Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit 345
DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."
Just More of the Same Change ... (Score:0, Interesting)
The only change in the Obama administration is the change in Obama's pockets.
Since Obama took over the presidency, he has doubled the amount of governmental spending. He has spent more as a percentage of the GDP than any other president in history. He has yet to cut any wasteful programs as he reiterated again and again during the campaign.
After spending record amounts of money without cutting any "wasteful" programs, he now claims he wants to reduce the deficit by 2/3 by increasing the tax on the employers. (Who do you think the "rich" are anyway???) What monies are the "rich" going to use for the development of their businesses? (No, you can not write it all off. If you buy a $100,000 piece of equipment, you can only depreciate 1/5th of it per year. And that only writes off the taxes not the full amount anyway). The employers will keep their expensive homes -- by laying off workers.
He has had to recant most of his cabinet picks because they hadn't paid their taxes or were under investigation. (The funny thing is that the Obama Administration KNEW about these problems but thought that people would give them a pass.)
An amazing number of the rest of his appointees are direct holdovers from the Clinton Administration. Yep, that's change alright.
When he closed Guantanimo, he didn't even know what bill he was signing until his attorney told him at the signing / press conference or what would happen to the prisoners. (Literally, he asked his attorney "what happens to the prisoners" to which his attorney told him: "We will form an exploratory committee.") Do you get the feeling Obama is simply a patsy for the rest of the DNC? He certainly isn't leading, Reed and Pelosi are.
Obama is a wonderful speaker. I'll give him that. But all the rest of Obama is fluff and hot air. It is amazing that the American public were dupped into voting for someone with NO RECORD and NO EXPERIENCE. In his single term in the Senate, he voted "present" more often than he voted for or against anything.
Don't expect any change. Obama's brother in Africa lives in the slums and makes $20/year. Obama never gave his family member any of the change from his pocket -- don't expect him to do the same for you.
In Defense of Obama (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job. Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket, and whether or not the country is at war. Keeping track of every little detail and responding to every subpoena only weakens the President. WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the left screamed bloody murder about email and the Cheney energy task force does not entitle us to scream bloody murder about email and the stimulus package. These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President, and not the far more limited powers imagined that he has today. If we are to live by a Hamiltonian Presidency, then we should die by it as well.
Here in Mexico... (Score:5, Interesting)
we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.
Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?
The fact is... (Score:2, Interesting)
if ANYONE had ANYTHING on Bush he would have been impeached a long time ago...
This tells me that they are all corrupt, we NEED a viable third (or more) political party(ies)!
Namely someone who respects the Constitution.
Re:who would do the work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:can you say... (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest that people monitor the following site:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]
It gives a good overall view of whether it is 'bait and switch' or not.
So far the meter shows 15 promises kept and 2 broken. That is almost close to 90%. I'd say that is a pretty good score.
How so? (Score:5, Interesting)
How so? Particularly with regard to government operations.
And yet you have not established that secrecy is a necessity for honesty.
But I can give you MANY examples of secrecy being a necessity for DISHONESTY.
Why would that be necessary?
And that makes sense as long as you agree with every decision made.
Fuck that.
This is our elected government. Not our king.
So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.
Fuck that, too.
They're elected officials. This is not an autocracy.
Re:In Defense of Obama (Score:1, Interesting)
The President needs to be held accountable to the constituency. If he's done something illegal or illicit, he needs to be held accountable to it, which was the point of the missing emails, hiding it. I agree there are more heinous things that Bush and Cheney should be put on trial for, but hopefully this is a step forward.
The ends justify the means is against everything the country stands for and is fighting against. If we ok that, we ok terrorism because they are only fighting for their own freedom through extreme and desperate measures.
A Republic is Thus. (Score:1, Interesting)
So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.
That's a Republic, exactly that. You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment. Yeah, that is exactly what a Republic is.
What you are after is a genuine Democracy, where, steps towards giving the public all the information they want leads to some sort of a national voting on every issue. Dude, that's crazy. Mob rule is pretty stupid...
Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job. In a Republic, they are elected with their powers to some extent take a bunch of shit from the mob during the daily grind in order to protect the rights of the minority. If there's a bit of a backroom give and take needed to make the system tick.
Ever since we have had all of these subpoenas and inquests into the Presidency, the country has had nothing but political infighting and a rather sharp decline. I mean, what has all of this conflict accomplished? Not a damn thing, but national ruin and a bunch of finger pointing and blogs dredging up email.
I'd say, take all the leaders of all the corporations, all the governors and mayors and senators and congressman, and the president, and lock these assholes into a room, throw away the tape recorders and transcribers and let them not come out until they have a real plan for economic recovery. Right now, there's just too many damned lawyers involved for anyone to communicate honestly and honesty is what is needed.
