Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
messed up your tag...sorry. ;-)
It's inspiring to hear and read someone saying what most of us want done in response to the Bush years. Whatever else comes with Dawn just this alone is encouraging and really made my day. Our nation's honor cannot ever be restored without exposing and directly confronting all the secrecy and corruption of this administration. The world is thinking, "Are they going to let Bush get away with it all? Will there be no accountability?" Time to lift the cloud of shame Bush/Cheney brought over the nation with transparency and consequences.
The CIA leadership 'club' must be penetrated by more honest members who understand the rule of law in America is for presidents also...that there are consequences for obeying illegal orders. It can be done. Good on Obama's transition team for making the effort to find such people.
This was truly a post that brings great optimism to the idea that real change is coming to Washington's way of doing business by including competent and motivated citizens.
until Executive Order 13233 is rescinded, to remove impediments to access to historical presidential records. See: Transparency Groups Push Obama on Agenda, November 12, 2008
http://www.propublica.org/article/transparency-groups-push-obama-on-agenda-1112
Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act, November 1, 2001.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/13233.html
This order allows a former president's private papers to be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one.
Enacting Executive Order 13233 was not the first time Bush and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales had resisted clear law about Freedom of Information in Government. It had also occurred as then-Governor Bush was leaving office in Texas, when 1,800 boxes of papers became “the center of a tug of war between Mr. Bush and the director of the Texas state archives.” The Governor kept these papers out of reach by placing them in his father’s Presidential Library. [See: “Battling Over Records of Bush's Governorship” NYT, 2/11/2002] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E7D8103CF932A25751C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
The Bush Administration had to get Executive Order 13233 written and signed quickly because President Reagan’s papers were about to be released because of the PRA [his were the first, since the law was enacted in 1981] Cheney, Rumsfeld and GHW Bush had all been in that [Iran-Contra] Administration. Bush and the Cheney-gang made three attempts to withhold those records before they “decided” to take the “executive privilege” tack. See: “Bush keeps a grip on Presidential Papers” NYT:] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E0D71130F931A35752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&page
A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States: Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?, by John W. Dean, 4/23/04 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040423.html
Unfortunately, while George Bush understands tough talk, it seems the Democrats don't. Thus, Bush and Cheney will no doubt get away with robbing history of the truth of their presidency, just as they have robbed the public of that truth while in office.
If you find that life is to short to sub edit I have a suggestion.
The best proof I've ever seen of the existence of God is that everyone who dispenses lectures on the Internet about the evils of bad spelling and editing invariably -- and I mean invariably -- makes a humiliating spelling or editing error as they do so.
In the English language, there is no word limit on a proper sentence. The sentence about which you're complaining is grammatically correct. I like it. For some thoughts, I like short sentences. For others, I like long sentences. There are sentences in German, which I studied for a long time, that can be several hundred words. It's a stylistic preference, not a matter of poor editing -- unlike writing the word "to" when you mean "too."
...when you learn that this sentence:
"A lady once said that life was to short to stuff mushrooms."
...should be edited...uh...first.
Proof she’s a partisan? She was a political appointee under one Democrat and a nominee under another - so unless shown otherwise, I think it’s safe to assume she’s partisan.-- Hankest
So was(is) Sec. of Defense Gates and he was appointed by presidents of both parties. In which party is Sec. Gates a "political partisan"?
Also, you seem to have misplaced my other question.
You asserted that there was lawlessness under the administration of Bill Clinton.
Please support that allegation with proof.
Andrew Sullivan recently said he thinks you have "...less fear than any journalist I know in Washington." He said this right after your post yesterday about Israel and Gaza (which he appears to agree with.)Which makes me curious. Have there been any personal or professional repercussions for what you've written, aside from bigoted rants?
I'm ambivalent about that. It is definitely true that criticizing Israel will subject you to far more attacks than almost anything else you can do as a political writer -- both in terms of quantity and intensity. One thing that distinguishes the backlash is that it comes from all sides, including people who typically support what you do. My email inbox from the last week -- not to mention other columns and blogs -- contain more angry attacks on me than I've received in a long time, maybe ever, including from lots and lots of people who are generally supportive.
At the same time, I've also received a huge amount of supportive email and other communications, including from lots of writers and other people for whom I have a huge amount of respect.
Ultimately, there are a lot worse things in life than having people send you mean emails and write mean things about you on the Internet. I honestly don't consider it brave to incur that, even though it's true that lots of people will avoid saying things in order to avoid those outcomes.
As for lost opportunities and the like -- who knows? There's no way to know what offer you end up not getting as a result of something you say or write. But I think it's pretty clear that I never worry about any of that. I would hate what I did if I ever let those kinds of concerns limit what I do. I've worked hard to make sure I don't really have to rely on staying in the good graces of anyone to continue to do what I do. My relationship is directly with the people who read me and as long as I write honestly and without restraining myself out of concern over who I might be offending, I'm confident that that's what will enable me to keep doing what I'm doing, how I want to do it, and that approach has been working out quite well so far.
I think "bravery" means being afraid of a particular outcome and doing something despite the fear. I don't really have any fear of consequences over what I write, so -- no false modesty intended -- I honestly don't consider it "brave."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
