VIPs, foreign dignitaries, etc.) and financial crime investigation (mostly counterfeiting.)

Began in 1865 (I think... 1866, perhaps?), as a branch of the Department of the Treasury. Presidential Protection was added to the scope after McKinnley was shot (1901).

Sorry, I was employing humor. I thought you would get that. My bad.

Nice job with Google, though. I love history, that's why I majored in it in college.

Sorry, I was employing humor. I thought you would get that. My bad. Nice job with Google, though. I love history, that's why I majored in it in college.
I'm talking ultimate responsibility. You know, the kind no one in this administration wants to assume. It's always someone elses fault. The plausible deniability pioneered in the Reagan Administration taken to the Nth degree. It's part of maintaining the denial bubble.

Uh, ok?


1. The USSS is headed by the Treasury Dept., actually, not the VP.
2. The USSS arrests people quite frequently, and almost always without the President or VP knowing about it.
3. The USSS can arrest someone without the approval of the President or VP. They don't need anyone's approval first, IOW.
4. The USSS will not arrest someone just because the President or VP says "Arrest that man!!!"

So no, I do not believe that Cheney was "in charge" of the situation.

Hey, he didnt google the info...he had it all in his head........pretty cool, Uh..

I understand that Cheney probably couldn't have prevented the act, but he could apologize for something that was done on his behalf.....but he won't. Apologies are a sign of weakness.

The Vail Daily newspaper reported the encounter and quoted Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren as saying Howards "wasn't acting like the other folks in the area" and "his behavior and demeanor wasn't (sic) quite right." The spokesman went on to say that "the agents tried to question him [Howards], and he was argumentative and combative."

But Mr. Howards’s lawyer, David A. Lane, said Mr. Cheney might be called as a witness,..

I'm gonna side with reno on this one. From what I understand, the SS protection detail takes orders from their superiors in the SS and nobody else. And as for apologizing, well, apology or not, Cheney is still Cheney.

If Cheney is responsible for anything, its for his part in creating a climate in which a man can be arrested for such a thing, in which distrust runs so rampant, that a single, non-threatening statement can be construed as assault... even if erroneously.

Howards eventually was charged with harassment, a misdemeanor crime, which Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert dropped on July 6.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the charge because we didn't think we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because we had gotten word that the vice president did not wish to prosecute Howards," Hurlbert said Monday. "Originally, he was going to be charged with assault because the information we got from Secret Service was that he had pushed the vice president. We learned later that it had been only verbal."

He was not charged with assault.

And the majority of the articles indicate the charges were dropped because the Attorney's office realized that without Cheney pressing charges, they couldn't make an assault case.

right. and why wasn't he pressing charges? because there was no assault.

bottom line, the dude got roughed up and jailed for no other reason than telling cheney what he thought of him.

It happens, and not just by the GOP! :?

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...hp?p=1171243#1171243

http://www.rockclimbing.com/....php?p=821577#821577

naahh. He's just corrupted by the power he wields. "hassle that guy, teach him a lesson!" once this get farther accross the media, it'll only help cement Cheney's reputation as an aloof power-mad asshole.

It is also possible that the SS yahoo that collared the dad did it on his own out of misguided "loyalty to the flag" ("He ragged on my boss! I'll teach him!"), and now the SS is covering his, and their, asses. Blue Code of Silence, kinda.

BTW, I know the connotation implied by my referring to the Secret Service as the "SS". heh.

Welcome to the Republican Party, people. You're not allowed to speak your mind unless it supports an unwarranted attack of a country, an unwarranted war, tax cuts for only the upper echelon, power, oil, energy.

Basically, if you care about your fellow man, his future, the future of his children, health care, education, economy, the safety of this country, taxes, the environment, CHILDREN, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, ECONOMY......then you should really shut up or join the "right" side. :wink:

True story:

In the fall of 2002, I was a freshman at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. One day a friend and I were walking back from the Chocolate Factory, which happens to be right across from the Knoxville Convention Center. Unbeknownst to us (because as a freshman, I was hardly 100% up to date on local, state, or national news), President Bush had spoken at the center the day before, I believe, and was going to be driving through Knoxville in a convoy at any moment. We realized this only because there were considerably more people on the street when we left the factory than when we had entered it. Then my friend noticed two older ladies standing on the opposite diagonal corner from us, apparently farther away from where the convoy was supposed to drive through, holding signs. I can't remember exactly what they said, but it was basically a PG rated (at most) condemnation of the President's international failures at that point in his presidency. They weren't speaking, or even moving; they were just two women, literally in their 70s, on a lone corner in Knoxville, each holding a ~2' x 16" piece of posterboard.

My friend and I were a little curious, so we started walking closer to them, when we realized that one of them was speaking to a officer that was on duty as extra security. He wasn't part of the KPD and we were off campus, so I'm assuming he was federal. We got closer and heard him telling the ladies that their signs were being considered aggressive and that they needed to move even further away from where they were so as not to "threaten" the presence of the President. They calmly explained that they had already moved once and that they didn't believe they could adequately exercise their First Amendment rights from an even greater distance. The officer didn't buy it, and he motioned for two other officers to assist him in moving the women. Before they literally grabbed them and dragged them away, my friend and I made eye contact with the two ladies, and in a retrospectively less than brilliant move, I think I said something to the effect of "Good for you to say something; we agree with you."

