"It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December 2001, to rebuff Congress' demands for Clinton administration documents." Cut and pasted it for those who don't click links and for those who do last paragraph of the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_subpoenas
2007-06-28 18:10:54 · 12 answers · asked by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Does Clinton have the right to disclose the content? I wonder what rules might prohibit that. But I'm sure it is incriminating pre-9/11 information that would have made the 9/11 Commission's job alot easier by providing key pieces of the puzzle. But we will never know because Bush exercised his "dirty-little-secret" executive privilege right - one which was created for the president, who is expected serve the public with honor, respect, integrity and transparency (all of which Bush is thoroughly incapable of because of his litany of lies).
Back in 2001, Rove was more able to defuse the those kinds of situations because of the volatility of the country after 9/11. It did not take much to call off the dogs back then - the media went limp went it came time to question any "Bushy" about anything. That kind of media complacency helped pave the way for the shameful deception of Iraq pre-war intellegence served up by Colin Powell in 2003.
Since then, Rove has had much greater difficulty keeping the shades drawn on White House dirt, with it swirling around regularly now (Libby, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Susan Ralston, etc....). The calls for accountability have grown larger, and the D.C. fortress has been substancially weakened by its own corruption coming back to haunt it.
The Clinton papers have been tucked way back under the pile of Bush administration garbage, but historians will most certainly discover even more evidence of Bush's lies and deception (do we actually need more to impeach him now?).
2007-06-29 03:00:08 · answer #1 · answered by Bemarian 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My guess is are similar or the same documents that Sandy Berger ultimately destroyed before the 9/11 commission had a chance to review them.
Al Qaida / Bin Laden's / the US Government's involvement in Oklahoma City and or 9/11 is what I would expect.
For all you youngsters out there, Bin Laden and Saddam were our allies - allies we funded and gave major weapons to during the 1980s.
2007-06-30 00:48:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I would like to know also.
Why is Bush 41 so friendly with Billy and why didn't Bushie 43 go after Sandy the Burgerler after he got caught stealing the documents? Hmmmm.
2007-06-29 23:41:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure, but don't forget the most important part:
The most famous claim of executive privilege was in 1974, when President Nixon went to the Supreme Court to avoid surrendering White House tape recordings in the Watergate scandal. That was in a criminal investigation, not a demand from Congress. The court unanimously ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes.
The last paragraph for those who don't click links.
2007-06-29 01:15:16 · answer #4 · answered by Nickoo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What do you think were in the documents Sandy Burglar stole. BTW if the media and Dems get their way, all intelligence info we have will be broadcast to our enemies! But I gues that is only fair. We do have an advantage over them.
2007-07-02 23:03:24 · answer #5 · answered by TAT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A list of items taken from the White House which Bush promised not to publicize if returned.
2007-06-29 01:40:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think he denied access under an umbrella concept of keeping all presidential records secret - one of Bush's first executive orders was to extend protection from just a few years up to 12. It protected Daddy's records and had to include Clinton's as part of the deal. Gonzalez drafted the order.
2007-06-29 01:19:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
It doesn't matter what it was. If it is related to US government we have right to ask. Only way he has right not to show is when it is not in favor of public safety. which i doubt it is. Giving a reason that he has right not to show is not a good reason. In a democracy people have right to see what is done in an executive office and what is not.
2007-06-29 01:27:26 · answer #8 · answered by thebestbotintexas 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Monica's phone number?
2007-06-30 03:18:41 · answer #9 · answered by The real Ed-Mike 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a irresponsible politician.
2007-06-29 01:16:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