Russert -- followed by NPR's Liasson -- misrepresented Clinton letter to National Archives
SUMMARY: During the October 30 Democratic presidential debate, Tim Russert falsely claimed that a 2002 letter written by President Clinton to the National Archives "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between [then-first lady Hillary Clinton] and the president not be made available to the public until 2012" before asking Sen. Clinton, "Would you lift that ban?" In fact, President Clinton's letter did not ask that such communications "not be made available," but rather listed them as documents to be "considered for withholding" [emphasis added]. Clinton Records representative Bruce Lindsey said that Clinton asked in the letter that such communications be designated as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
During the October 30 Democratic presidential debate, co-moderator and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert misrepresented a 2002 letter written by former President Bill Clinton to the National Archives and Records Administration. Addressing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Russert falsely claimed that the letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012" before asking Sen. Clinton, "Would you lift that ban?" In fact, President Clinton's letter did not ask that such communications "not be made available" but rather listed them as one of several categories of information in which documents should be "considered for withholding" [emphasis added]. In a November 2 statement, William J. Clinton Records representative Bruce Lindsey said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
Nonetheless, National Public Radio's (NPR) Mara Liasson uncritically aired Russert's false assertion that Clinton's 2002 letter constituted a "ban" -- Russert's word -- on the disclosure of communications between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
During the debate, Russert and Clinton had the following exchange:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?
CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that. Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.
RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.
Clinton's 2002 letter, however, does not appear to have imposed a "ban" on the public release of "any communication between you [Sen. Clinton] and the president."
The relevant portion of the letter addressed a provision of the Presidential Records Act -- 44 U.S.C. § 2204(a)(5) -- that allows a former president to delay for up to 12 years after leaving office the release of "confidential communications requesting or submitting advice, between the President and his advisers, or between such advisers."
In an August 19, 1994, letter to the National Archives, President Clinton had instructed that access to all such records -- as well as other categories of records -- be restricted for the full 12 years after the end of his presidency (ultimately, until 2012). But in the November 6, 2002, letter that Russert referred to during the debate, Clinton instructed the archives to "eas[e]" the restrictions set forth in the 1994 letter. Specifically, Clinton wrote that with respect to 2204 (a) (5), "information should generally be considered for withholding only if it contains" records in at least one of several categories, including "communications directly between the President and the First Lady, and their families, unless routine in nature."
In other words, while Russert claimed the letter banned the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, the letter actually stated that such information should be considered for withholding.
In a November 2 statement, as reprinted on the Daily Kos blog, Lindsey -- a former Clinton White House aide who reviews Clinton administration records set to be released by the archives before they become available to the public -- explained the 2002 letter as follows:
In his 2002 letter to the Archives, Bill Clinton authorized NARA to release substantive policy materials that involve confidential advice from his advisors, including Senator Clinton. No other President subject to the Presidential Records Act has authorized such a broad release. He has designated a subset of these materials (including, among others, negative or derogatory information about individuals involved in the appointment process, confidential foreign policy communications, and communications between the President and Vice President, First Lady, or former presidents or vice presidents) that should be reviewed prior to release. Documents in these categories have been released and are readily available in the Library at this moment.
Lindsey further stated that Bill Clinton "has not blocked the release of a single document from his Library" and that "[c]ontrary to recent reports, Bill Clinton has not asked that records related to communications with Senator Clinton be withheld." Similarly, Hillary Clinton has stated that Bill Clinton "has never blocked a record ever."
On the November 2 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson uncritically aired Russert's false assertion that "there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012." Liasson added, "Bill Clinton has asked the archives not to release personal correspondence between himself and his wife."
Media Matters for America has documented other misrepresentations related to Hillary Clinton made by Russert during the debate.
From the November 2 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
LIASSON: Hillary Clinton's advisers say her steely performance under withering fire from almost all of her male rivals and the male moderator of Tuesday's debate shows how tough she is. But her opponents are saying that her answers resurrected the old stereotype: that she can be secretive, less than candid, and that she wants to have it both ways. They point to the exchange over the National Archives' release of her husband's papers. Here's how it started: with a question from MSNBC moderator Tim Russert.