This attracted the attention of the first officer, who promptly spun towards us and got in my face. He assumed that I must have been part of some secret organized protest, that I was affiliated with the two women and that there was going to be some huge riot. My friend and I tried to explain that this was a misunderstanding, we had no intention of even being here, etc., but he still ordered both of us to sit on the ground against a wall in front of him for about twenty minutes until after the convoy had driven through. In that span, he threatened to "haul [our] asses down to prison" no less than three times if we moved or said anything. He did let us go, after taking down our names and threatening to "pay us a visit at campus, should anything like this happen again. Capiche??"

In retrospect, the entire thing seems just inconsequentially ludicrous. But as a sheltered 18 year old with a speeding ticket as the worst of my criminal offenses, it scared the s--- out of me. It also made me wonder why the President of the most powerful nation in the free world would have reason to fear two quiet elderly women and two unaffiliated freshmen walking around in UT Football shirts eating chocolate.

Clinton's economy was better and stronger. His unemployment was lower than it had been in decades. Major corporations were staying in the US. Education reform was working where no child actually got left behind. Health Care was improving and the list goes on...

Biggest surprise, he left office with a 270 billion dollar surplus. If you look back in history, and don't quote me, he's the only one to do that. Maybe the second. I don't feel like doing the research. I'm sure you'll do it for me.

Anyway, in the end, both parties have their more than obvious problems, slanders, propaganda, etc.

What we need is for the two to share a few glasses of scotch and actually work this sh*t out.

Clinton didn't create a budget surplus.

His tax policies did more to reinforce the surplus than Bush's have done to squander it.

Not sure where I said Clinton was a saint.

For someone who fancies themselves a historian you sure do alot of inserting of words and selective quoting.

I do give credit where credit is due however.

If you want to go to battle stating the 90's economy was far worse than this one be my guest.

You know, when Carl Rove was a kid, he was knocked off his bike and beat up by a Democrat Girl, for being pro-Nixon.

True story:

In the fall of 2002, I was a freshman at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. One day a friend and I were walking back from the Chocolate Factory, which happens to be right across from the Knoxville Convention Center. Unbeknownst to us (because as a freshman, I was hardly 100% up to date on local, state, or national news), President Bush had spoken at the center the day before, I believe, and was going to be driving through Knoxville in a convoy at any moment. We realized this only because there were considerably more people on the street when we left the factory than when we had entered it. Then my friend noticed two older ladies standing on the opposite diagonal corner from us, apparently farther away from where the convoy was supposed to drive through, holding signs. I can't remember exactly what they said, but it was basically a PG rated (at most) condemnation of the President's international failures at that point in his presidency. They weren't speaking, or even moving; they were just two women, literally in their 70s, on a lone corner in Knoxville, each holding a ~2' x 16" piece of posterboard.

My friend and I were a little curious, so we started walking closer to them, when we realized that one of them was speaking to a officer that was on duty as extra security. He wasn't part of the KPD and we were off campus, so I'm assuming he was federal. We got closer and heard him telling the ladies that their signs were being considered aggressive and that they needed to move even further away from where they were so as not to "threaten" the presence of the President. They calmly explained that they had already moved once and that they didn't believe they could adequately exercise their First Amendment rights from an even greater distance. The officer didn't buy it, and he motioned for two other officers to assist him in moving the women. Before they literally grabbed them and dragged them away, my friend and I made eye contact with the two ladies, and in a retrospectively less than brilliant move, I think I said something to the effect of "Good for you to say something; we agree with you."

This attracted the attention of the first officer, who promptly spun towards us and got in my face. He assumed that I must have been part of some secret organized protest, that I was affiliated with the two women and that there was going to be some huge riot. My friend and I tried to explain that this was a misunderstanding, we had no intention of even being here, etc., but he still ordered both of us to sit on the ground against a wall in front of him for about twenty minutes until after the convoy had driven through. In that span, he threatened to "haul [our] asses down to prison" no less than three times if we moved or said anything. He did let us go, after taking down our names and threatening to "pay us a visit at campus, should anything like this happen again. Capiche??"

In retrospect, the entire thing seems just inconsequentially ludicrous. But as a sheltered 18 year old with a speeding ticket as the worst of my criminal offenses, it scared the s--- out of me. It also made me wonder why the President of the most powerful nation in the free world would have reason to fear two quiet elderly women and two unaffiliated freshmen walking around in UT Football shirts eating chocolate.

What we need is for the two to share a few glasses of scotch and actually work this sh*t out.

Just because Bush was there....everything was justifuied in the name of "fighting terrorism"

What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned.

it seems to me that "fighting terrorism" is becoming an excuse for "fighting free speech and different opinions".