PDA

View Full Version : "I'll be validated when kids read about this in history books!"


jAZ
03-03-2008, 05:14 PM
You sound like Bush saying "I'll be validated when kids read about this in history books!".

I saw this from HolmeZz and thought it deserved it's own thread given the following... I give you Executive Order 13233.

http://hnn.us/articles/47375.html

How to Game a Presidential Legacy
By Joseph Wheelan

Someday soon, unless we stand upon our First Amendment rights and demand government transparency, a president’s legacy may depend not on actual accomplishments and leadership, but on the adroit release and suppression of certain presidential papers.

We all know, more or less, what a president did, but not always why or how — the answers to which may determine a president’s place in history.

If the decision-making that took place during the Cuban missile crisis remained veiled in secrecy today, would we regard John F. Kennedy’s brinkmanship so highly? If Richard Nixon’s White House tapes had been stashed in a vault, or as Nixon preferred, destroyed, would we have been able to take the full measure of his banal villainy?

It was because Nixon, in the aftermath of Watergate, attempted to take personal possession of his presidential papers that the 1978 Presidential Records Act was enacted, declaring that the United States retains ownership of a president’s records. Under this law, the National Archives organizes these papers and, 12 years after a president leaves office, they are opened to the public.

But as with so many policies promoting openness, this one, too, has fallen victim to the Bush administration’s obsession with secrecy.

However, this is not just another blow against openness; Bush’s Executive Order 13233 could change history — literally — by restricting historians’ access to materials that help them document and ultimately judge a president’s actions, lapses, and principles.

Executive Order 13233 gives ex-presidents nearly unlimited discretionary authority to prohibit the release of their papers, and allows them to name designees who can act in their stead. Moreover, a sitting president may also prevent the release of a predecessor’s papers — as Bush has already done with some of Ronald Reagan’s papers — even when the predecessor has authorized his papers’ release. These are radical encroachments on the public’s access to documents that were produced in the public interest, at public expense, by officials elected by the public. Citizens can challenge these decisions in court, but the expense and time commitment will discourage most people from trying.

A House-approved bill that would undo this blatant assault on openness has been held up in the Senate. Even if the measure advances, there is no guarantee that Congress could override Bush’s expected veto.

Anyone can see that Executive Order 13233 tramples upon the public’s right to know. Less obvious are the consequences for writing and studying history.

Executive Order 13233 portends a day when spin, the currency of politics, may become the province, too, of presidential history. One can envision a future when a presidential library’s watchdogs would allow only “safe” historians to sift through the library’s holdings for material to cook up a bracingly whitewashed version of his subject’s actions. Objective historians, denied access to the panegyrist’s primary sources and all the juicy details, would be placed at a severe disadvantage. Which version do you think would get the seven-figure publishing advance and the lavish promotional campaign?

From this high, windy ledge it is a short step over the precipice to state-sanctioned history textbooks, of the kind now promoted in Russia by Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin — the kind that describes Josef Stalin’s brutal dictatorship as necessary and praiseworthy. The kind that laments the Soviet Union’s collapse as a tragic mistake, and that pronounces Russia to be “the best and fairest society.” Indeed, Putin is well aware that shaping history to suit one’s purposes is empowering, in the absolute Orwellian sense.

One day in the future, as we stand before a bookstore display, perusing the titles extolling the extraordinary farsightedness of the Bush administration, we may repent our former indifference to Executive Order 13233 and yearn for olden times, when presidents earned their legacies the old-fashioned way, through accomplishments and not spin.

George Washington won his presidential laurels by subordinating his dear wish to go home to Mount Vernon after all those years of war and public service, in order to become the first president — a tightrope act that everyone knew only Washington could perform. To hold the center together, Washington surrendered his individuality and became the icon people wanted him to be.

And then there was Thomas Jefferson who, recognizing a great bargain when he saw one, purchased the 830,000-square-mile Louisiana Territory for $15 million, even then a pittance for such a sprawling domain. Praise or damn him, James Polk got us California and the Southwest by provoking Mexico into a war and then taking 40 percent of her land.