[begin audio clip]
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?
CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the archives is moving as rapidly as the archives move. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are moving and they are releasing as they do their process, and I am fully in favor of that.
RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make, but, certainly, we'll move as quickly as our circumstances in the processes of the National Archives permits.
[end audio clip]
LIASSON: Then, [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] jumped in.
OBAMA [audio clip]: Now we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records, at the same time, Hillary, as you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem. Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to participate in their government again. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again.
LIASSON: While it's true that the Bush administration has made the National Archives process for releasing presidential records more cumbersome and time-consuming, it's also true that Bill Clinton has asked the archives not to release personal correspondence between himself and his wife.
Carl Bernstein is the author of A Woman in Charge, a biography of Hillary Clinton.
BERNSTEIN: Now she's got herself in the position where she has been apparently, again, disingenuous by saying, oh, well, it's all up to the archives. It's not all up to the archives. It's up to her husband. I would think that she certainly has the wherewithal to say, hey, Bill, why don't we put these records out there?
LIASSON: In fact, the National Archives is ready to release 26,000 pages of Bill Clinton's records, but it's waiting for the green light from Clinton's lawyer, Bruce Lindsey, who has not finished his review of the papers. So the delay is not, as Senator Clinton claimed on Tuesday, completely beyond her control.
Clinton's opponents were quick to predict that the flap over the archives would dent her claim to electability. They say it was deja vu all over again, recalling fights during the Clinton administration over access to documents like the couple's tax records or Mrs. Clinton's law firm billing records.
As if on cue, the Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote that her answers in the debate were, quote, "Clintonesque." Carl Bernstein doesn't think we've heard the last of this particular issue.
BERNSTEIN: In that debate the other night, the issue was finally raised. Hey, what do we want? Do we want another president that is not candid, that is not committed to openness? Do we really want another one after the Bush presidency? And that is what's going to haunt her, I suspect, through this campaign and it has changed the dynamic.
LIASSON: It changed the dynamic from what was looking like a pre-ordained coronation to a vigorous fight for the nomination. The debate on Tuesday was the first time that Clinton's Democratic rivals were able to shine a spotlight on some of the weaknesses of a candidate who, until now, has been an unscathed front-runner.
Mara Liasson, NPR News, Washington.
RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban
Perfect example of the smear attempt toward Senator Clinton. Russert should not longer be allowed to host a debate, he has lost all credibility. It is like having Hannity host a debate.
JUSTICE AND TRUTH IN THE USA - FACT CHECK!
I hope that everyone at MMFA joins me in demanding that ALL communications from the Clinton White House be immediately released to the public.
We all want open and honest government, so I don't see any reason to hide anything.
And do you also demand everything from the Bush administration be released now?
This topic is about the Clinton's communications. I'm really trying to keep to the subject.
So you are just here to spew partisan arguments? Did Rush tell you to say this?
I couldn't have scripted this conversation any better. Someone says Clinton should release all documents, and someone drops Bush's name.
Then Rush Limbaugh's name is added to the mix.
I understand this is how they teach students at liberal Universities, but it is not how you make an argument.
I am glad to see my tax dollars at work to pay for your education.
I couldn't have scripted this conversation any better. - copiousdissent
As "scripting" involves writing down coherent ideas, nobody who has visited your blog is going to argue this point with you.
I will give you points for sheer audacity.For somebody with your history of brain dead posts and repeated whippings here to start lecturing on how to make an argument is pretty ballsy and/or detached from reality.
I hope nobodys tax dollars were thrown away on your education.
COPIOUSDISSENT:
Your response is perfect. With you, it's Clinton, always Clinton, exclusively and ONLY Clinton.
Bring up BUSH, you cry foul, you whine about being "off the topic". But guess what? The topic IS NOT Clinton, but instead it is about presidential records being sealed, and if that's proper.
To properly discuss the issue, I learned in grade school, in high school, and indeed in a "liberal university" that ALL EXAMPLES of the issue in question should be included, and also that in America, "all men are created equal" and are due "equal protection under the laws".
