http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/opinion/10kelley.html?ex=1286596800&en=0609ce80d4c419ed&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote :

"Bush's Veil Over History By KITTY KELLEY Published: October 10, 2005 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.""

This absolutely disgusts me. Any apologists out there wish to explain?

10/10/2005 7:26:31 PM

10/10/2005 7:28:12 PM

seriously kitty kelley is about as believable as Ann Coulter

10/10/2005 7:33:54 PM

HISTORIANS UNITE!

RAID THE CAPITOL!!!11

10/10/2005 7:51:24 PM

I'm down

10/10/2005 7:56:50 PM

It looks like if it absolutely disgusts you, you would have posted a thread about it 4 years ago when it was actually news and used a less crappy source.

10/10/2005 8:12:25 PM

I didn't hear about it until now.

I mean really... why would he do this?

Is he that corrupt?

10/10/2005 8:30:23 PM

Quote :

"Is he that corrupt?"

When he appoints Brownie and Miers for the public to see, just imagine what he does thats not on public record.

10/10/2005 8:33:33 PM

RAID THE CAPITOL!!!11

10/10/2005 8:44:54 PM

He did it so the records showing that he is stealing Iraq's oil to give to israel would never become public

10/10/2005 8:47:03 PM

new executive order by new president to undo this

10/10/2005 8:47:17 PM

they say when warren harding died
you could see the black smoke for miles

BURN DEM PAPERS LAWD BURN DEM PAPERS

10/10/2005 8:49:56 PM

Quote :

"(And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.)"

and the article lost all it credibility right here

10/10/2005 8:54:32 PM

Quote :

"Clear5: It looks like if it absolutely disgusts you, you would have posted a thread about it 4 years ago when it was actually news and used a less crappy source."

Forgive my non-omniscience, I may not have poured over every news article at my disposal every day at 19. My apologies.

I only noticed it today.

Quote :

"trikk311: He did it so the records showing that he is stealing Iraq's oil to give to israel would never become public"

Your sarcasm is duly noted, but seriously...what gives?

Quote :

"skokiaan: new executive order by new president to undo this"

Are you referring to one in existence that I'm unaware of? Or making what I think is a prudent suggestion to the president?

10/10/2005 9:54:38 PM

I rarely get truly pissed off at political goings-ons.

But this makes me want to punch Bush in the throat.

We're talking about history here.

How the fuck does one write a history of our times without GWB's papers?

10/10/2005 10:02:08 PM

^Its more likely to protect Reagan and HW than GWB, I mean sometime between now and 2020 there will probably be a president who reverses this executive order.

[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2005 10:06:39 PM

Here's the link to the Executive Order.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-12.html

10/10/2005 10:43:15 PM

this stops Iran Contra shit from poppin out

10/10/2005 10:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Your sarcasm is duly noted, but seriously...what gives?"

I seriously dont know. It is strange but i am sure he has his reasons. Whether or not i would agree with those reasons i dont know. While i dont agree with some things that Bush does i honestly dont think he has an evil bone in his body so i would doubt that this is to cover up some evil conspiracy...

....but then what the heck do i know...

[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 11:05 PM. Reason : asdf]

[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 11:06 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/10/2005 11:04:17 PM

For whatever the purpose,

he should be dragon-kicked in the head.

10/10/2005 11:04:50 PM

What I find interesting is that the White House doesn't even list this Executive Order on the Executive Order page.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

10/10/2005 11:06:41 PM

Reagan's got enough shit out there in the state dept. reports already.

I mean, he was a senile old man, what else are they going to nail him for?

10/10/2005 11:09:26 PM

well they cant nail him for anything b/c he is dead

10/11/2005 9:24:54 AM

Nothing surprises me anymore. I'm unfortunately resigned to the fact that he is a crook and has a lot of friends in high places who got him where he is. Now he is returning those favors and has the power to cover them up. Win-win for everyone directly involved.

He's a sitting duck about halfway through his final term. He doesn't care what anyone thinks.


Honestly I'm really curious to see what happens in the last 4-6 months of his presidency. I imagine him cooking up all kinds of crazy shit that is going to need to be undone, keeping the next president busy for the first year of his term (esp if Democrat).

10/11/2005 10:03:41 AM

Quote :

"What I find interesting is that the White House doesn't even list this Executive Order on the Executive Order page."

Or perhaps instead of it being some sort of grand White House conspiracy, it's simply because they only list back four years, and 2001 happens to be outside that window. Considering that it was issued four years ago, it's not as if this is somehow breaking news.

10/11/2005 12:08:48 PM

dates within the last four years: Oct. 11, 2001-Oct. 11, 2005

date executive order was signed: Nov. 1, 2001


[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 1:12 PM. Reason : asdf]

oh wait, did you mean they only go back 4 calendar years?

[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 1:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/11/2005 1:08:29 PM

This executive order looks to me as if it's just outlining a procedure for handling FOIA requests (in fact, that's what the order says its purpose is).

The FOIA allows all designated records to be withheld for 12 years following a presidency. The records can remain withheld for national security and other very broad reasons, even after the 12 year period. The FOIA also says that both the current and former presidents get a say on whether or not a particular document should be released. All this would be true with or without this executive order--it's in the FOIA and it's not new.

The law pertaining to presidential records:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/44/chapters/22/sections/section_2204.html

10/11/2005 10:23:55 PM

Old or not, this is grotesque. I searched and could find no justification for why this is necessary. Were's what Wikipidea has to say about it:

Quote :

"Executive Order 13233, restricting access to the records of former presidents and drafted by White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, was issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001 shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. President Bush issued the order just as the National Archives was preparing to release a small portion of the records of the Reagan administration, some of which might prove embarrassing to the President's father due to his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair. Section 13 of EO 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667, of January 18, 1989."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

10/12/2005 9:02:10 AM

No valid explanations, then?

I expected at least some wit from GrumpyGOP or TGD...someone.

10/12/2005 3:07:19 PM

kinda hard to defend this one, mang.

10/12/2005 3:12:29 PM

im sure GGMon can think of something!

10/12/2005 4:15:30 PM

warm up the big girl

10/12/2005 4:16:33 PM

^ SHe'll probably explain how this is REALLY all Clinton's fault...

10/12/2005 8:11:28 PM

Clinton told Bush to do this

10/12/2005 8:36:45 PM

historians = pwnt

it happens a lot, sadly

10/12/2005 9:22:57 PM

Ignorance is Strength.

10/13/2005 5:47:10 AM

bttt

10/13/2005 4:05:24 PM

More like...

*crickets chirping*

10/13/2005 4:07:49 PM