Abraham Lincoln waged war to preserve the union, emancipated the slaves, and piloted a battered but intact America into safe waters. Under Franklin Roosevelt, America survived its worst depression and costliest foreign war. His cousin Theodore gave us a national parks system. Dwight Eisenhower stood up to Communism and built the interstate highway system, and John F. Kennedy inspired us to public service, and launched the program that put Americans on the moon.

This is nowhere near a full cataloguing of presidential achievements, but you see the point: These men built their legacies on deeds and not hype. If you take issue with history’s judgment on them, you are free to rummage through their personal papers, letters, diaries, orders, and correspondence for rebuttal material.

Fast-forward fifty years to that bookshop table, imagining the state of presidential history if George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13233 is permitted to stand — perhaps further refined by successors for whom spin is as routine as flossing. The best-selling presidential biography, The Decider, whose author was carefully vetted by George Bush’s descendants, is surprisingly rich in detail and anecdotes, selectively gleaned from the presidential papers.

Unsurprisingly, The Decider argues that the 43rd president, portrayed in his day as a radical but inept ideologue, was in fact courageously prescient in his bold extension of U.S. hegemony over the Middle East for the first time. It describes Bush the Elder’s blow against Iraq’s Satanic Saddam Hussein as portentous of the son’s coup de grace. And none of it would have been possible without the vision and wisdom of the man whom the author unabashedly proclaims the Father of Modern America, Ronald Reagan. Contrarians, of course, can always write their own history — it’s a free country. But without access to the primary documents, they will find it difficult to compose a credible refutation.

The Bush administration’s Executive Order 13233 underscores the new fact that presidential legacies, once the domain of academic historians and parlor game aficionados, have become a serious business — so much so that a president has mounted a Kremlinesque campaign to stifle the free dissemination of information. The Bush administration is playing for keeps.

We once chided Americans for their indifference to their own history by warning, “He who ignores history is condemned to repeat it.”

To this we should add another, ominously Orwellian aphorism: “He who can shape history to his purposes controls the levers of power.”

HolmeZz
03-03-2008, 05:17 PM
I don't think my quote was a direct one, but the point was similar. ;)

NewChief
03-03-2008, 05:25 PM
That article seems like it could have come out of this book that I just read a review of in Sunday's paper:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Orwell-Didnt-Know-Propaganda/dp/1586485601

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 06:11 PM
Presidential Records Reform Act of 2007
In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. “The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) would nullify the Bush executive order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

STATUS:
On January 22, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) to the floor under the Senate’s unanimous consent rule that allows non-controversial bills to be considered on an expedited basis. However, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) became the latest Republican senator to publicly put a hold on the bill and blocked floor consideration.

Last September, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) blocked a vote in the Senate on the bill, preventing floor action throughout the fall. However, on December 18, 2007, without explanation, Senator Bunning suddenly lifted his hold. The next day, Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) requested that the bill be passed. However, an anonymous Senator placed a secret hold on the bill.

Since the White House has not rescinded its threat to veto the bill, it is reasonable to assume that Senator Sessions is holding up the bill at the behest of the Administration. Senator Sessions gave no explanation on the floor as to why he was blocking the consideration of the presidential records bill.

Passage of the bill is even more important given the on-going controversy over the extent of missing e-mails from White House servers from 2003-2005. In response to questions in a federal court case, the White House recently admitted it had recycled its e-mail back-up tapes before October 2003 and only began retaining the back-ups starting at that point. The White House also admitted that “at this stage, this office does not know if any emails were not properly preserved in the archiving process,” in the period 2003-2005.

On October 1, a federal district court judge gave historians and researchers a partial, but significant victory in a lawsuit questioning the legality of Executive Order (EO) 13233. The judge struck down the section of the EO that allows a former president to indefinitely delay the release of records. In November, the Administration declined to appeal the judge’s decision.

