Kathleen Parker falsely claimed President Clinton "ordered all records kept under seal until 2012"
In her November 2 syndicated column, Kathleen Parker asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "refused to answer candidly when asked if she would release communications between her and then-President Bill Clinton that might illuminate her claims to White House experience," and falsely claimed that "[t]he former president has ordered all records kept under seal until 2012." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, President Clinton has not ordered that "all records be kept under seal until 2012", nor, as October 30 debate moderator Tim Russert claimed, has he imposed a "ban" on the disclosure of communications between himself and Sen. Clinton until 2012.
Indeed, numerous Clinton documents have already been released or will be soon. As Media Matters has noted, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has stated that it estimates it will have processed approximately 10,000 pages of documents by the end of January 2008 in response to a demand by the organization Judicial Watch for "First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's calendar." Additionally, an August 8 Los Angeles Times article reported, "A trove of records has been made public detailing the Clinton White House's attempts to remake the nation's healthcare system, following a request from Bill Clinton that those materials be released first."
Further, in a 2002 letter to the National Archives, President Clinton listed documents involving communications between himself and Sen. Clinton as one of several categories of information in which documents should be "considered for withholding" [emphasis added]. In a November 2 statement, Bruce Lindsey, the William J. Clinton Records representative, said that rather than prohibiting the release of communications between Bill and Hillary Clinton, in the 2002 letter, Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
Parker's false claim echoes the misrepresentation of Bill Clinton's 2002 letter by Russert during the Democrats' October 30 debate. As Media Matters noted, Russert falsely claimed that the letter "specifically ask[ed] that any communication between [Hillary Clinton] and the president not be made available to the public until 2012" before asking Sen. Clinton, "Would you lift that ban?"
Parker's column is syndicated by Washington Post Writers Group. A Media Matters report on syndicated columnists issued earlier this year found that Parker's column appears regularly in approximately 282 U.S. daily newspapers.
From Parker's November 2 column:
Hillary also refused to answer candidly when asked if she would release communications between her and then-President Bill Clinton that might illuminate her claims to White House experience. The former president has ordered all records kept under seal until 2012, but Hillary's response suggested that she has no choice in the matter. She can't ask her husband to lift the ban?
Oh, I am so glad to see this hack finally brought out to the wood shed. She is one of the most sanctimonious columnists getting published today. All of her columns start off with the assumption that she absolutely is correct and it is her solem duty to bend the facts and truth to help us poor ignorant readers understand what a wonderfull day it is that we have had her opions fed to us.
Perhaps if Kathy had done her job she might have found out that it was George Bush that had ordered all of Bill Clintons papers sealed.... this would have included any potential papers that likely wouldn't shed any light on this made up figment of her imagination......
Oh, as for Bush ordering Clinton's papers sealed was he must have thought or perhaps knew that there are papers within those many boxes that would prove some of those lies were actually lies that BushCo used as it pertains to Osama bin Laden, WMD's (or lack there of) in Iraq, or the future attack on 9/11??
Well said! I have thought the same of her writing for years. Her perfered method of distortion seems to be ignoring facts that don't support her rigid, monochromatic viewpoint.
It appears to me the more these people elevate Clinton, the more popular they become. is this the law of unintended consequences ? Bush must really be in the dumps for these hacks to keep bringing up Clinton. what do the republicans have to offer ?
brings to mind the old will rogers saying. parker never met a democrat whose motives she couldn't question.
Can Bill Clinton even issue such an order??
As an ex-prez, can he order anything other than a pizza?
Don't tell anybody but its the National Archives who have control of the Clinton papers.
In her November 2 syndicated column, Kathleen Parker asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "refused to answer candidly when asked if she would release communications between her and then-President Bill Clinton that might illuminate her claims to White House experience,"
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK-
In fact, HRC was evasive and "slick" in answering the question. The FACT is that IF Bill and Hill wanted the records to be made public we could, in fact, have them tomorrow.
Newsweek makes a great case -
The response Smith got isn't unusual. Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary's presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president. Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the "stunning record of secrecy" of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a "return to transparency" to government. But Clinton's appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case closed - I have to call this one for Parker!
The FACT is that IF Bill and Hill wanted the records to be made public we could, in fact, have them tomorrow.
That's sheer nonsense.
OMG, you're making this too easy.
This little tidbit, from your own quote, blows a hole in yours and Parker's conspiracy theory:
"With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is "really hard to predict" if any of this material will be released before the election."
This is why NARA has requested a bigger budget to hire more people. Archivists don't work for free, and analyzing documents to ensure their release will not breach national security is serious business. Simply opening the floodgates of the Archives is foolish.
All right wingers making FOIA requests are going to have to wait their turn, or lobby congress for bigger government so that NARA can hire an army of people to handle the backlog.
300 requests divided by 6 people is 50 each.
Let's say it takes 50 hours (extremely high number, but this is just to prove a point)
That means that in 1 1/2 weeks each person could process 1 FOI request. That means that in a year the entire batch or requests could be finished.
However, if Bill and Hill simple demanded that their papers be made public, we could have the documents by this weekend.
50 hours is an extremely high number for one person to process a request?
Do you have even the slightest idea of the volume of pages we're talking about???