So, COPIOUS, it seems it is YOU who do not wish to stick with the subject, but instead discuss the Clintons in isolation, as if there is no POLICY being discussed which currently affects ALL ex-presidents and ex-governors and the CURRENT administration as well.
If there is to be a POLICY of "transparency" to change our current way of dealing with presidential documents, I'M ALL FOR IT, just as you CLAIM to be.
I just insist that it apply to ALL terms of ALL ex-presidents and across the governmental board.
So, UNTIL and UNLESS the changes you request are applied to all instances of protected documents, you're only engaging in partisan political attack singling out Hillary and NO OTHER government official. The unfairness of such an attack/request ... to be adhered to unilaterally by ONLY one person ... is immediately obvious to all.
Not even a nice try. Try to stay ON TOPIC, which is whether governmental papers SHOULD be released.
BOOM! Love it Tex! Hit it square on the head.
The con's ALWAYS cry foul, or accuse you of changing the topic when they're own hypocrasy is shown to them. (How the heck is hypocrasy EVER off-topic anyway?) After the brazillionth time it's done to them, you'd think they'd figure it out! Glass house? DON'T THROW STONES!!! (Or walk around naked!)
BTW... (if you didn't get it....)
[Dick: George, ten Brazillian journalists were killed today in Iraq.
George: That's terrible! Wait... how many is 'a brazillian?']
How does "respecting a double standard" = "staying on topic?"
Seriously...the Clinton White House was back in the 90s. As soon as Bush/Cheney took over, it was suddenly considered very important for Dick Cheney to be able to have conversations with energy company executives without ever releasing their content to the public?
Do you support the attempts to get the Energy Commsion discusions public? Or are you simply a blatant hypocrite?
No you are not, as a matter of fact. You are just trying to avoid a relevant part of the discussion.
This topic is about the Clinton's communications. I'm really trying to keep to the subject.
The topic is White House communications. If you're willing to demand the immediate release of all of Clinton's documents, then you should also be willing to demand the release of Bush's. Especially any communications before September 11, 2001 related to 9/11, the buildup to the illegal invation of Iraq, the outing of Valerie Plame, the firings of the US attorneys, and Cheney's energy task force.
So keep on topic, troll.
As I recall, one of the very first acts of 43 was to reclassify his father's and Ronald Reagan's papers to make sure they did not see the light of day. That's one reason we don't know as much about Iran Contra as we could. It comes as no surprise that the most secretive adminstration since WW II - if not since George Washington - is scared to death of full disclosure. To harp on the Clintons on this issue is to ignore the 800 lbs. gorilla in the living room. Perhaps Little Tim should have done a little homework before running his mouth in the guise of asking a question...
What facts are you checking again?
Hey, JuTru, you forgot to tell us who you were gonna call this one for.Don't leave us on pins and needles waiting for another serving of your wisdom.
This was more of an "action alert" for good government -
Please, write and call and demand the release of all of the Clinton papers!
I would like to see ALL relevant administration documents from the Kennedy assasination on released.
Dude! You were already soundly spanked over this. Give it up. ALL WHITE HOUSE PAPERS should be de-classified.
But the thing is, the most shameless and shocking stuff is going to come from Reagan, Bush41, Bush43 & Chenney. Come on - what do you realy expect to find in Clinton's papers? Notes from Monica? Give it a rest.
Right after we find the 5 million emails the Bungloids are hiding, and get them all executed for treason, I will look into whether there is something required in terms of Clintonian disclosure.
"I hope that everyone at MMFA joins me in demanding that ALL communications from the Clinton White House be immediately released to the public."--justus
The papers will be reviewed and released barring any national security concerns. To ask them to release the documents without reviewing them for security seems pretty irresponsible. I don't expect that from the current administration either.
I believe this has something to do with NARA asking for a bigger budget to hire more people to accommodate a ferocious demand for Clinton docs.
A rightwing demand resulting in bigger government? Who'da thunk it?
WZWRITER - FACT CHECK!
JUSTICETRUTE8276 doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about.