On March 14, 2007, by a vote of 333-93, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 1255, the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007.” (H. Rept. 110-44)

BACKGROUND:
Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are supposed to be released to historians and the public 12 years after the end of a presidential administration. In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 that overturned an executive order issued by President Reagan and gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. The “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007” establishes procedures to ensure access to presidential records in the following way:

1.) Establish a Deadline for Review of Records. Under the Bush executive order, the Archivist must wait for both the current and former president to approve the release of presidential records, a review process that can continue indefinitely. Under the bill, the current and former president would have a set time period of no longer than 40 business days to raise objections to the release of these records by the Archivist.

2.) Limit the Authority of Former Presidents to Withhold Presidential Records. Under the Reagan executive order, a former president could request that the incumbent president assert a claim of executive privilege and thereby stop the release of the records. If the incumbent president decided not to assert executive privilege, however, the records would be released unless the former president could persuade a court to uphold the former president’s assertion of the privilege.

The Bush executive order reversed this process and required the incumbent president to sustain the executive privilege claim of the former president unless a person seeking access could persuade a court to reject the claim. In effect, the Bush order gave former presidents virtually unlimited authority to withhold presidential records through assertions of executive privilege. The legislation would restore the Reagan approach, giving the incumbent president the discretion to reject ill-founded assertions of executive privilege by former presidents.

3.) Require the President to Make Privilege Claims Personally. Under the Bush executive order, designees of the former president could assert privilege claims after the death of the president, in effect making the right to assert executive privilege an asset of the former president’s estate. The bill would make clear that the right to claim executive privilege is personal to current and former presidents and cannot be bequeathed to assistants, relatives, or descendants.

4.) Eliminate Executive Privilege Claims for Vice Presidents. In an unprecedented step, the Bush executive order authorized former vice presidents to assert executive privilege claims over vice presidential records. The bill restores the long-standing understanding that the right to assert executive privilege over presidential records is a right held only by presidents.

http://historycoalition.org/issues/presidential-records-reform-act-of-2007/

Adept Havelock
03-03-2008, 06:18 PM
"He who controls the past controls the present; he who controls the present controls the future."

Congress needs to get off their ass and pass H.R. 1255. Even if it's only to force a veto and put an (IMO) important topic in front of the public. I doubt Sen. Sessions and others will permit that to happen. Damn shame.

jAZ
03-03-2008, 06:23 PM
Congress needs to get off their ass and pass H.R. 1255. If only to force a veto and put an (IMO) important topic in front of the public.

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22958

Demand the Return of the Records to the Public

In 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 to empower current and previous presidents to withhold their records INDEFINITELY. What’s more, the order extends the presidents’ authority to control the records of presidential family members and vice presidents.


Bush’s order was a direct attack on the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which made presidential records the property of the American people. But this is not just about Bush. It’s about the records of ALL presidents and our right to know.

Right NOW, a bipartisan bill to undo the Bush order is close to becoming a law, but it is being blocked by Senator Jeff Sessions.

Please write your senators now and demand a vote on the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007, H.R. 1255/S. 886. Take a few minutes to personalize the letter below and send a strong message to your senators.

You can send a letter to your Senators here:
http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22958

a1na2
03-03-2008, 06:54 PM
I know that the general consensus here is to do your very best to put Bush in prison.

That being said I wonder if anyone has considered what information would be brought to light that you might not really want to know?

This isn't just about Bush, but every previous president that we have had. I don't believe that all papers that have been disclosed are anywhere near what are in "cold storage".

I'm sure there are classified documents that none of us have the need to see. I'm sure that many of you are very adamant about full disclosure, but as I said the thrust here is not to disclose all presidents papers, but mainly those of Bush.

Me, I don't care one way or the other, I have no ax to grind against Clinton and I'm mostly of the opinion that he has tons more dirt hiding in his private papers than Bush.

Hydrae
03-03-2008, 06:58 PM
I know that the general consensus here is to do your very best to put Bush in prison.

That being said I wonder if anyone has considered what information would be brought to light that you might not really want to know?

This isn't just about Bush, but every previous president that we have had. I don't believe that all papers that have been disclosed are anywhere near what are in "cold storage".

I'm sure there are classified documents that none of us have the need to see. I'm sure that many of you are very adamant about full disclosure, but as I said the thrust here is not to disclose all presidents papers, but mainly those of Bush.

