President's activities kept secret

[Chris Piers]

There's no evidence to back it up. It's a fluff piece of an article.

[CWmax]

Yeah...I was wondering what was propoganda too.....

The article is about the US gov't expanding their ability to classify documents and to expand the criteria for keeping documents classified.

This IS a substantiated story that is covered by both AP and Reuters....The article even sites reference in the New York times.

The source of the information is the US gov't.....

So it's well documented and covered....and comes straight from the US admin.....


Here is an AP Article from yahoo (date March 26)....
Bush Issues Order on Sealed Documents

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h/bush_secrecy

So how is this unsubstantiated propoganda?

Just wondering.

[pritch]

Originally posted by Chris Piers
There's no evidence to back it up. It's a fluff piece of an article.

This has been reported by other news sources, not that much with the war and all, and the executive order can be viewed at whitehouse.gov.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_2007.shtml

Originally posted by Justice41
Another objective and unbiased Journalist from The UK. Yeah Right. This Policy doesn't protect this administration, it protects 8 years of the last one. You sure you want to know how much of a failure Clinton's Administration was? The next president will have the Option to do whatever it wants to do. Too Bad though, I was kinda hoping to find out who Hired Craig Livingston and who paid off Clinton to Pardon that Billionaire Fugitive Mark(Marc) Rich that's living in France.

This policy is a continuation of something this administration started some time ago.

http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/pol...es_papers.html
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2001/0720byinvo.html

Clinton is not the only pres from the past who these kind of decisions will affect. And the measures being taken will affect this presidency as well as past and future ones. The only motivation for future presidents to change this is if they feel the need to be honest with the american people, and I think everyone can attest to the fact that that is usually not a motivating factor with politicians.

[pritch]

Originally posted by Justice41
Liberals, You guys always resort to name calling. For the record I could really care less who is President, As long as he get's the right things done, he's alright in my book.I judge them On what they have done not what they say their gonna do. Talk is cheap ya know. Clinton was an abject failure. He got himself mired in so many stupid issues he was paralized. But then again like most Liberals they lie about who they are. He did. Centrist my aunt petunia. He was a socialist just like his wife. But he was wishy washy enough to give in eventually to the Rep. In the Senate and House on the important things. Bush say's what he means and mostly does what he say's. What's not to like. Your just jealous.

I'll start with a quote:

" What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

JFK, accepting the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960

You say that you judge on what they do not what they say they will do. But then you say that Clinton was a lier which contradicts judging one by his actions and not his words. As far as anything else regarding Clinton or his presidency, that's off topic and really not needed here and I think is a nice example of how certain people seem to always bring political discussion about the current admin back to the admin of Clinton.

[pritch]

Originally posted by Justice41
It doesn't matter what I think, It only matters what I see. Do you understand that? Talk is cheap action is sweet. When we got whacked 4 times in the 90's starting around 1993 with the World Trade Center Bombing and ending with the Cole warship being ambushed, Clinton did nothing, Nothing of any significance. He ignored Sudan's offer to capture and hand over Bin laden, Twice. Member the movie Black hawk Down? Betcha thought that happened under Bush1 huh? Nope, Clinton. Kobar(sp) Towers, Two American Embassies in Africa. Yep No action taken that had any real effect. The man started a war with Hussein in 98 but did nothing but launch a buncha expensive cruise missiles. He was Cowardly. Too afraid of what would happen if he, a Liberal Democrat, actually commited troops to the Battlefield. That's not leadership that's Cowardly and also a dereliction of Duty. We may not be able to stop a catastrophy but we sure better make the SOB's pay for it in a large scale war. No half-assed missile launches. You may not like him just becuase your more Liberal but you cannot deny his leadership skills. Because if this was Clinton or even Al Gore you'd be cheering him on. I would have been, I cheered Clinton when he went into Kosovo but didn't care for the Battle plan. You must be intellectually Honest with yourself if your going to ask these kinds of questions. Are You?
Or are you going to stick with the ole saw that all Republicans are war-mongers. Be careful now, What you say can and will expose your Hypocrasy

It matters what everyone thinks. And what they see matters, as far as it is what one sees that molds what one thinks. "Talk" is how one goes about trying to communicate with others and working out disagreements and issues. Action is taken after thought and talk are done with and the best course of action is decided upon. The point at which talk stops and action begins is different for every situation, and when lives are at stake, that point should be very far away, not something that is always there for use as a threat to make people conform to your ideas and desires. For someone who likes action and thinks talk is cheap, you sure do talk alot. I don't mean to be rude, it's just an observation.