This is, in fact, what they're headed for, but it takes a considerable time to process that many pieces of paper. And the Russert legend about these papers' release is absolutely NOT true, but the usual right-wing spin. Is there a reason, perhaps, to watch carefully what gets released about Kosovo? Maybe, until the participants in the correspondence is dead or out of power. If Gore or Hillary reports a conversation with Carter, who is still living, or Bush I, should that not be treated carefully? Again, nothing has been ruled out for release, but obviously national security is a consideration, at least until it is a dead letter. Say some of this communication is about Musharaff, (sp?) and it could be released now to damage him or help him. I think "with all deliberate speed" is what is at issue here.
I've got to say, I was once considering Obama, but his latest turn as the "tough guy" is a huge disappointment to me. What does he choose to do? To spread untruths about Social Security, to create a false sense of panic. Vile. And then to join in on the cowardly and narrow harassment of Clinton -- this is something I want Obama, or any Democrat, to be against. Attack her on actual stands she's taken. Her vote in 2002 is fair game. Her straddling on issues is perfectly all right to attack. But this phony Russert-ism is thoroughly dishonest, and not the Obama who was attractive to me. He's just turned into another bullcrap artist.
Right after ALL communications from the Bush I White House are immediately released to the public, right JT?
I am really disapointed in how the msm is using this issue against Senator Clinton. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Isn't HRC using her time in the White House with Bill as part of the reason to vote for her?Honestly, you cannot have it all one way.
if the same standards were held for every candidate I would say you have an argument. Lets see all the papers and documents on Rudy and 9/11. Why was the communication system in NYC failed on 9/11. What did Rudy know about Bernie Kerik.
Doris, I agree that everyone's should be available, but 8 wrongs don't make a right. Not only is it weird that the papers are being witheld, but Clinton absolutely, postively, 100% requested them to be withheld until 2012. MMfA is making a poor attempt at spinning the truth.
If I asked someone to please consider letting me borrow $20, I have come much closer to asking them for $20 than NOT asking them for $20.
I think your suspicions are feeding into what the Republicans want to happen with this issue. The fact is all presidents can seal whatever they want for 12 years after they leave office. Do you think there could possibly be anything worse in those papers than what has been said about her over the past 15 years? In a perfect world all of this stuff would be made public, however, 50 million was spent investigating Hillary and Bill in the 90's. No person or people in political history hae undergone the scrutiny from the press and the other side of the aisle as the Clintons. Do they really have to keep defending themselves because the same people still aren't satisfied that a low class non established Arkansan like Bill Clinton not only became president but is such a great politician that his wife is now the front runner to become president. Solely because people know Hillary in the White House gives her a source of counsel that no other president has ever been able to boast, her husband.
"Not only is it weird that the papers are being witheld, but Clinton absolutely, postively, 100% requested them to be withheld until 2012. MMfA is making a poor attempt at spinning the truth."
That's a complete lie. Clinton's letter only requests review and possible withholding.
And why do people want to see those documents anyway? Most of them deal with the '93 healthcare proposal-- so what are we going to do with them?-- second-guess HRC's actions back then, rather than talk about the here and now? Of course that's the idea-- a smokescreen, an evasion.
It is Hillary's fellow Democratic contenders who are calling upon her to release these documents. Hillary has touted her years aadvising Bill in the White House as part of her experience for the Presidency. If there is a paper trial of her writings from that period why would they not be relevant? I am surprised Hillary hasn't fallen over herself to produce the documents. And there is no doubt in my mind that as a former President, Bill Clinton can move mountains. If he wanted these documents in a week and it required 200 people, he'd have 400 people working on it.
"It is Hillary's fellow Democratic contenders who are calling upon her to release these documents."
Another lie. It's the Republican FOX news types who are clamoring for release, because then they think they can quiz her ad nauseum about this or that pronoun, all the while ignoring the issues of today. A gotcha game about Bill. But what about Rudy's papers? How about his divorce papers... eh?
What a joke. Irony gives a well-thought through dissent, and you come up with some talking point about Fox news, seeking to dignifiy it as equal to fact. What a joke.
The documents are being released over time. I don't think you can ask her for more than that. Do you agree the documents should be reviewed? If not, on what reasonable basis do you believe that?
