Bush thinks he owns the White House

I’m gonna lay it out.

Just because Daddy bought you votes and the Supreme Court does not mean you literally own the title to the White House. That is still the People’s house and a few million of my more moronic Americans (and some of Daddy’s cash) are simply allowing you to stay there.

I’ll put it in little words so you can understand: When the public wants to know who is visiting the White House, the public gets to know who is visiting the White House. No one should have to file court papers to get public papers to a public building into the public. You do not have the right to tell the American people what is public or not. You are just the president. You are not a lawyer. You are not the Justice Department, no matter how many asskissers you stock it with. You work for us.

You have less than a year in office. I know you’re pretty hard-headed and resistant to facts, but you had 7 years to figure this out and there is no excuse for your stupid, childish tantrums.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Bush thinks he owns the White House

  1. “When the public wants to know who is visiting the White House, the public gets to know who is visiting the White House. No one should have to file court papers to get public papers to a public building into the public.”

    Ever heard of these things called government secrets? They’ve been around pretty much since governments came into being, and they are important. The public is not entitled to know everything the government does (nor everything the President does, nor everything that happens in a public building). If the public was entitled to know who enters a public building, then we’d have to announce whenever police informants visit the station (I don’t know about you, but frankly I think that’s a bad idea).

    Like

  2. First off, I’m not saying post a list of visitors. I said, “when” for a reason. Maybe you haven’t followed the story, so you should look it up and learn a bit background first. Secondly, yes…when policy is being enacted by people who get access to the president and we are told that we’re “un-American” for questioning said policy, I think the public has the right to know.

    You may be happy being told what to think and how to think it, but if my gov’t is going to tell me that they have transparency, then going to court or destroying/losing files (emails, CIA tapes, whatever) because you want to keep a secret pretty much means you’re probably doing something illegal.

    And finally, the WH is not a police station. The WH is not a law enforcement agency, no matter how much chest beating comes out of there.

    Like

  3. “First off, I’m not saying post a list of visitors. I said, ‘when’ for a reason.”

    The public does not have a right to know. If the public suddenly demands to know the location of our missile deposits, would you have the government grant it to them? A government needs to have secrets to function effectively.

    “then going to court or destroying/losing files (emails, CIA tapes, whatever) because you want to keep a secret pretty much means you’re probably doing something illegal.”

    Essentially, what you’re saying here is that, if you’re taking steps to keep a secret, you must be doing something wrong. This is simply false; again, the public is not entitled to know everything the government does; secrets are necessary if any semblance of security is to be maintained.

    Like

  4. You can be coy. I don’t do coy. Missile deposits…snort…I can’t believe I actually had to read something so stupid. Yep, that’s the same as visitor logs. Exactly. I’d hate to have to repeat myself a 3rd time. So, you can just reread my previous post.

    And just from reading your posts here, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re for torture and the gov’t spying on Americans (via phone or email) all in the name of your twisted sense of “security”, though you’d probably just deny it. Or maybe you’re okay with the gov’t keeping secrets. I’m sure you felt the same way when Clinton was president. Right?

    It’s kind of sad, that I’m actually talking to someone who is full support of bin Laden’s policy for the US. After all, didn’t the WH keep saying, “They hate us for our freedoms.” Well, the WH fixed that, they just kind took away those freedoms. Congrats bin Laden. Americans think it’s okay to keep a secret and if you are, you’re not necessarily doing anything wrong. Unless, it’s only if a Republican is keeping the secret. Is this partisan?

    At any rate, I’m not talking emotions, I’m talking facts and those seem to confuse you. The visitor logs have always been public. An FOIA was all that was needed to obtain them. (Note, I did not say that newspapers had to list every visitor, every day. I had to put that in there, because you seem to soar and leap to all sort of illogical conclusions.) All of a sudden, the legal contortionists that work for the WH said, “Hey these are private. We don’t have to tell you jack.” “National security! National security! National security!” And the foot soldiers all fall in line to protect something that is probably not good.

    I sit here and think, geez…I’m told that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn’t worry about the gov’t tapping my phone or gathering way too much info me. What exactly is the WH hiding if their first course is to run to the courts?

    Like

  5. “Missile deposits…snort…I can’t believe I actually had to read something so stupid. Yep, that’s the same as visitor logs.”

    It’s not the same, but it is related. You acknowledge that certain things (like missile deposits and visits to police stations) need to be kept private by the government. I think that knowing who visits the White House is sensitive information (control over that information would make it far more difficult for the WH to arrange meetings with controversial figures, for example).

    “At any rate, I’m not talking emotions, I’m talking facts and those seem to confuse you.”

    I am also dealing in facts (please list a single emotional appeal I’ve made). The fact is, those visitor logs add another constraint on the White House, which decreases overall efficiency. Now, you can interpret this one of two ways: constraints are good (moralist approach, as apparently endorsed by you) or efficiency is good (realist approach, as endorsed by me).