Me, I don't care one way or the other, I have no ax to grind against Clinton and I'm mostly of the opinion that he has tons more dirt hiding in his private papers than Bush.

But you don't understand. Bush is trying to hide the papers that show that 9-11 was an inside job! :)

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:02 PM
I know that the general consensus here is to do your very best to put Bush in prison.

That being said I wonder if anyone has considered what information would be brought to light that you might not really want to know?

This isn't just about Bush, but every previous president that we have had. I don't believe that all papers that have been disclosed are anywhere near what are in "cold storage".

I'm sure there are classified documents that none of us have the need to see. I'm sure that many of you are very adamant about full disclosure, but as I said the thrust here is not to disclose all presidents papers, but mainly those of Bush.

Me, I don't care one way or the other, I have no ax to grind against Clinton and I'm mostly of the opinion that he has tons more dirt hiding in his private papers than Bush.

This is a government FOR the people, BY the people. Elites holding back knowledge from the people? I don't like it. I'm saying this as a history student, and a citizen of the United States. This is our country, and nothing dealing with our country should be hidden from our view.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 07:08 PM
This is a government FOR the people, BY the people. Elites holding back knowledge from the people? I don't like it. I'm saying this as a history student, and a citizen of the United States. This is our country, and nothing dealing with our country should be hidden from our view.
Yup! What's even sadder is that the congress has to resort to making a law to overturn a blatant abuse of the Constitution by amending it single handedly. Even an Executive Order? WTF? He's ruling by decree as if he's a king. The president is supposed to supply this information as part of his position. And conservatives complain about judicial activism?

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:09 PM
This is a government FOR the people, BY the people. Elites holding back knowledge from the people? I don't like it. I'm saying this as a history student, and a citizen of the United States. This is our country, and nothing dealing with our country should be hidden from our view.

Having some experience with classified information, I can guarantee you that you will never see the information that you are wanting to see. You are letting your liberal teachers/professors lead you down a road less traveled.

In theory you are right, but again I guarantee that you will never see all that you feel the government is obliged to let you see.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 07:10 PM
Freedom of Information Act battles fought legally do get won.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:14 PM
Yup! What's even sadder is that the congress has to resort to making a law to overturn a blatant abuse of the Constitution by amending it single handedly. Even an Executive Order? WTF? He's ruling by decree as if he's a king. The president is supposed to supply this information as part of his position. And conservatives complain about judicial activism?

You don't really know what you are saying. There are papers that are for our eyes, but there are also many documents that relate to the country that you cannot see and should not see.

You seem to forget how many times we "lost information" while Clinton was in office, not to mention documents that were modified for public viewing.

I'm stating opinion regarding this, but the opinion is formed from exposure to information that I've seen in my life that I know I wouldn't want my family to know about. I had a high enough clearance to see quite a bit of information but was limited due the "need to know". Those people that have the highest clearances don't see everything, they just have access if their job requires them to know the secure information.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:16 PM
Freedom of Information Act battles fought legally do get won.

Freedom of information got my family a copy of a document that was classified in 1968 regarding the loss of my uncle. That disclosure was more than 30 years after his disappearance. I think you may have a long wait to see the information that you want.

MurphDog
03-03-2008, 07:21 PM
This is a government FOR the people, BY the people. Elites holding back knowledge from the people? I don't like it. I'm saying this as a history student, and a citizen of the United States. This is our country, and nothing dealing with our country should be hidden from our view.

I am sorry I didnt realize that Congress and the president needed to consult you or anyone else - if they arent willing to consult you then why they hell do you think they would turn over the same documents to you? I dont get some of you at all...

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:22 PM
Having some experience with classified information, I can guarantee you that you will never see the information that you are wanting to see. You are letting your liberal teachers/professors lead you down a road less traveled.

I think you're forgetting that the road less traveled is a good thing.

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:27 PM
I am sorry I didnt realize that Congress and the president needed to consult you or anyone else - if they arent willing to consult you then why they hell do you think they would turn over the same documents to you? I dont get some of you at all...

Where to begin?