Open, you are implying that the release is going by some sort of protocol that B. Clinton cannot control, but that is false. Bill Clinton specifically requested particular documents to be witheld, delayed, etc. MMfa could've written an article stating: But Russert did not prove that it wasn't because of nat'l security, etc that Clinton didn't want them released until an arbitrary date (heat of the re-election race if Clinton is elected in '08, or possibly their estimate of the first pres. election run for Hillary?) Heck, the papers could be flattering instead of damning!! The point is, MMfA is being, our new favorite word, disingenous.
Can you please elaborate? I apologize, but I sincerely don't understand your point here.
"The point is, MMfA is being, our new favorite word, disingenous."
Complete nonsense. Russert lied about the request, tried to frame it as a directive, and then tries to insinuate wrongdoing-- all the while letting the Republicans off the hook. And all for what? For wanting to get at Hillary through Bill, and making 1993 the issue. Gimme a break. The whole attempt is dishonest.
If I wasn't for Hillary before I am totally behind her now! When I watched those democrats eat their own and give ammunition to the republiQUEENS (that they quickly used) and when I saw with my own eyes, those moderators salivating at the thought of bringing her down, that did it for me. HILLARY IN 2008!
LINDSEY: "He has designated a subset of these materials (including, among others... communications between the President and Vice President, First Lady, or former presidents or vice presidents) that should be reviewed prior to release. Documents in these categories have been released and are readily available in the Library at this moment."
Bottom line is the documents in question won't be released unless and until Bill Clinton says it's okay...after they are reviewed.
Sorry, MMFA, this is bullsh*t...if Hillary Clinton wanted these documents released she could do it.
Read Bill's letter and read the law...
Who really cares?
The current President has set up secret torture facilities around the world and all you care about are the notes between Hillary and Bill Clinton written in 1999? That's really so pathetic.
Meanwhile, let's talk about all the people working for the White House who have tried to create a second email system to avoid archving laws...
Why should they be released at all? Oh, now I get it-- maybe they tell us how she killed Vince Foster, eh? Or if they don't, that's suspicious too, right?
This election is about 2008, not 1993. Sorry guys.
If the documents are considered for withholding, how long before Sandy Berger steals the documents and cuts them with scissors?
You are a liar and a fool. Berger took NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. So nothing is gone from the archives because of Berger. He took copies. He got in trouble for it as he should. You hiveminders keep telling the LIE that he tried to get rid of some documents. Stop LYING.
Solon,
You are all in denial about this story…
The U. S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee investigation said the following “The full extent of Berger’s document removal, however, is not known and never can be known. The justice department cannot be sure that Berger did not remove original documents for which there were no copies or inventory. On three of Berger’s four visits he had access to such documents.”
Here’s the complete report. I not surprised you are unaware of the facts of the case since it was one of the liberal media’s most under-reported news stories of 2006.
U.S. House of Representatives Report
First, read the entire report…then, tell me how anyone could be sure he had no originals.
First, read the entire report…then, tell me how anyone could be sure he had no originals.- cb
Don't need to read the entire report again. You pasted above that there is no way of knowing, and there never will be.This might be a reason the story was so under reported by the (heh) "Liberal Media".
Documents so insignificant that there was no inventory of them may or may not have been taken, but there's no way to know.Sounds like a pretty dry trail to follow.
Did you happen to watch that Fox after-school special about Berger? I'm betting you did.
Good point. And righties seem to think that lack of evidence is evidence.
You can't argue with these people. They don't deal in good faith, and they are dumb dumb dumb. Many of them also hate women. Other women know that, and that's why HRC's poll numbers are going up gender-wise. Keep it up, boys!
Don't need to read the entire report again. You pasted above that there is no way of knowing, and there never will be. HBL
So apparently we agree…why then do most people on the left continue to say they are certain he stole no originals? Being honest, like you & I, would mean they accept the fact that he may have taken originals and that those originals may have been significant in the 9/11 investigation. Instead the liberal mentality requires the absolute declarations that he absolutely, positively took no originals when nothing in the U.S. House of Representative’s investigation supports this notion. I do appreciate you acknowledging that I may be correct and your non-partisan honesty in this discussion.