According to the NARA status report, The Judicial Watch request, the one at the center of this MMFA item, by itself, consists of 20,000 pages. Couple this with the additional backlog of 300 other requests, some of which could consist of even greater volumes, and then do your math.
1 request = 20,000 pages.
20,000 pages/50 hours = 400 pages per hour.
Yeah, best of luck with that, speed reader.
As I said, Bill and Hillary, even if they had the power to do so, would be foolish to let loose millions of pages of records without a NARA review to ensure national security. Keep in mind that this applies to any of your favorite Republican administration libraries as well.
300 requests divided by 6 people is 50 each.
Let's say it takes 50 hours (extremely high number, but this is just to prove a point)
That means that in 1 1/2 weeks each person could process 1 FOI request. That means that in a year the entire batch or requests could be finished.
However, if Bill and Hill simple demanded that their papers be made public, we could have the documents by this weekend.
Simplistic posts like this show how little you know about his subject, Justice.
You're assuming each request is for a few sheets of paper, and all someone has to do is look at it briefle and give it an "up-or-down" vote. But speaking as someone who's had a security clearance since 2000 (and deals with classified information on a regular basis), I can tell you it's not that simple.
If a document being reviewed for FOIA release refers to another document or to a specific program or initiative, that document, program, or initiative has to ALSO be researched to make sure no classified information is being discussed, or inferred. And in the course of a typical document, there may be many of these references that need to be fully researched.
And neither Clinton cannot simple demand that all the document be released immediately. No one can - that's the nature of classified information. It's not a matter of covering things up - it's a matter of national security. And it's also a matter of federal law.
The "Smith" in the Newsweek article is Sally Bedell Smith. Her book on Clinton has been shown to be a hack job, riddled with untruths.
As for reviewing the Bill - Hillary communications before releasing them, does anyone remember that they are a couple with a child?? Some of those communications undoubtedly have personal information in them about Chelsea, other family members, friends, etc. that should be withheld! Not that Republicans think the Clintons deserve any privacy.
I didn't bother with the family privacy aspect myself, which is certainly valid. National Security is first and foremost in mind, since we're talking about communications that occured at the highest level of leadership. This could contain information about covert Americans putting their lives on the line overseas. It could contain discussions of critical intelligence that must remain secret if counter-terror operations or infiltrations are to be successful.
It could contain discussions of critical intelligence that must remain secret if counter-terror operations or infiltrations are to be successful.
Some critical intelligence by law must be kept secret for 25 years - others as long as 50 years after creation. It's the law.
Why can't the pundits get a simple matter like this straight?
incessant desire to turn one minute into fifteen minutes.
After every column this person writes I feel like the computer on Lost in Space:
that does not compute
Katheen Parker seems to have no problem saying a lie.
Katheen Parker seems to have no problem saying a lie.
Well, she IS a conservative - isn't she?
No, she does not. In one of her spews she accuses medical professionals of making up the term "late term abortion" when the real term is partial birth. Of course the medical professionals use latin terms, duh. If she's not lying she is making stuff up, she rarely concerns herself with truth and facts.
Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a "subset" of presidential records "that should be reviewed prior to release."
Translation... stall till after the election.
If you read the column again, it said President Clintons request for the documents to be reviewed was in 2002, well before Hilary had her hat in the ring. They've had plenty of time to review them.
"Bill Clinton had merely designated such communications as part of a 'subset' of presidential records 'that should be reviewed prior to release.'
"Translation... stall till after the election."- anotheramerican
According to [link to mediamatters.org] , many of the records will become available in January 2008.
I think you'd better start looking for a different translator; on the competency scale, the one you've hired apparently ranks somewhere between a Rumsfeld and a Condi.
AA, I'll trade you. Cheney's private meetings with the energy companies before the big California fleece job in 2001 for the Clintons' records. Sorry, future considerations for Harriett Miers and Alberto Gonzales will NOT be considered.
And only those Americans who read Media Matters will realize that they are being propagandized.
Those who control the media control the nation.
Who controls the American media?
We're not quite alone, firedoglake, the daily howler, glenn greenwald and some others do good work on this problem.
A new poster mentioned a book called, Autum of the Patriarch by Gabrial Garcia Marquez as showing some light on an ending of this media game. I'm interested in another take on the situation, worth a check arround.
What ever happened to honesty,integrity and the sacred matter of the truth in journalism! Sadly, we in the US are now overtaken by sensationalism posing as the truth, and sheer, unadulterated lies masquerading as honest information.
Recently, the NYT reported that Chris Matthews was on the case of the White House nd this administration. His show (that's what it is) is all fluff, innuendo and sheers garbage. His show is not about the news, but more about Hilary bashing. He says he likes to truth, yet his sources for the truth have an agenda. Why has he not talked about Rudy's latest praise for Kerik, or Rudy's experiences in water boarding, or Fred Thompson's drug dealing pals? Then you have CNN, and all the other high priced prostitutes in the media. I will not even dignify Fox. But where is the accountability? It should be with the common man, not corporate America or the politicians.
Agree that Parker is a sanctimonious ass, and good to see her finally get called on the carpet at last.
Clinton should make this deal -
She'll release ALL of her records if Cheney releases his records of those secret energy meetings that probably set the stage for the Iraq war.