RUMSFELD to RESIGN tomarrow?!!?

[Guest]

It's great news that things are improving in the country, def. a step in the right direction. Now we just need to see actual changes.

 

[SEEDYNONO]

that bush news conference was entertaining.


"I thought we we're gonna do fine yesterday. Shows what I know.."
-Pres. Bush

 

[Guest]

"We (Republicans) got thumped."--Shrub

 

[Blatant]

Ding, Dong the Witch is Dead... The Wicked Witch....yadda!
I love a Good Firing! Too bad he didn't go Postal!

Blatant

 

[nattynattygurrl]

Maybe it's not "full steam ahead" afterall???

Maybe it's not "full steam ahead" afterall???

I wonder if Bush will pardon Rumsfeld???
Considering Dems now hold supena power, it's possible things could get very hairy for the Bush Admin, (both present & former.) I'd be willing to bet he will!!

By sealing the Regan presidential papers, (which were due to be released in a matter of days), as well as his father's (41) presidential papers,
serves to protect & cover for his father, Reagan, & make a grab at exectutive power.

& prehaps most importantly, is an attempt to cover & protect members of his own administration, many of whom also worked for Regan &/or 41.


Here's some info. on that very first, (of many), "executive order" GW Bush signed, (his 1st move as President), just after his inaugeration in 2001-

A new executive order issued by President George W. Bush (Presidential Records Act Executive Order 13233) restricts access to the records of former presidents...

The exectutive order explained-

An Editorial on Bush's first order of 'business', as President-

"An Executive Order - Hiding presidential papers"
November 11, 2001
"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
-- James Madison, father of the Constitution.

President Bush's sudden move to restrict public access to presidential papers has ignited a firestorm of protest from archivists, historians and journalists.
Should you care? Yes, and here's why. Although most of us will never use presidential archives, we depend on historians and journalists who need these documents to write our political history, to scrutinize the public record and to keep the past honest. In short, a free and democratic society requires open archives.
We fought long and hard for public access to governmental records. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, the public grew weary of hearing half-truths and outright lies from government officials. In 1974, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, which guaranteed citizens access to public information.
Four years later, the Presidential Records Act, which defied Richard Nixon's last attempt to conceal his papers and tape recordings, stated that presidential records are the property of the government and do not belong to former presidents. In a spirit of compromise, the act guaranteed public access to papers 12 years after a president has left office.
Last January, former President Reagan's most sensitive records became available for public scrutiny. The Bush administration, however, delayed the release of some 68,000 records three times.
Then, on Nov. 1, President Bush issued an executive order that gives himself -- as well as former presidents -- the right to veto requests to open any presidential records. Even if a former president wants his records to be released, the executive order permits Bush to exercise executive privilege. It also gives him and former presidents an indefinite amount of time to ponder any requests.
Bush's executive order openly violates the Presidential Records Act passed by Congress in 1978.
In defending the executive order, the White House has argued that these new restrictions balance public access with "national security concerns."
But few archivists, journalists or historians believe that national security has anything to do with Bush's executive order. That is because national security documents are already excluded from public scrutiny.
Bruce Craig, director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, an umbrella group that represents more than 60 organizations, says, "These claims have no bearing on national security, or on information that may be of use to terrorists."
Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists agrees. "We are not talking about protecting national security information of properly classified documents."
Those who study the presidency and political decision-making are rightly outraged. Hugh Davis Graham, a presidential historian at Vanderbilt University,
charges the Bush administration with trying to "reverse an act of Congress with an executive order." Thomas S. Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, notes that "The Presidential Records Act was designed to shift power over presidential records to the government and ultimately to the citizens. This shifts the power back."
Former President Clinton also opposes the new order; he wants the public to have full access to his papers.
What, then, prompted Bush to issue such a controversial executive order?
Critics note that, aside from Bill Clinton, the 1978 act will affect the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, as well as the vice-presidential papers in each administration.
What kinds of information, they ask, might President Bush wish to protect from public scrutiny?
Anna Nelson, an historian at American University, is hardly alone in suspecting that the White House is worried about what the Reagan and Bush papers may reveal about officials who worked in those administrations and are now part of George W. Bush's inner circle. They include, for example, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Budget Director Mitch Daniel Jr.
"There may in fact be embarrassing documents," concedes White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, "but that would not be considered a legitimate reason to withhold archives from historians and journalists."
If not embarrassing moments, then what?
There is, of course, no end to growing speculation. That is the problem with trying to suppress information. It inevitably raises the question, "What is he trying to hide?"
Consider, for example, the Iran-Contra scandal that tainted the Reagan administration. In order to finance opposition to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, certain high-level administration officials sold weapons to Iran. This was illegal. But despite a huge public scandal, no government official ever went to prison. At the time, some suspected that then-Vice President George Bush, a previous head of the CIA, knew more than he let on about the illegal Iran-Contra scheme. The elder Bush, however, always protested that he "was out of the loop."
Still, other historians think that the current Bush White House, deeply immersed in the war on terrorism, may be worried about fresh revelations that detail the Reagan administration's strong financial support of the Taliban as they rose to power.
Although the president may have hoped that this executive order might go unnoticed, the backlash is already fierce. Archivists and historians have accused the White House of using heightened public interest in national security as an excuse for quashing access to presidential papers. Members of both political parties have also condemned Bush's attempt to suppress public information. Last week, Rep. Steven Horn, R-Long Beach, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, even held hearings on the executive order.
To deny the public's right to presidential papers is a violation of the law -- as well as the spirit of a democratic society. President Bush should rescind his executive order immediately. If not, Congress should act quickly to overturn this high-handed order.
At stake is nothing less than the public's right to know how our democracy works -- in the past, as well as in the present. "
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/11/ED81976.DTL