As far as Hilary goes, if she is going to tout her experience as first lady as a reason to vote for her why should the documentation supporting her claim be unavailable until after the election? If her years as first lady are relative enough to campaign on, the paper trail supporting her claim should be made available now. What is she afraid of?
"why then do most people on the left continue to say they are certain he stole no originals?"--cb
You should point out that they cannot be certain, but you don't have any proof Berger took originals either.
But then again the burden of proof is on you and you ain't delivering it.
You may be correct, CB. Berger may also have taken the Book of Kells and the original lyrics to Penny Lane written on a pub napkin, and if you held those positions, for absolutely no reason except that you had talked yourself into believing, I couldn't prove you wrong.
I would think your position very strange, and weirdly obsessive.But if it makes you happy to make up stories that can't possibly be proven true or untrue, then call those stories credible based on that, go nuts.
For some reason the .pdf file keeps blowing up. I am assuming that is the Republican partisan report you are referring to?
Besides, the burden of proof is on you to show that Berger took originals - which is the baseless wingnut claim. The archives said that all of the documents were available to the 9-11 commission. If you have proof they weren't, I suggest you contact them post-haste and let them know about it.
; )
No I am not in denial about anything. I am not making any forays into what MIGHT HAVE BEEN. For all I know Martians MIGHT have invaded the archives and eaten several National Security documents. The CLAIM was that he stole documents. The implication being he did so to get rid of them. He has never even been ACCUSED of doing so. It is YOU in denial. It is YOU WISHING that your accusation was somehow proof of something. As to what we know Berger did what he was ACCUSED of did NOT include any original documents.
http://www.archives.gov/about/speeches/04-26-05.html
To that end I have several positive things to report to you today. First, in the case of Sandy Berger, the former National Security Adviser, I am pleased that the situation is resolved and believe that Mr. Berger's actions, as outlined in the plea agreement, speak for themselves. Let me state for the record that all five documents that Mr. Berger has admitted to illegally removing for the National Archives were copies, and NARA retains the official Presidential record copy of each one.
So, whatever your fevered DREAMS about what MIGHT have happened. There is no evidence of any such thing happening and to state as fact it did is a flat out lie. Nothing KNOWN backs that up.
Don't try to reason with these people, Solon. Their main aim here is to disrupt the threads, not to have a rational argument. It's intentional-- you can tell by their timing, and the way they interject later on into previous posts. It's deliberately disruptive trolling behavior, and MMFA should do something about it.
To that end I have several positive things to report to you today.
So the person in charge of protecting our nation’s most sensitive and highly classified documents fails to do so and then says he’s certain all the documents are accounted for. What a surprise!
"So the person in charge of protecting our nation’s most sensitive and highly classified documents fails to do so"--cb
Rampant speculation. You have not demonstrated that to be true.
I agree with this comment. Berger's behavior appears to have reflected a bizarre loss of judgment - but the issue is the categorical move by Richard Cheney to bring a unparalleled culture of secrecy to the federal government.
Cheney's actions threaten the fabric of democracy -- and Americans of every political and ideological stripe should be concerned about it.
Barry Goldwater, for one, would be leading a mob up Pennsylvania avenue over this. No real 'conservative' can endorse these policies.
Media Matters has done a fine job of exposing a fake issue. Sure, we should all push every elected official and candidate to be more open.
But the crisis facing America today is whether, or not, our slide towards secret government, secret prisons, and a unitary executive, will be stopped.
This is what the candidates should be talking about. This is what the MSM is failing our country, again, by failing to address.
SOLON:
You might as well ask rightwingers to stop lying, as to ask them to stop breathing or going through their momma's panty drawer. Some things are just hardwired.
Solon, Tex, you guys have got to keep up with me and CompliantConsent. We both watched this Fox "Documentary", so we got the facts. Notice the Kindergarten style title, it even rhymes!
If you didn't catch the shlockumentary, the synopsis at my link should tell you everything you need to know, or at least everything the average Fox viewer thinks he knows.
I believe any evidence concerning the various proscutions initiated against the Clintons has already seen the light of day. These documents were some of the sources used. You really think Ken Star or any of his fellow traveler's actually missed something important?