Just because they don't consult me doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to read government documents. A lot of government documents are available to the public even if the public wasn't consulted.

We could take your logic so far.

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:28 PM
Freedom of information got my family a copy of a document that was classified in 1968 regarding the loss of my uncle. That disclosure was more than 30 years after his disappearance. I think you may have a long wait to see the information that you want.

As opposed to not being able to see it?

MurphDog
03-03-2008, 07:28 PM
You all act as if everything should be out in the open as if Katie Couric should deliver all the countries secrets each night. This is nothing more than a lame witch hunt with nothing specific in mind.

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:29 PM
You don't really know what you are saying. There are papers that are for our eyes, but there are also many documents that relate to the country that you cannot see and should not see.

There is a very limited scope in which that should be true - and it should only be because of issues is which secrecy is demanded due to harmful consequences.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:34 PM
As opposed to not being able to see it?

In that 30 years we waited we had family members in DC no less than twice a year, along with other family members from others that were lost on that same day.

Once we saw the report there wasn't anything top secret about the activity other than the fact that we were somewhere we weren't supposed to be.

There was no reason for the delay in disclosure, but I'm sure there are many documents that we have now that will not be opened up for 30 plus years due to the sensitivity of their nature.

All I'm saying is that you can yell as long and loud as you want yet you will not get the information that you want.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:35 PM
I think you're forgetting that the road less traveled is a good thing.

You are right, the less travel in classified areas the better.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 07:38 PM
There is a very limited scope in which that should be true - and it should only be because of issues is which secrecy is demanded due to harmful consequences.

So, who are you to determine what documents would not demand the secrecy? Only the classifying entity can determine when a document is declassified and I'm pretty sure that nobody on this board will be seeing anything soon.

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 07:40 PM
You are right, the less travel in classified areas the better.

I think the problem is officials making too many documents classified.

So, who are you to determine what documents would not demand the secrecy? Only the classifying entity can determine when a document is declassified and I'm pretty sure that nobody on this board will be seeing anything soon.

What if I was to tell you in some crazy hypothetical universe of ours, a radical group called the National Archives kept documents from the president and released them to the public 12 years after his or her leaving office. Would that be something that might interest you?

banyon
03-03-2008, 07:55 PM
http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/charts06

http://www.sunshineweek.org/images/chart4b_declassification.jpg

http://www.sunshineweek.org/images/chart1b_exemptions.jpg

http://www.sunshineweek.org/images/chart5b_cost.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 08:50 PM
You don't really know what you are saying. There are papers that are for our eyes, but there are also many documents that relate to the country that you cannot see and should not see.

You seem to forget how many times we "lost information" while Clinton was in office, not to mention documents that were modified for public viewing.

I'm stating opinion regarding this, but the opinion is formed from exposure to information that I've seen in my life that I know I wouldn't want my family to know about. I had a high enough clearance to see quite a bit of information but was limited due the "need to know". Those people that have the highest clearances don't see everything, they just have access if their job requires them to know the secure information.

I'm perfectly aware that there are papers not for our eyes and some that should be for our eyes as a check on govt. One area is that the CIA has been used a covert tool by presidents. We don't know some of things that we should know about such actions for the simple reason that we need to understand the blowback for such actions. Often we don't. Then can't understand something that is a consequence of such actions.

I'll give you one: The Soviets invasion of Afghanistan. Gates even says in his book that was a covert action designed to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan to give them their own Vietnam. So the that was the beginnings of AQ were created. Now look what's happened.

Bottom line, is the secrecy can be abused and can be used for good and for bad. We should at least know these things at some point in time so we can say "Hey! We don't want those types of things done."

You've been too connected to govt to see it any other way.

alanm
03-03-2008, 09:04 PM
This is a government FOR the people, BY the people. Elites holding back knowledge from the people? I don't like it. I'm saying this as a history student, and a citizen of the United States. This is our country, and nothing dealing with our country should be hidden from our view.
Wanna bet.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I think the problem is officials making too many documents classified.



What if I was to tell you in some crazy hypothetical universe of ours, a radical group called the National Archives kept documents from the president and released them to the public 12 years after his or her leaving office. Would that be something that might interest you?