Critics Blast Bush Order on Papers
by the Associated Press http://www.ap.org
November 2, 2001- by Deb Riechmann

WASHINGTON - One historian calls it a ``disaster for history,'' but the White House insists a new executive order issued by President Bush balances the public's right to see the records of past presidents with a need to protect national security.
Advocates for the release of government documents say the executive order violates the spirit of the 1978 Presidential Records Act and will usher in a new era of secrecy for papers left behind by America's chief executives.
The White House says the order simply sets up a procedure for implementing the act and gives former presidents more authority to claim executive privilege to withhold certain papers. Absent ``compelling'' circumstances, the incumbent president will agree with a former president's decision to disclose or withhold documents, the White House says.
Bruce Craig, director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History, claims the order is ``blatantly unlawful top to bottom.'' He predicted a quick legal challenge to the order, which probably will come up at a hearing Tuesday by a House Government Reform subcommittee. The hearing was scheduled for last month but was canceled in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Craig said that under the order, if a former president says certain papers are privileged, they will remain secret even if the sitting president disagrees. Conversely, if a sitting president says certain papers from a past administration are privileged, they will remain under wraps even if the former president disagrees.
``In the interest of keeping historical papers closed, the incumbent president can trump the wishes of a former president,'' says Craig, who claims the order is ``a disaster for history.''
In a letter, Bruce Lindsey, lawyer for the William J. Clinton Foundation, said the former president objects to Bush's executive order because laws already exist to restrict disclosure of sensitive documents, The Washington Post reported Friday.
The act affects the presidential papers of Clinton, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. It also applies to vice presidential papers, including those of former President Bush.
Reagan's papers are the first governed by the Presidential Records Act, which followed Watergate and Richard Nixon's attempts to hold on to his papers and tape recordings. The act made presidential records the property of government, not ex-presidents.
Some 68,000 pages of Reagan's White House records, including vice presidential papers from the elder Bush, were supposed to have been opened under the law in January, 12 years after Reagan left office. The White House delayed the release three times to review constitutional and legal questions, and Thursday's executive order resulted.
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales defended Bush's executive order but did not say when the Reagan papers would be opened to the public.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the order provides a ``safety valve'' for a current administration. A former president, out of office for 12 years, might not recognize national security implications of releasing certain documents, he said.
Fleischer emphasized that ``except in very compelling cases, if a former president were to say `That (document) should go out,' this administration would say, ``It should go out.''
Moreover, any claims of executive privilege, including those involving military, diplomatic or national security secrets, legal work or advice, presidential communications or the deliberative processes of the president and his advisers, can be appealed in court, Gonzales said.
``It will not be driven by politics or what looks good. It will driven by what is allowed under the Constitution,'' Gonzales said.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, thinks the order will make it harder for the public to gain access to historically valuable presidential papers because both the former president and the incumbent must consent to disclosure.
A private citizen will have little luck trying to persuade a court to overturn a claim of executive privilege, he said. ``When Joe Blow goes into court to overturn it, he's probably going to lose,'' Aftergood said.
Some historians, including American University historian Anna Nelson, have suspected the Bush White House is worried about what the Reagan papers might reveal about officials now working for President Bush who also worked for Reagan. Among them are Secretary of State Colin Powell, Budget Director Mitch Daniels Jr. and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
Gonzales says that is not the reason.
``There may in fact be embarrassing documents,'' he said, but that would not be considered a legitimate reason to withhold something.
Other historians suggest the White House is taking advantage of heightened public interest in national security after the terror attacks on New York and Washington. Craig speculated that the Bush White House might be worried the war on terrorism may generate documents it would rather not see exposed down the road.
``Everybody is in agreement that materials that can be used by terrorists to threaten national security should be closed up,'' Craig said. ``There already are existing laws and exemptions that keep that kind of stuff closed up.
``This is about confidential information - communication between a president and top people - that they would simply prefer not to be released to the public.''
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1102-01.htm

How the White House explains & describes the "exectutive order":
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101-12.html

If you want to read more on this, the first of MANY "exectutive power grabs":
search: "Presidential papers" & George Bush "executive order"

 

[Guest]

LAWL PAWNED