I don't think there is anything remotely "criminal" that Hillary would be concerned about in the documents. However, it is entirely plausible to me that she would prefer that her opponents not beat her over the head with early drafts of her health care plan formulated in the 90s. That's what this is really all about.
One less bat is worth the effort. I wouldn't want to have to make that agument.
Probable considering the stage of events? I'd give it a shaky maybe.
Great point Eweston. That Ken Starr a.k.a. Cotton Mather and his witch hunts left no stone unturned. This Russert is a whining bullyboy and his claim to objective journalism is a complete joke. The debate questions were scripted to embarass Clinton and provide a cheap softball target for the other candidates. I am not a Hillary supporter, but give me a break.
I love the richness of the English language. The way the Clintons' stretch and twist it is an art form worth watching.
Clinton will not release the records until he has his evil little minions pore over them and then destroy anything that may put the fat serial sexual offendor and his husband, the Gorillary, in a bad light.
I'm sure the fat serial sexual offendor and his husband, the Gorillary were planning on sending Sandy Burglar to clean things out for them, but he got busted before he had the chance.
The Clintoons are so perhaps two of the biggest criminals this country has ever seen.
The Clintoons promised to release the records just like that moron John Kerry promised to sign the SF180 to release his military records. Tht's been what?...almost four years now?
The Stranger, were you feeling a bit threatened that TroothyJusty may have been after your Queen of the Wingnuts tiara?
Are you just trying to be as silly as possible for the attention? Seriously, your posts look like transcripts of Dick Morris' wet dreams.
"Queen of the Wingnuts tiara"
ha ha ha
"John Kerry promised to sign the SF180 to release his military records. Tht's been what?...almost four years now?"--the stranger
He already signed and released his full military record two and a half years ago. You must be a bit slow.
"On May 20, [2005] Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/
And I am still waiting for proof that Bush ever did his "duty" in the National Guard but that and 50 cents will get me a can of Coke.
Truthfully, this is a horrible argument with both side defending what should be indefensible. Bush and Clinton should both be ashamed. Clinton for requesting coverage. Bush for creating the executive order that allowed all of this and don't think he will not hide behind this.
No one is exactly hogging the high ground on this one. And the press acting as if they are concerned -- what a joke -- they just know Bill and Hillary are better ratings than Bush.
national security concerns from healthcare papers? please! it is obvious they are hiding ...Just like the several hundred raw FBI files found with Hillary's prints on them (Chuck Colson was in prison for just one such file)just like they ransacked Vince fosters office before it was sealed followwing his MURDER!....which had many similarities to Ed wiley's MURDER! Women NEVER lie about rape! Bill raped several women and there is a longgg line of dead bodies following the clintons...Ron Brown etc
I am NO fan of W but there are no bodies in Ft. Marcy park now are there?
The real question is, When will Bush Sr. release his papers? We should answer that before we all get our panties in one big knot about papers of someone who wasn't even an elected official.
Letter to Hardball:
Letter to Hardball: Matthews has already played the commercial once today ... twice yesterday ... his hit piece on Hillary ... only because the precious kabal of Irish Catholic blowhards ... Matthews/Russert [why don't you "write a book about your relationship with your father and hawk it endlessly" Russert] has been attacked. And you wonder why you're called a "right-wing tool"
So typical: the fake parity.
Bush is secretive (i.e. Cheney's draconian restrictions on all disclosure from the executive branch, destruction of emails, avoidance of putting atg in writing), and Hillary is, too. Bush is for keeping troops out, Hillary is too.
The only way they're different is that Bush & his many imitators "take the pledge" that Iraq will never have nukular weapons; and Hillary isn't quite brain-dead enough to bend to Russert's demand that she do to.
It's typical.
What's new is the eagerness of our other standard-bearers, Barack and Edwards -- both of whom I deeply admire -- to stoop to the same kind of idiotic crap. Gore did the same in 2000, and it hurt him.
There's plenty on substance to go after Hillary about. There's a legitimate political question: do we go establishment with Hillary, or try to do something new with our other two more visionary, and less politically experienced, candidates.
Barack, John -- don't even try. Leave this kind of garbage for the GOP and their phony lackies like Russert.