Republics work.
What the .... ? (Score:5, Interesting)
We are electing politicians. Not princes and kings.
And now you're confusing oversight with "harassment".
Your "logic" is self contradictory.
By your "logic".
They were elected to do a job.
Once they are elected, they can do whatever they want to do.
And no matter what they are doing, the public must not bother them about what they are doing.
Even if what they are doing is the opposite of what the people who voted for them asked them to do.
Fuck that. Fuck princes and kings. I'm watching my elected officials. I'm watching what they're doing. If I don't approve, I let them know.
You can keep your princes and kings.
Hard or Soft fascism. That was the choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
I keep hearing about how Obama represents a "Mixed Bag".
Whatever. The whole show keeps moving forward. Keep an eye out for the "Amero".
And when the rocks start falling, people will be willing to follow this president to the shelters. Just remember, that barbed wire is for our protection. Don't be alarmed by the fact that it's facing inwards. I'm sure there will be a good rationalization for that.
-FL
Re:A Republic is Thus. (Score:1, Interesting)
And hundreds of millions of years later, we're still talking about dinosaurs--so clearly their model of anarchy worked.
Oh, I'm sorry--was that form of argument irreparably flawed? Next time you pick an example of something that "obviously worked" -- you might at least start with an example that isn't currently being pieced together by archaeologists.
You're absolutely right...this needs to be changed (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggest that, rather than taxing earned income, we exempt it and tax only unearned income.
That way, the more you work the more money you keep. If you make $20,000 in retail, you get to keep all of it. If you make $250,000 being a stock broker, you keep it. If you sit around on your ass waiting cashing in capitol gains (which means you sold a stock and are taking money _out_ of the system), living off the teat of dividends (again, money which is _not_ being reinvested directly by the company) or interest, you pay a flat rate...say 20%.
Businesses make up for the slack by paying a paltry 1-3% of gross receipts.
Or are you trying to defend those who don't work for a living?
I might note - and you'll no doubt agree as a fiscal conservative - that retirement is not a basic "right" guaranteed in the constitution. You should be careful not to rest on either taxing work (wages) or granting the undeserving a free ride (retirees who haven't saved enough) - as both hard work and paying your own way are planks in the Republican platform.
New boss - same as the old boss (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go again... Just another lie! Where is the transperency he promised? He made A LOT of promises and hasn't kept ONE yet.... The global elite really are pulling this guys strings worse than Bush....
Can one of the Obaaaaaamanoids tell us ONE promise he made he has kept????
This is starting to remind me of the Ministry song "Lies, Lies, Lies"..
"America has been hijacked
Not by Al Qaeda, not by Bin Laden
But by a group of tyrants
That should be of great concern to all Americans
We're on a mission to bring out the facts
You got your stories but they all have cracks
Misinformation, lies and deceit
What made you think that we were all asleep
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3
Surpise surprise"
Lynching Bush Administration worthless to Obama... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're absolutely right...this needs to be chan (Score:3, Interesting)
I live and operate a small business in a municipality with a gross receipts tax, and it blows as both a business owner and as a consumer.
Re:Time to end this thread. (Score:4, Interesting)
Fixed that for you. 'Modern politics' has become such a media circus, I'm surprised they haven't turned it into a reality show yet.
Oh, wait...
Re:One month... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would NOT DO IT.
Good.
neither would you.
Well, I've spent a while saying I wouldn't. Of course it won't be as obvious as you play it so we've got to keep our eyes open.
But from the discussions about it here I have to assume that most people would be okay with it at least as long as they were assured it was legal.
The problem is that like how in the global economy our government can't just print new money and have it accepted, they also can't just write off the guilt of a million deaths even if we all close our eyes to it.
If we were to bet on the time-period in which 85% of the population could go from 'against torture' to operating the torture machine in a Milgram-type experiment I'd guess three days. But only because days one and two would be spent on orientation and classes about the equipment.
Re:who would do the work? (Score:3, Interesting)
In principle I agree, but I'm confused about why partisan staff should be involved in this kind of thing in the first place.
Surely something like the IT system for the Whitehouse, as with many other things, should be run by an entity that's independent from partisan politics in the same way that the courts are independent and the law enforcement is independent. These people shouldn't report to the President or his/her staff except for very indirectly. They should report to someone who ahs a responsibility to the government but not to the currently presiding party.
Security and robustness should be required as part of the design of how the government works -- not something added on a whim by the current administration if it happens to match their policies at the time. If old partisan staff get fired and new partisan staff get hired whenever there's a change of government, it makes it very clear that they're only there to do things the way the current administration requires, and not the way that's best for everyone.