I actually don't care, I'm not a junkie that needs to know as much as you feel you need to know. While I was in the Navy I knew more than I wanted to know, some of the stuff still bothers me.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:23 PM
I'm perfectly aware that there are papers not for our eyes and some that should be for our eyes as a check on govt. One area is that the CIA has been used a covert tool by presidents. We don't know some of things that we should know about such actions for the simple reason that we need to understand the blowback for such actions. Often we don't. Then can't understand something that is a consequence of such actions.

I'll give you one: The Soviets invasion of Afghanistan. Gates even says in his book that was a covert action designed to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan to give them their own Vietnam. So the that was the beginnings of AQ were created. Now look what's happened.

Bottom line, is the secrecy can be abused and can be used for good and for bad. We should at least know these things at some point in time so we can say "Hey! We don't want those types of things done."

You've been too connected to govt to see it any other way.

The basic premise of this thread tended to be a witch hunt for Bush. The information you are talking about with Afghanistan was ages before Bush was president as well as ages before the executive order that Bush issued. Which part of the problem is Bush's and which part of it belongs to others?

I've never been connected to the government, I was in the Navy. Just to let you know, there is a tremendous difference between the two entities.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:28 PM
I think the problem is officials making too many documents classified.

Considering the era that we are currently in I think that there maybe fewer documents being classified than there should be.

I'm sure that with your revisionist history classes you may be of the opinion that you are the best person to determine what is classified and what is not, but you are mistaken.

SBK
03-03-2008, 09:38 PM
You'd think the people demanding this kind of thing would be the kind that want the gov't out of our lives, the Ron Paul type.

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, just interesting that the folks that want less personal responsibility are demanding more of it from our gov't.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 09:39 PM
The basic premise of this thread tended to be a witch hunt for Bush. The information you are talking about with Afghanistan was ages before Bush was president as well as ages before the executive order that Bush issued. Which part of the problem is Bush's and which part of it belongs to others?

I've never been connected to the government, I was in the Navy. Just to let you know, there is a tremendous difference between the two entities.

Being in the Navy IS part of the govt. It's just a different branch.

As for incidents prior to Bush, the point still applies, those things go on and most likely are continuing. So we never know if it's legit or not. But in the case of Bush most of what he said turned out to not be true....so his credibility is now shot.

Taco John
03-03-2008, 09:41 PM
I don't know how anyone can reasonably defend this kind of stuff... It baffles me.

SBK
03-03-2008, 09:46 PM
I don't know how anyone can reasonably defend this kind of stuff... It baffles me.

Ron Paul type example here. TJ saying this makes sense.

For the record I think that the gov't overstepped it's bounds long ago, and these things should be made public. Then again, with how well we can trust the accuracy of our media I can only imagine the web they could spin that into.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:54 PM
Being in the Navy IS part of the govt. It's just a different branch.

As for incidents prior to Bush, the point still applies, those things go on and most likely are continuing. So we never know if it's legit or not. But in the case of Bush most of what he said turned out to not be true....so his credibility is now shot.

I hope you understand the difference between the military and the government, by the way you say it you feel that the military runs the country and that is so far out in left field that it doesn't really deserve commentary.

So you are blaming Bush for all of the past presidents because he issued an executive order? That is just wrong.

Bush's credibility has been under full attack by the liberals from day one, what kind of credibility do you expect when conditions exist as they are? Your really need to come in from the cold.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:55 PM
I don't know how anyone can reasonably defend this kind of stuff... It baffles me.

That's OK, you seem to be totally baffled by many issues across the board.

a1na2
03-03-2008, 09:56 PM
Ron Paul type example here. TJ saying this makes sense.

For the record I think that the gov't overstepped it's bounds long ago, and these things should be made public. Then again, with how well we can trust the accuracy of our media I can only imagine the web they could spin that into.

What you don't say is that much of the issues people are clamoring about don't exist other than in the pages of the NY Times and other such publications.

SBK
03-03-2008, 10:04 PM
What you don't say is that much of the issues people are clamoring about don't exist other than in the pages of the NY Times and other such publications.

