Day 1:
Obama 1 ; Bush: 0
That’s one of the quickest GD’s answers ever… And that’s the cool thing- there’s still four more freaking years to go!
Right, but what it seemed Bush and Cheney were trying to do was make it so they can do whatever they want and no one would ever find out until long after they were gone. This just shows that, at least right now, President Obama is committed to not doing anything he isn’t willing to have published on the front page of the NY Times on January 21, 2017.
Jonathan
Yeah, it would seem that way.
Are there any restrictions on the information. Can Obama keep something secret if he thinks it in the best interest of the country? I’m thinking something that may directly or indirectly go to national security.
Yes, he can. As long as he is president. This is a limitation on the executive power of ex-Presidents and their estates.
Woot! Woot! One of my longstanding Betty Noyers! The embargo of the Reagan Papers comes to an end. For years now, the Bushiviks have been inventing ever more fanciful legalisms to justify keeping those records out of public hands.
And you wanna know what I think? I think they were hiding something. A big, hairy ass Something.
I think I asked my question poorly. What I meant to ask is whether whatever information that will be made public will be vetted by Obama’s people before it is made public?
Forget it.
Big hoopty-do about nothing. What can you hope to find? More esoterical stuff with which to bash Bush? Form over substance, I say.
What might that ass-something be? (Yes, I know there was no hyphen in the original. Shut up.)
Different Bush. And Iran-Contra papers are likely to have some substance.
One would hope; however, since it’s Bush Sr. and Reagan that are mostly affected, I’m sure it can be spun thus.
::Goes off to torture self on FreeRepublic.com::
But is it retrospective? Or does it just cover new documents?
No. :mad:
The original order was retrospective in the first place, so I imagine rescinding it frees up access the things that had been previously “permanently” hidden.
As I read it, that article doesn’t answer the question. The ruling says, essentially, that the judge trusts Cheney to cooperate with all her other rulings (all of which have gone against Cheney): she’s not going to preemptively snatch all his records away from him, but will give him the chance to comply with the records preservation orders himself.
If it becomes clear that he didn’t, it seems as though he’d risk contempt of court. From what I know of Cheney, I expect him to take that risk.
Daniel
Probably no one big hairy ass thing, but more likely a revelation about Reagan’s involvement with, or awareness of, things done in his name. I, for one, would be interested in knowing how our spectacular victory in Grenada came to be, what discussions went on to define the dire threat posed by crack commando teams of Cuban bulldozer drivers. (By the way, how is that Grenada Memorial coming along?)
Whatever it may be, they really don’t want us to know. Which means I really do want to know.
I’d be interested in seeing what the admin knew about the contras, and about the level of our involvement with other bands of Central American death squads.
Daniel
God, I’d love to see a law passed that specifically says that ALL government communications, Presidential, vice-presidential, congressional, senate, judicial…are the property of the people of the United States and you cannot walk out of your office at the end of your term with ANYTHING that pertains to your official actions in office, period.
Complete transparency, please.
“Freedom fighters,” please!
Wow.
You know, there’s a generally accepted theory of national security that says a country shouldn’t make everything it does (or can do) public.