Bush & Dick keeping their logs out of sight

Mephisto · 1st June 2007, 07:21 AM

Who could they possibly be hiding? Jack Abramhoff? No. . . Jeff Gannon? No . . . Lobbyists from the pharmeceutical industry? No . . . Lobbyists from the oil industry? Not likely. Then WHO are they worried about the American people finding out about?

Quote:

White House: Visitor logs exempt from laws

POSTED: 8:25 a.m. EDT, June 1, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A newly disclosed effort to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's visitor records secret is the latest White House push to make sure the public doesn't learn who has been meeting with top officials in the Bush administration.

Over the past year, lawyers for President Bush and Cheney have directed the Secret Service to maintain the confidentiality of visitor entry and exit logs, declaring them to be presidential records, exempt from a law requiring their disclosure to whoever asks to see them.

The drive to keep the logs secret, the administration says, is essential to assuring that the president and vice president receive candid advice to carry out their duties.

Cabinet officers often don't want to give up their meeting calendars to journalists. They have no choice under the Freedom of Information Act, which provides public access to some records kept by federal agencies.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html

Hey! Maybe it's Bin Laden?

hgc · 1st June 2007, 07:30 AM

I had a little fun contemplating this thread title before opening it to see what it was about.

Were they hiding their Lincolnesque origins?

Were they wasting water on courtesy flushes?

Ah, but the reality is depressingly mundane -- depressing that such a thing is so old hat for these guys. If you want more secrecy/unaccountability of this sort, vote Giuliani.

Mephisto · 1st June 2007, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

I had a little fun contemplating this thread title before opening it to see what it was about.

Were they hiding their Lincolnesque origins?

Were they wasting water on courtesy flushes?

Ah, but the reality is depressingly mundane -- depressing that such a thing is so old hat for these guys. If you want more secrecy/unaccountability of this sort, vote Giuliani.

I was hoping the subject title would hook someone in here.

I concur on the vote for Giuliani - he's the one to vote for if you want more secrecy and less accountability in our governement. No one can wander the streets looking important during a national emergency like Rudy can!

thinkingaboutit · 1st June 2007, 08:36 AM

Mephisto · 1st June 2007, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by thinkingaboutit

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...addy2/orly.gif

Solus · 1st June 2007, 10:09 AM

I think bush & dick should reveal their logs to the world, no matter how big or small those logs may be...

davefoc · 1st June 2007, 07:54 PM

I was a little surprised by all this because I wasn't aware a vice president of a president had any duty to inform anybody about who they met with.

I can see some advantages of making it public. All administrations, I assume, tend to give more access to their benefactors and cronies than to other groups who are seeking access. It would be nice if the public had an opportunity to judge just how much priority is being given to administration benefactors.

On the other hand, I buy into the idea that there are legitimate reasons why the administration might want to let everybody know who they are meeting with.

As a practical matter didn't Cheney win his case in the supreme court that made it so that he didn't need to disclose who he was meeting with?

When this issue came up the first time, I thought all the complaints about Cheney keeping his energy meeting list attendees secret was just partisan carping. I am now much more cynical than I was then about this administration and I see it as at least a symptom of what is wrong with this administration that Cheney appears to have been conspiring with large oil companies to develop policies that are favorable to them and probably against the general interests of the US.

Without, what I saw as partisan carping, US citizens wouldn't have any evidence that such a meeting even went on. So what is the right balance here? In the end probably the most important thing is to elect people that aren't corrupt and inept. When we elect corrupt, inept people (as we did with Bush/Cheney) it probably won't be of much benefit to know who they are meeting with, the country is still screwed.

1st June 2007, 07:21 AM	#1
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Bush & Dick keeping their logs out of sight Who could they possibly be hiding? Jack Abramhoff? No. . . Jeff Gannon? No . . . Lobbyists from the pharmeceutical industry? No . . . Lobbyists from the oil industry? Not likely. Then WHO are they worried about the American people finding out about? Quote: White House: Visitor logs exempt from laws POSTED: 8:25 a.m. EDT, June 1, 2007 WASHINGTON (AP) -- A newly disclosed effort to keep Vice President Dick Cheney's visitor records secret is the latest White House push to make sure the public doesn't learn who has been meeting with top officials in the Bush administration. Over the past year, lawyers for President Bush and Cheney have directed the Secret Service to maintain the confidentiality of visitor entry and exit logs, declaring them to be presidential records, exempt from a law requiring their disclosure to whoever asks to see them. The drive to keep the logs secret, the administration says, is essential to assuring that the president and vice president receive candid advice to carry out their duties. Cabinet officers often don't want to give up their meeting calendars to journalists. They have no choice under the Freedom of Information Act, which provides public access to some records kept by federal agencies. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html Hey! Maybe it's Bin Laden?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

1st June 2007, 07:30 AM	#2
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Bush & Dick keeping their logs out of sight I had a little fun contemplating this thread title before opening it to see what it was about. Were they hiding their Lincolnesque origins? Were they wasting water on courtesy flushes? Ah, but the reality is depressingly mundane -- depressing that such a thing is so old hat for these guys. If you want more secrecy/unaccountability of this sort, vote Giuliani.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

1st June 2007, 07:43 AM	#3
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by hgc I had a little fun contemplating this thread title before opening it to see what it was about. Were they hiding their Lincolnesque origins? Were they wasting water on courtesy flushes? Ah, but the reality is depressingly mundane -- depressing that such a thing is so old hat for these guys. If you want more secrecy/unaccountability of this sort, vote Giuliani. I was hoping the subject title would hook someone in here. I concur on the vote for Giuliani - he's the one to vote for if you want more secrecy and less accountability in our governement. No one can wander the streets looking important during a national emergency like Rudy can!
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

1st June 2007, 08:36 AM	#4
thinkingaboutit Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 315
	__________________ "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein

1st June 2007, 09:41 AM	#5
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by thinkingaboutit http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...addy2/orly.gif
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

1st June 2007, 10:09 AM	#6
Solus Tinkering with my brain Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: L.A. area Posts: 1,723	I think bush & dick should reveal their logs to the world, no matter how big or small those logs may be...

1st June 2007, 07:54 PM	#7
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,266	I was a little surprised by all this because I wasn't aware a vice president of a president had any duty to inform anybody about who they met with. I can see some advantages of making it public. All administrations, I assume, tend to give more access to their benefactors and cronies than to other groups who are seeking access. It would be nice if the public had an opportunity to judge just how much priority is being given to administration benefactors. On the other hand, I buy into the idea that there are legitimate reasons why the administration might want to let everybody know who they are meeting with. As a practical matter didn't Cheney win his case in the supreme court that made it so that he didn't need to disclose who he was meeting with? When this issue came up the first time, I thought all the complaints about Cheney keeping his energy meeting list attendees secret was just partisan carping. I am now much more cynical than I was then about this administration and I see it as at least a symptom of what is wrong with this administration that Cheney appears to have been conspiring with large oil companies to develop policies that are favorable to them and probably against the general interests of the US. Without, what I saw as partisan carping, US citizens wouldn't have any evidence that such a meeting even went on. So what is the right balance here? In the end probably the most important thing is to elect people that aren't corrupt and inept. When we elect corrupt, inept people (as we did with Bush/Cheney) it probably won't be of much benefit to know who they are meeting with, the country is still screwed.