Heck, I'd be happy just to get those docs back from Sandy Bergers pants. :)

jAZ
03-03-2008, 10:08 PM
No one can credibly defend the drastic decreases in government transparency of this administration. It's crazy how obsessed this WH is with the Nixon administration. From Vietnam, to unitary executive, to coverup, to criminal conduct, to pushing back Presidential powers in response to watergate these former Nixonites are nuts.

SBK
03-03-2008, 10:10 PM
No one can credibly defend the drastic decreases in government transparency of this administration. It's crazy how obsessed this WH is with the Nixon administration. From Vietnam, to unitary executive, to coverup, to criminal conduct, to pushing back Presidential powers in response to watergate these former Nixonites are nuts.

Hopefully your search will uncover something that will allow your dream of executing Cheney to come true. ROFL

Taco John
03-03-2008, 10:34 PM
Heck, I'd be happy just to get those docs back from Sandy Bergers pants. :)



Nobody sure seemed the least bit interested in getting to the bottom of that one did they? That was one of those things that I thought for sure they'd have a guy behind bars on. I didn't get too worked up about it myself. They had the guy carting classified documents out in his socks. Surely justice would take over from there.

Surely?

a1na2
03-03-2008, 10:39 PM
No one can credibly defend the drastic decreases in government transparency of this administration. It's crazy how obsessed this WH is with the Nixon administration. From Vietnam, to unitary executive, to coverup, to criminal conduct, to pushing back Presidential powers in response to watergate these former Nixonites are nuts.

My guess is that you are forgetting the Clinton years, the Johnson Years, the Carter years and the Kennedy years. None of those boys were in the choir.

I'm amazed at the level of hatred that you have towards the administration all the while blowing off the criminal activities of the Clintons (yes both of them) during Bill's 8 years as president.

I understand though, the liberals get a free ride and the conservatives are your criminals. When the next administration gets in they will be the criminals for which ever party doesn't get into office.

I just wonder when all of this bullshit will end. Hopefully before the country goes down the tubes due to internal strife.

SBK
03-03-2008, 11:33 PM
Nobody sure seemed the least bit interested in getting to the bottom of that one did they? That was one of those things that I thought for sure they'd have a guy behind bars on. I didn't get too worked up about it myself. They had the guy carting classified documents out in his socks. Surely justice would take over from there.

Surely?

I'm with you there. I figured he was toast.

Jenson71
03-03-2008, 11:58 PM
Considering the era that we are currently in I think that there maybe fewer documents being classified than there should be.

I'm sure that with your revisionist history classes you may be of the opinion that you are the best person to determine what is classified and what is not, but you are mistaken.

You say a lot of ridiculously stupid shit.

I'm really advocating every single document to be delivered to my home so I can determine what is classified and what is not.

Revisionist history classes? What are those?

a1na2
03-04-2008, 12:14 AM
You say a lot of ridiculously stupid shit. Now that's mighty Christian of you now isn't it?

I'm really advocating every single document to be delivered to my home so I can determine what is classified and what is not.

Revisionist history classes? What are those?

Your arrogant statements are what are really assinine. You really think that you have the world by the balls. I think you are going to find out in a few years that what you feel you are learning in class are being taught in an extremely biased manner. Your opinion of the administration is not an accurate opinion as you have little experience in the issues of the country.

Revisionist history. I guess you will just have to wait and find out for your self just as we all have. Teachers and professors have been putting their personal spin on the manner they have taught their classes for some time.

I have no doubt that you just may believe that the holocaust did not happen and that our soldiers were the only people in Iraq and in Vietnam that were committing war atrocities. You probably have been taught that the U.S. soldier was trained to kill everything that moved without regard to whether they were combatants or not.

Jenson71
03-04-2008, 12:26 AM
Your arrogant statements are what are really assinine. You really think that you have the world by the balls. I think you are going to find out in a few years that what you feel you are learning in class are being taught in an extremely biased manner. Your opinion of the administration is not an accurate opinion as you have little experience in the issues of the country.