    “I’m told that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn’t worry about the gov’t tapping my phone or gathering way too much info me. What exactly is the WH hiding if their first course is to run to the courts?”

    Because the government does have things to hide. Here’s the difference: for society to operate effectively, it must be presumed that the government will not seek to use information for illegal purposes (and if it does, the system must be reformed). The same presumption does not hold for citizens. Therefore, the government can be trusted with sensitive information (legitimizing both secrets and spying), but the citizens cannot necessarily be trusted with these things.

    Now, granted, there are exceptions to this logic, and it relies on overly broad assumptions; however, in essence, it’s the reason why we allow government monitoring (in fact, the same basic argument is also the reason why we allow law enforcement at all).

    “Or maybe you’re okay with the gov’t keeping secrets. I’m sure you felt the same way when Clinton was president.”

    Yes, I did. I may not have agreed with Clinton’s policies, but he and his administration were entitled to secrets (notice, however, several major security leaks under Clinton [notably to the Chinese]; I’d say he wasn’t keeping enough secrets).

    “I’m actually talking to someone who is full support of bin Laden’s policy for the US. After all, didn’t the WH keep saying, ‘They hate us for our freedoms.’ Well, the WH fixed that, they just kind took away those freedoms.”

    Quite frankly, the White House was wrong. Bin Laden doesn’t hate us for our freedoms; he hates us because we’re not a Muslim nation.
    Freedoms need to be adjusted depending on the situation; Lincoln, for instance, suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, which helped crush the copperhead networks. When murderers are targeting the country, additional measures need to be taken to save lives.

    Like

  6. Since when do Police Informants enter stations? I can’t recall a time they did, defeats the purpose of being a secret informant.

    When you sign in to enter your child’s school, that information is public record. You can request a copy from the office. Same with any government building where the information is captured, including the one I work in. Bush wants yet another exception to the rules.

    BTW, both of you seem to be missing the point that these logs are not provided by the White House, it’s the Secret Service that creates the logs of visitors. The WH has sought to keep the Treasury Dept’s records secret on this, not the WH. Anyone visiting the WH or the VP’s residence should not have an expectation of privacy at the point at which they sign in. From that point on, that information should be public record. The right of the public to know this information out weighs the government’s need to keep it secret.

    Like

  7. “Since when do Police Informants enter stations? I can’t recall a time they did, defeats the purpose of being a secret informant.”

    I don’t mean routine informants (i.e. paid informants), I mean anyone with information. People routinely go directly to the police station when they have information concerning crimes, and they expect privacy (which, for obvious reasons, it’s wise to grant).

    As for Secret Service vs. WH control of records: I confess, I’m not familiar with the full legal implications. However, since the records are relevant to the functions of the WH, it still has a priority reason to keep them sealed (sort of like how a patient can demand a doctor not release records). Essentially, however, the question boils down to whether this is considered a matter of national security: if it is, then it’s exempt from FOIA (and the public has no right to know); if it isn’t, then it should be public.

    I take the former stance.

    Like

  8. In my experience working with the police (I’m not an officer but a community leader), I sign in before and after meetings for security reasons. I expect that when I do, that information is public record.

    The WH is requesting that Treasury Dept. records be held as secret, items that previously fell under FOIA requests. This is how it was discovered that WH staffers met with Ambramoff as well as the meetings between Big Oil and Eletric companies with WH staffers.

    To conduct a FOIA, you must be a citizen and provide evidence that you are a citizen in order for a FOIA request to be conducted. The bigger issue here with the secrecy of the documents isn’t that they are revealed now, but rather, in the future in terms of retiring records and filing law suits against the government. Basically, we’re talking e-discovery and if there is a declared system of records for these items. Since no personally identifiable information is provided (No social security, no birth date, etc), there should not be an issue of national security in relation to these records. This concept moves past that which has been discussed to this point, but is what makes me the most edgy when I hear the WH saying that the Treasury Records should be sealed or not subject to FOIA.

    Like

  9. “Since no personally identifiable information is provided (No social security, no birth date, etc), there should not be an issue of national security in relation to these records.”

    Knowing who visits the WH and when can be a national security issue: it means the President cannot conduct secret meetings in the WH (seriously limiting his ability to function).

    If the president can’t do his job without being constantly judged and threatened by the public, you’ll handicap the executive branch.

    Like

  10. The recordds are not new records. and all records must be managed through a system of records. Bush is basically thumbing his nose at the American public, you and me and everyone else, in saying that he need not comply.

    He is not above the law.

    It has not hampered any previous administration, why now should we except the excuse that it now hampers him? It doesn’t. he must comply with the laws that he has sworn to uphold the same as all other Americans, or the rule of law is pointless. I love my country too much to see that day come to pass. No one is above the law.

    Like

  11. Actually, no president had to release visitor logs until FOIA was passed, and FOIA specifically gave exemptions to anything deemed important to national security.

    Presidents have always had secrets, they always will and quite frankly that’s a good thing.

    Bush is not above the law; but he is in possession of secrets that the law protects.

    Like

Comments are closed.