As far as Clinton's presidency, I won't debate on the merits of his decisions and will simply state my perceptions during his presidency. I never really paid much attention to politics, and never used to watch C-SPAN. My opinions on world events were formed by watching other TV stations and I can say that during Clinton's presidency I heard more stories about Clinton's "scandalous" activities than anything else. Now, like I said, I didn't pay a hell of a lot of attention to politics, but I clearly remember the incidents you point out here and what I saw and heard on TV. The real issues behind these "whack"ings where never discused and every time Clinton took a military action of any kind he was blamed for trying to change the focus off of said "scandalous" events.
I agree that he made hurried decisions and plenty of screw ups, and in no way do I believe he was a great president, though I know plenty of people who's lives were much better then. I don't remember hearing the Bin Laden name until the Cole incident. You may think he was to cowardly in not invading Iraq in 98, but that is your judgement. He very well could have had information telling him that the cost in american lives was more than what he felt was justified, there are many possibilities.

Now for my personal opinion on liberals and conservatives, since the subject seems to keep rearing it's head. I think the biggest difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" has nothing to do with politics. Conservatives want quick and swift reactions and results right away, and liberals want to think things through and make sure that the correct choice is made and judgement is not rushed.

I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, he was a politician for christ sakes, and they are "practiced in the art of deception".

[penciljack]

How is it propoganda? How is it not propoganda? The entire article is devoted to assigning devious motives to the Bush administration. To whit:

Mr Cheney is not known for his commitment to open government and has sought to head off attempts to discover which energy corporations he has consulted with since he took office.

That is what is known as editorializing.

If this story were to be accurate and unbiased, it would point out that this is not an uncommon practice among US presidents. This is not something the Bush administration came up with to further some illicit conspiracy, as some of you would seem to suggest.

As I said, though, it's one thing to discuss the war. A lot of us have strong feelings about it. Dumping continous anti-American and anti-Bush junk here is not conducive to a good community or even honest discussion about this issue.

[Justice41]

There is a reason why the second amendment(Right to bear arms) comes after the first(Freedom of speech). Words are good, but without action they mean nothing. I could tell you all day that I was gonna knock your block off. Sooner or later you'll stop taking me serious. Which will soone be followed by contempt. Without action words mean nothing.

Isn't that great news? They just recovered a POW. Man those Special forces are good.

[pritch]

How is it propoganda? How is it not propoganda? The entire article is devoted to assigning devious motives to the Bush administration. To whit:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Cheney is not known for his commitment to open government and has sought to head off attempts to discover which energy corporations he has consulted with since he took office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what is known as editorializing.

If this story were to be accurate and unbiased, it would point out that this is not an uncommon practice among US presidents. This is not something the Bush administration came up with to further some illicit conspiracy, as some of you would seem to suggest.

As I said, though, it's one thing to discuss the war. A lot of us have strong feelings about it. Dumping continous anti-American and anti-Bush junk here is not conducive to a good community or even honest discussion about this issue.

If this is propaganda then most news falls under that same heading. Editorializing is something that you would be hard pressed to get around. Your quote from the article is a conclusion, but one based on fact, not imagination.

The fact that this is not an uncommon practice among US presidents should not make it OK or tolerable to put an order in place that has more potential to be abused than to be put to positive use. And as far as raising the issue of "some illicit conspiracy", I would just have to ask why it is that when people question the motives or value of certain actions by the government they're always some wierd conspiracy theorist? While I agree that this article is not pro-Bush, I have to wonder how many people here felt that articles attacking Clinton when he was president were a positive thing. And please define for me your view of what it is to be anti-American? I haven't read anything here that has given me that impression. There have been no posts saying "down with the American infidels" or anything like that. I just see people stating opinions and asking questions that are not unreasonable.

There is a reason why the second amendment(Right to bear arms) comes after the first(Freedom of speech). Words are good, but without action they mean nothing. I could tell you all day that I was gonna knock your block off. Sooner or later you'll stop taking me serious. Which will soone be followed by contempt. Without action words mean nothing.

Isn't that great news? They just recovered a POW. Man those Special forces are good.

And words without contemplation are meaningless. I could sit here and knock your block off all day, but if I thought about why it was I should do such a thing I would probably come to the conclusion that there is a better way to deal with the situation.

Yes, it is always good news when someone who you thought could be dead is still alive and safe.

[CWmax]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Cheney is not known for his commitment to open government and has sought to head off attempts to discover which energy corporations he has consulted with since he took office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Pritch. That is what is known as editorializing.

Just because the Vice-President wants to keep his stuff secret is no reason to assume that he is not committed to open government.

And really...we should focus on the fact that the reporter slipped in an editorial sentence...

Forget that this whole thread is about the Presidential order to keep things secret.....which may or may not mean that this administration has a commitment to open government.

Plus add to that the fact that, as was pointed out right away, this is an unsubstantiated fluff story from an Anti-American Paper--

Nevermind that the AP and Reuters have been reporting on this story for weeks....

So what's yer point....


Oh yeah I remember....This is propoganda and Clinton is a pervert crook....

[CWmax]

Originally posted by Justice41
I could tell you all day that I was gonna knock your block off. Sooner or later you'll stop taking me serious. Which will soone be followed by contempt.

HAHAHAHAHA You Are Great...Off-the -wall....

my observation would be that the contempt and worse would start when you were telling me all day that you was gonna knock my block off.

Ow my nose!