Revisionist history. I guess you will just have to wait and find out for your self just as we all have. Teachers and professors have been putting their personal spin on the manner they have taught their classes for some time.

I have no doubt that you just may believe that the holocaust did not happen and that our soldiers were the only people in Iraq and in Vietnam that were committing war atrocities. You probably have been taught that the U.S. soldier was trained to kill everything that moved without regard to whether they were combatants or not.

I haven't even given an opinion of the administration in this thread.

Is revisionist history bad? Are you suggesting I'm learning the wrong things?

The last paragraph is a great example of you posting ridiculously stupid shit. You have no doubt that I JUST MAY believe that the holocaust did not happen?

Not only was I taught that the U.S. soldier was trained to kill everything, I was taught they were evil homosexuals, and would burn in hell with the jews that faked the holocause, moron. You must have my whole college textbook.

a1na2
03-04-2008, 12:40 AM
I haven't even given an opinion of the administration in this thread.

Is revisionist history bad? Are you suggesting I'm learning the wrong things?

The last paragraph is a great example of you posting ridiculously stupid shit. You have no doubt that I JUST MAY believe that the holocaust did not happen?

Not only was I taught that the U.S. soldier was trained to kill everything, I was taught they were evil homosexuals, and would burn in hell with the jews that faked the holocause, moron. You must have my whole college textbook.

Grow up dude.

Jenson71
03-04-2008, 12:51 AM
Grow up dude.

You're a goddamn moron.

I think you just implied I deny the Holocaust happened and believe our soldiers are evil - because I think Presidential documents should be made available to the public.

a1na2
03-04-2008, 12:53 AM
You're a goddamn moron.



Thou shalt not use the Lords name in vain. Ring a bell?

I'd really like to hear what the priest tells you to do after you confess for that one.

a1na2
03-04-2008, 12:55 AM
You're a ******* moron.

I think you just implied I deny the Holocaust happened and believe our soldiers are evil - because I think Presidential documents should be made available to the public.

I gather from your commentary that you feel more documents be opened up to the public than is actually advisable or required just to placate your desire to see what is going on. It's not going to happen now, nor in the near future. If Billary or Osama Obama get into office there will be more covert activity than you could ever imagine and the ratio of classified documents being opened to the public will fall off faster than they did with Bush.

I'm guessing that you have not clue one about quite a few things. I sincerely hope that you get a grip before you totally lose control of your emotions and start sobbing and soak your keyboard. Is it waterproof?

Jenson71
03-04-2008, 01:10 AM
I gather from your commentary that you feel more documents be opened up to the public than is actually advisable or required just to placate your desire to see what is going on. It's not going to happen now, nor in the near future. If Billary or Osama Obama get into office there will be more covert activity than you could ever imagine and the ratio of classified documents being opened to the public will fall off faster than they did with Bush.

I'm guessing that you have not clue one about quite a few things. I sincerely hope that you get a grip before you totally lose control of your emotions and start sobbing and soak your keyboard. Is it waterproof?

It's not to calm any desire to see what is going on. It's the principle of overturning a good law for bad reasons. I'm not interested in predictions of whether there will be more or less covert activity if Obama or Clinton is president. I'm more interested in the right thing.

You would be right to guess I have not a clue about quite a few things. But I don't see how that is relevant.

a1na2
03-04-2008, 01:33 AM
It's not to calm any desire to see what is going on. It's the principle of overturning a good law for bad reasons. I'm not interested in predictions of whether there will be more or less covert activity if Obama or Clinton is president. I'm more interested in the right thing.

.

What you are missing is that Bush did not issue the executive order and then start hiding papers. They had been hidden all along by most of the past few presidents.

Your perception of good and bad seems to be further away from reality than I first thought.

Keep on keeping on. I hope you learn whatever truths you want to learn. I just hope you realize facts when presented.

Jenson71
03-04-2008, 01:50 AM
What you are missing is that Bush did not issue the executive order and then start hiding papers. They had been hidden all along by most of the past few presidents.

Is English your second or third language?

What was the Presidential Records Act in your view? What is Bush doing by giving this Executive Order 13233?