Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:16 PM
Original message
<self delete >
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 10:54 PM by TeamJordan23
<self delete>

Sorry, I misunderstood the article. Deleted post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I heard those same points made on Limbaugh's show today.
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 10:26 PM by Richardo
I wonder what the REAL facts are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Really. You listen to Rush. Really.
Then you come here with the vile spew. How nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I live in Houston. I have no choice.
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 10:24 PM by Richardo
I noticed the similarity of this post to the RW talking points. I'm skeptical of it's truthfulness. I posted to that effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. As opposed to the bile view?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. I need a link that Senator Clinton did it. Thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. That link explains that she had nothing to do with the decision, doesn't it?
... A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.

But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act.

(snip)

... Staffing pressures have prevented the National Archives from keeping up with an expanding workload. In 2002, the agency employed 334 archivists. This year, the number is down to 301. That 10% drop came during a period when the National Archives assumed jurisdiction over two more presidential libraries: those of Clinton and Richard Nixon.

"If we have fewer trained personnel, we are unable to do as many preservation projects as we might like, and we're less able to serve the public in ways we would like to," said Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. HRC didn't block the records release, according to your own link. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. I was told the "Presidential Records Law" prevents her from just
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 10:24 PM by napi21
releasing the info. All the records must be reviewed first to prevent release of sensitive security info, etc. Because there are so many, it will take a few years before the reveiw is complete.

Here's a link to that response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3449367&mesg_id=3449532
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. See this link. It's a Bush executive order, not that act that locks them up.
Thursday, November 1, 2001; Page A33

The Bush White House has drafted an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public.

The five-page draft would also require members of the public seeking particular documents to show "at least a 'demonstrated, specific need' " for them before they would be considered for release.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. I remember when he did that. Someone had asked for Clinton's
records and he said it was OK with him, and Shrub said NO!

Well, if the Pubs are so hot to get their grubby little hands on Hillary's records, tell them to go ask Shrub! Of course, along with Hillary's WE want HIS TOO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Here's the thing, They aren't HILLARY's records. They're her husband's
He was the elected official. It was HIS administration, not hers.

That's why this whole smear is such a shitty hit piece. They don't dare go after Bill--he'll tell them to shove it up their asses. So they go after his wife. Of course, say Bill says yes, and Bush says no--all we know is that they don't get released.

Cheesy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. no office
She held no elected ofiice at the time; she was neither a President nor a Governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you for your concern.
Hillary was investigated down to her fucking underwear drawer. NOTHING WAS FOUND.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. maybe because we are Democrats and are supportive of our own. Maybe
because we would like to win the White House and the Congress so we can be free again. Maybe because we are sick and tired of the trash talk of one of our candidates. No matter what, we have to win this time. Why don't you let the right wing do its smear job and leave us alone to find hope. I personally don't give a shit about her records, Obama's religion, Edward's haircut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'll worry about her records after you get Bush to release his. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. So in some ways, Dems are no different than Bush. And that is okay with u? nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. is that you Mr. Nader? that shit won't fly this time....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. No, but this thread is a load of bullshit. Heckuva job there.
I'll tell you what's not OK with me, your shopping an incomplete and biased story that originated out of RNC HQ, without bothering to even mention the guy responsible for clamping down on those records or doing a scintilla of research.

And kudos, too, for suggesting that HILLARY can release those records, when she can't. It's up to Bill AND George to release them. But hey, don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of a good, subtle 'job,' there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
12. aside from the times, Hillary is being coddled and forced down our throats.
I've written to the press and many people complain at the msm sites about the free pass she is getting and that they are covering for her on the bad stuff and promoting her as our candidate when we don't want her.
They don't listen.
they have an agenda and it's to protect business as usual with the ultimate corporate, insider candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. Yes, a free pass is exactly what she hasn't gotten.
She has to have the sense of humor and brains to keep on keeping on.

Ironically, the candidate who is most transparent in sharing their step by step approach to...fill in the blank...has been accused of secrecy.

By the Bush administration.

MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. Well, I am not an HRC supporter, but that's a load of horseshit.
She gets ten times the scrutiny of most candidates. And much of it is, if not negative, obstreperous. She gets no "pass" whatsoever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. "Her" records??? Pray tell, what office did we ELECT her to in the executive branch?
Those are not "her" records, they are her HUSBAND's records. It was HIS administration, not hers.

And you might want to ask the guy responsible for the sealing of those records of the BILL Clinton administration, hmmm? Unsure who that might be? He's a bowlegged little shithead who spends a lot of time in Crawford.

Let's review, why don't we?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31

From 2001:

    Thursday, November 1, 2001; Page A33

    The Bush White House has drafted an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public.

    The five-page draft would also require members of the public seeking particular documents to show "at least a 'demonstrated, specific need' " for them before they would be considered for release. ...


But hey, way to carry GOP water, there. A little research first is helpful, before you believe the shit that FauxSnooze is spouting, eh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well put. I thought that was the case; the quote is particularly helpful.
Even if Hillary had been president, it wouldn't be her fault anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I find this kind of bullshit especially offensive. It may be unintended, but it's carrying GOP
water. And it's not like you need a PhD in Political History to figure this shit out. Ten seconds with Der Google, and there ya are.

I dunno. I just find it tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. That's what a lot of so called "progressives"
do around here. Regurgitate Limbaugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Well, I looked over the LA Times article and... Hillary's not even involved.
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 10:40 PM by Kagemusha
It's not even a matter of the law allowing Bush to block the records from being released. It's that the law requires the archivists to take the time to do this right. Of course Judicial Watch doesn't give a damn about that and treats it like some conspiracy. But Bush signed the law to gum up the works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. It wasn't even a law, it was an Executive Order...
The BoyKing wrote hissef up an EDICT...!

There ARE elements of the Presidential Records Act of 1978 that slow the process down, but Monkey made it even MORE onerous. And if, say, Bill Clinton wants something about HIS administration released, and Bush doesn't, well, guess what? Bush wins. It doesn't get released. That's how his little EO works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. Ya know, if I opposed a candidate, I wouldn't spend my life talking easily refutable SHIT about that
person--I'd instead, work for the candidate I supported.

See, my way takes effort. The "trash" method is cowardly, and lazy, too. And it eventually comes back on the person, and negatively affects one's perception of the originator of the lies.

Old "TeamJordan" here, the originator of this thread, will have a tough time when it comes to my believing anything he has to say in future. The old "fool me once, shame on you" dictum applies. It's a pretty cheesy thing to do, IMO. Immature, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. Because she didn't do it, that's why. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
24. Could it be the Media realizes that there has been
no party more secretive than the Bush Adm. Gop sounds
very hollow and hipocritical trying to accuse HRC
of being secretive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. It would not only be hypocritical, it would be a lie.
She's not blocking anything, it's going through the usual long process for release of archived records. The Rethugs are probably just trying to push these requests to the front of the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ethelk2044 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
30. Typical media spin. They don't want any harm to come to their girl.
The american people need to know. We are not electing the town's dog catcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-15-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. What an odd post. Was it created using a Random Phrase Generator?

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-14-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC