More anti-democracy from The Decider

[laxfan25]

WASHINGTON - The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.

The Bush administration didn’t reveal the existence of the memorandum of understanding until last fall. The White House is using it to deal with a legal problem on a separate front, a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16491370/?GT1=8921

Gee, do you think it wouldhave been embarassing to see how close the Bush Administration really was to Black Jack, vs. Bush's declaration that "I barely knew the guy - shook his hand once in a rope line" Right.

Meanwhile, Cheney is still fighting to cover up the fact that our national energy policy was really put together by the oil industry, likely with a big heaping of help from "KennyBoy" Lay at Enron.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 — The White House said Thursday that President Bush was not claiming any new executive authority last month when he issued a statement suggesting that postal inspectors could open mail without a warrant in emergency circumstances.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said the statement Mr. Bush issued in signing postal legislation was merely a restatement of existing law allowing mail to be opened without a warrant in “exigent circumstances” to protect public safety.

“All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for, in exigent circumstances, for such inspections,” Mr. Snow said. “It has been thus. This is not a change in the law. This is not new.”

Federal law, in keeping with the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches, generally prohibits the government from opening first-class mail without a warrant. But a 1996 postal provision allows postal inspectors to open mail without a warrant in narrow circumstances if there is credible evidence that a package contains a bomb or other dangerous material.

Mr. Bush has drawn intense scrutiny and criticism from Democrats and groups like the American Bar Association for issuing signing statements reserving the right to disregard more than 800 selected provisions of measures that he signed into law, often on the grounds that they represented an unconstitutional infringement on executive authority.

Once again, the Decider has decided what legislation he will follow and what he has decided to disregard. Our elected Congress- the representatives of the people in Washington - passes legislation, which Bush signs and then instantly contradicts with a signing statement. He has used this maneuver way more than any other President in history, as a backdoor veto.

Wtih warrantless wiretapping, warrantless mail searches, imprisonment without charges or access to legal counsel for 3+ years - I sure wish somone would bring freedom, liberty and constitutional democracy back to the US.

[Hackalicious]

Once again, the Decider has decided what legislation he will follow and what he has decided to disregard. Our elected Congress- the representatives of the people in Washington - passes legislation, which Bush signs and then instantly contradicts with a signing statement. He has used this maneuver way more than any other President in history, as a backdoor veto.

A signing statement doesn't bear any legal weight. He might as well stick a Post-It note on the bill with a frowny face drawn on it.

It's a signal that he's too weak to veto a bill, but intends to neglect enforcing the law anyway.

[Sonny]

Gee, do you think it wouldhave been embarassing to see how close the Bush Administration really was to Black Jack, vs. Bush's declaration that "I barely knew the guy - shook his hand once in a rope line" Right.

Do you think it would have been nice to know what documents that Sandy Berger illegally stole & intentionally destroyed from the National Archives that might have been embarrassing to the the Clinton Administration?

We finally have all of the salacious details of Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel “Sandy” Berger’s criminal behavior in absconding with classified documents from the National Archives with the release of an Archives Inspector General report. In 2003, Berger reviewed classified Clinton-era records pertaining to terrorism in preparation for testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Berger lied about taking the classified documents from the Archives, and then later admitted to stealing the documents from the building and sliding them under a construction trailer. He later retrieved the stolen classified documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office, where he destroyed several of the records with scissors.

In my opinion, Berger was going to very great lengths to hide something incredibly damning about the Clinton administration’s actions – or lack thereof – concerning international terrorism. There’s never been an adequate explanation from Berger about what he was so terribly desperate to destroy. To make matters worse, the Bush Justice Department brokered a “sweetheart deal” with Berger’s attorney, wherein Berger’s treachery only earned him a $50,000 fine, 100 hours of community service and a three-year bar from accessing classified material. What a travesty of justice! Shame on the Bush administration for their blatant “Washington Insider” coddling of the repugnant Mr. Berger! Any ordinary citizen would be doing “hard time.”

The good ole Mainstream media has collectively yawned at this story. Could you begin to imagine the outrage if somone from the right pled guilty to the same charges that Berger did in the post 9-11 environment? They would have been crucified by the media and it would have Watergate look like a walk in the park.

What did Sandy Berger destroy?
By William Rusher
Syndicated columnist

If you forgot to make a New Year’s resolution, or are still trying to decide on one, let me suggest that you resolve to devote a little time this year to solving the mystery of Sandy Berger and the Destroyed Documents. Pressure on Berger is what is needed, and the united voices of several thousand outraged Americans would provide it.

Berger was President Clinton’s national security adviser, and therefore privy to the innermost thoughts and actions of Clinton and his aides on all national security matters. In 2003, the 9/11 Commission (co-chaired by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana) was naturally curious as to what Berger might be able to tell them about Clinton’s actions concerning terrorist activities in the United States prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

To jog his memory before testifying, Berger spent several days in the National Archives in October 2003, browsing through documents of the period. Apparently something he found there disturbed him considerably, for he decided that certain documents — what The New York Times called “several versions of a classified report prepared in 2000 on the so-called millennium terrorist plots” — must never see the light of day.

What sorts of things would have impelled Berger to take the very serious risk of stealing those documents from the National Archives and cutting them to bits? Needles to say, Berger has never uttered a word on the subject. Today, his lawyer says Berger considers the matter closed and is seeking to move on.

Naturally! But it is as plain as a pikestaff that Berger was concealing, and is still concealing, evidence of grave derelictions by Clinton or his aides in connection with terrorist activities in the United States prior to 9/11.

LINK:
http://www.picayuneitem.com/cnhi/picayu ... d=topstory

[mholtz]

If you guys don't quiet down then everyone might figure out that politicians are crooks!

[cjwilhelmi]

If you guys don't quiet down then everyone might figure out that politicians are crooks!

To reach the White House or anything that level you must have a 'past' and be a little bit of a crook.

[KnoxVegas]

Obviously, you have never heard of the documentary from the 1930s called:


Gosh! Or what about the man they call Honest Abe?