W's reasons to keep his clowns from testifying under oath had even less
ground to stand on
Good lord, Trij is an idiot. First, ALL such documents have to be
vetted before they can be released. As an historian, I can tell you
that the Bush, jr. administration imposed a whole bunch of rules that
made it harder for any of this stuff to get released. Second, as the
article says, the archivists are processing and responding to the
requests in the order received. But, as is the case for all such
requests, the requests are answered in the order received. Opposition
researchers don't get to jump the queue. In all these regards, the
Hillary info is being treated exactly like any other government info
-- she isn't claiming any special privileges and she isn't getting
In contrast, as Bob B. alludes to, there is a difference between
information requested pursuant to FOIA (the Hillary stuff) and
information requested pursuant to a subpoena from Congress (various
material the Bush admin. is refusing to hand over). Subpoenas get
higher priority, and also Bush is claiming privileges that previous
presidents didn't even try.
I'm not HRC's biggest fan, but the Hillary Derangement Syndrome she
provokes in the right is pretty amusing. I'm sure Trij thinks she
killed Vince Foster too.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Put your biases aside and actually read the story. All other First
Ladies released a lot more info than she has. It is clearly being done
for political reasons, as the article clearly states. Then again, if
Bush would have done this, you would have been one of the first ones
to scream bloody murder. Seems like your view of history is highly,
Even the conservatives at the Volokh Conspiracy blog are saying this
is a non-story and things are being handled in the proper manner.
I'll quote the post by Jonathan Adler, a conservative/libertarian
legal academic (go check his credentials for yourself if you don't
"Should Hillary Clinton's White House Records Be Disclosed? The Los
Angeles Times has an interesting report on the White House records of
Hillary Clinton. Apparently, many of the White House files documenting
her role in various policy matters will not be publicly disclosed
until after the 2008 election. There's nothing nefarious going on
here. It simply takes time for archivists to process the relevant
materials, respond to FOIA requests, and redact privileged or
otherwise confidential material.
At the Clinton library overlooking the Arkansas River, federal
archivists clad in protective smocks are sorting through 80 million
pages of records and another 20 million e-mails from a Clinton
presidency that ended in January 2001. About 2 million of those pages
concern the first lady's office.
A staff of 11 spends most of its time answering some 250 requests for
documents submitted under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests are
fulfilled largely on a first-come, first-served basis. Because the
earliest requests involved other Clinton administration activities,
the requests for the now-New York senator's records are further back
in line, staff members said. . . .
Before documents are released, archives staff must read them and, by
law, must redact material that they determine contains classified
information, invades a person's privacy, reveals trade secrets,
reveals confidential advice from presidential advisors or raises other
concerns specified in the records law.
Asked how long it might be before Hillary Clinton's records are
released, the library's chief archivist said it could take years.
"We're processing as fast as we can," Melissa Walker said."
Money quote, from a conservative: "there's nothing nefarious going on
Your non-response to every single substantive point I made earlier
(e.g., the difference between FOIA and subpoenas) is noted.
Is it me, or are the neo-cons getting more desperate these days, with
non-stories like this? Is that to distract from, say, the (at least)
175 folks killed in suicide bombings in Iraq today?--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
"To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible." - George
When you are quoting blogs -- things most of us don't even read -- I
would say that it's definitely you who are getting pretty desperate.
I'd mark if Ron Paul whooped all their asses.
Seriously, if Ron Paul won the presidency, I would mark like Jim Ross
marking for Stone Cold.
"RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!"
HUH-KUH-BEE!!! HUH-KUH-BEE!!! HUH-KUH-BEE!!!
LG ( :-) )
Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq
should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for
president. - Ann Coulter