Author Topic: Must Read  (Read 177 times)

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Must Read
« on: October 10, 2005, 03:21:03 PM »
Bush's Veil Over History
By KITTY KELLEY

Washington

SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.

Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which stipulated that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office.

Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12 years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed paperwork in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.)

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders in chief. But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.)

Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly introduced legislation to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican Congress defying a Republican president are slim.

There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan and elder Bush administrations.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination. Their rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to condone torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with public welfare during times of national disaster - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina - will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the president's role in Environmental Protection Agency's policies on water and air polluters.

This is about much more than the desires of historians and biographers - the best interests of the nation are at stake. As the American Political Science Association, one plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, put it: "The only way we can improve the operation of government, enhance the accountability of decision-makers and ultimately help maintain public trust in government is for people to understand how it worked in the past."

---

So seriously, how can it possibly help the country to take away our right to look critically at past presidencies?  I've known about this for awhile, but this article today was just a reminder... its pretty disturbing if you ask me.  This alone is enough for me to be a Bush Hater.  How can anyone expect government to behave in the best interests of its citizens when you take away a citizens ability to criticize it?  This shit turns me stomach, and it'd take a damn fool to present an arguement how Bush did the right thing here.
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Must Read
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2005, 06:26:06 PM »
who'd you jack this article from?
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Re: Must Read
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2005, 08:31:43 PM »
who'd you jack this article from?

It's an op/ed piece, I "jacked" it from its author Kitty Kelly. 

Kitty Kelley is an internationally acclaimed writer whose last book, Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography, sold faster than any biography in publishing history. Before that her book about Frank Sinatra, His Way, set another publishing record as the biggest-selling biography. Jackie Oh! and Elizabeth Taylor: The Last Star were also international bestsellers. Kelley, who has been honored by her peers, received the Outstanding Authors Award from the American Society of Journalists and Independent Writers for "her outstanding service to writers and the writing profession." She was presented with the Medal of Merit from the Lotus Club of New York City. In 1993 Brandeis University National Women's Committee established a major book collection in her honor. She lives in Washington, D.C., with her husband.

Brief Biography "jacked" from: http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/57/552/



But in all seriousness, how did I "jack" an op/ed peice where I reference the author? please explain.
 

AndrE16686

  • Guest
Re: Must Read
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2005, 07:25:41 AM »
So what happens when the preseident dies? They gonna take their secrets to the grave?
Haven't read anything about this issue before.
Denying history is a bitch, I especially wanted to hear about the Reagan/Marcos deals.
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Must Read
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2005, 12:03:20 PM »
Do you get all your articles from one website or do you scour the net? I gotta say, for someone with a sig ridiculing another party for their cowardice in ranting, u degrade yourself even worse when you dont even offer your own opinion much less rant much less get off your ass. For shame, for shame.
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Re: Must Read
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2005, 02:42:13 PM »
Do you get all your articles from one website or do you scour the net?

I use Bloglines to read a large number of news sources on a daily basis.  It takes sometime to set up your account, but once you're done its a pretty cool tool.  I can go through a few dozen news sources in 10-15 minutes just reading headlines and spending extra time on whatever I find particularly interesting.  Actually, I've been using RSS aggregators like bloglines for over 2 years now.  They're just now becoming mainstream tho.  Bloglines is without a doubt the best one you can use. 

I gotta say, for someone with a sig ridiculing another party for their cowardice in ranting, u degrade yourself even worse when you dont even offer your own opinion much less rant much less get off your ass. For shame, for shame.

My opinions have been stated quite a few times, and now I offer sources that reaffirm them. I have personal opinions, but I'm not so arrogant to think I know it all.  Thats why I rely on trusted sources quite frequently to help me form opinions.  Everyone forms opinions based on the information they possess, and I just happen to believe that the more information you acquire the more accurate your ulitmate decisions will be.  So yeah, I like news, and commentary because they keep me informed on a number of topics.  Do you really think being uninformed helps you make better decisions?
 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Must Read
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2005, 02:45:20 PM »
^^^
Of course I believe in educating the people but to turn your mission into a one sided propaganda flood isnt right, neither is perpetuating the liberal/conservative beef circus. Especially if you are sinking to the same level they play on.
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Re: Must Read
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2005, 04:00:13 PM »
^^^
Of course I believe in educating the people but to turn your mission into a one sided propaganda flood isnt right, neither is perpetuating the liberal/conservative beef circus. Especially if you are sinking to the same level they play on.

How often do I post propaganda?  A few times I've posted some humorous articles that were just for fun, but most of my posts come from reputable news or well-regarded commentators.

And I certainly don't think I'm perpetuating a liberal conservative circus.  I side with conservatives on plenty of issues, but at least IMO its an obvious fact that this current republican adminsitrations is painfully incompetent.  If conservatives on this site want to associate themselves with Bush II then I guess they are throwing in front of my criticisms, but really I dont give a shit about liberals or conservatives.   My opinion has been from the get-go that I'll side with democrats only because the Bush II administration is so horribly incompetent. 

So yeah, a bunch of jokers wanted to argue nonsense with me and tell me I'm wrong and maybe I find it humorous making sure those jokers don't get to divert their eyes from whats going on in the world.  All I'm doing is making a point.  A bunch of assholes wanted to suck Bush II's cock for no reason, so I'm just giving them occasional reminders why their bigotry is rotting their brain cells.

It's really not my fault that the modern republican party choose to bend over for Bush and now is making an ass of itself on regular basis. Personally I'd like to see both parties get shaken up a bit and toss out the assholes, but thats not gonna happen anytime soon.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2005, 04:03:00 PM by Ant »