The Hush-Hush Politician
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
True to his nature as a secretive and darkly mysterious figure, Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered nearly two million pages of White House documents locked up until after 2008. These include calendars, appointment logs and memos along with at least 1,000 pages of confidential documents from his energy task force days that are being kept under wraps pursuant to the Presidential Records Act because they contain "confidential advice."
Oh wait . . . Nope, wrong politician. We aren't talking about Dick Cheney. We are talking about Hillary Clinton:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady.
Clinton's calendars, appointment logs and memos are stored at her husband's presidential library, in the custody of federal archivists who do not expect them to be released until after the 2008 presidential election.
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. Hillary Clinton led the healthcare effort in 1993 and 1994.
But even in the healthcare documents, at least 1,000 pages involving her work has been censored by archives staff because they include confidential advice and must be kept secret under a federal law called the Presidential Records Act. Political consultants said that if Hillary Clinton's records were made public, rivals would mine them for scraps of information that might rattle her campaign.
"Those files -- that's the mother lode of opposition research," said Ray McNally, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento. "Opposition researchers would be very hungry to see what's there." Robert Shrum, senior political strategist in Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, said: "In 2 million pieces of paper, would opposition researchers hope to find one where she wrote a memo saying, 'I wish I'd never gotten involved in healthcare?' Sure. That's what they'd love to find."
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.
A list of Freedom of Information Act requests that have been completed by the archives staff includes one for a photo of Bill Clinton jogging with a "Yale Whiffenpoof Club insignia" on his clothing; another for various files on UFOs and flying saucers and one for the full name of the pastry chef who made a birthday cake for Chelsea Clinton.
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.
Read on . . .
Sure they are. Come on, who do they think they are kidding? It's a Vast Hide The Documents Conspiracy.
Come on, Cheney critics and open-government advocates. The Vice President will be leaving soon. You now have a Presidential candidate who appears to be stiff-arming the forces of transparency. Let's hear the critiques of this secretive way of doing business.
We are going to hear those critiques, right? Because if we don't, some might think that there is an element of hypocrisy going on.
And we wouldn't want that. After all, consider:
Staffing pressures have prevented the National Archives from keeping up with an expanding workload. In 2002, the agency employed 334 archivists. This year, the number is down to 301. That 10% drop came during a period when the National Archives assumed jurisdiction over two more presidential libraries: those of Clinton and Richard Nixon."If we have fewer trained personnel, we are unable to do as many preservation projects as we might like, and we're less able to serve the public in ways we would like to," said Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives.
But advocates for open records said that had it made savvier use of technology, the Clinton library could be moving more quickly. Computers can sort through e-mail to flag classified documents, as distinguished from material that can be speedily released, said Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University.
"There's no reason why a load of a few hundred FOIA requests should absorb 11 full-time people perpetually," Blanton said, referring to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Well, isn't *this* interesting. — Comments (11) »
The Hush-Hush Politician 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Doesn't Cheney get at least 8 years grace too?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Nice attempt at a gotcha', but the situations aren't comparable. No one expects Bush/Cheney to release all internal documents, which is what you are saying the Clintons should do.
The documents that Bush/Cheney are keeping secret should be released because they are potentially relevant to ongoing Congressional investigations, not because "transparency" demands that all government documents be released.
Thus, a non-elected non-official may make greater demands to privacy from the people who might elect her than an elected official may from a coequal branch.
Yup. Gotta love liberals.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
It has nothing to do with who is asking or being asked to release information. Show me the investigation that requires the release of these documents, and I'll be with you 100%.
It would be one thing if you guys were after "transparency" in order to make a rational and informed assessment of Hillary Clinton's thoughts and actions during the Clinton Presidency. But you aren't. Your opinion of her will never change, and all you want here is a chance to sift through thousands of pages and find some good "gotcha's".
Our motives are clearly tainted.
However that most pure of senatorial committees, the judiciary (starring schumer and leahy - those paragons of honesty), has nothing but the most earnest desires for the 'TRUTH' when it subpeonas the likes of Rove, Rice, AG, Feith, Rumsfeld, Cheney et.al.
Just doing the work of the people I hear them say.
You're so correct - we should never be able to see what machinations an unelected private citizen was performing while trying to centalize control of 1/6 of the US economy. Yup, we'll never vote for her or anyone like her, so we should never be able to have access to what they are actually doing behind closed doors (all funded by the taxpayer).
Thanks for clarifying this moral dilemma for us redtards.
"We'll make it look like a suicide"
"Hillary Clinton's thoughts and actions during the Clinton Presidency"
See, we already know.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Show me the investigation that requires the release of these documents, and I'll be with you 100%.
I don't think I said a damned word about an investigation. I did say why there's a good reason why an investigation is beside the point. Is it your contention that non-elected non-officials who are married to Presidents are and should be allowed more or less complete confidentiality in their work and records even when they later run for the Presidency? If so, why not businessmen who run for the Presidency? Why not certain kinds of elected officials?
It would be one thing if you guys were after "transparency" in order to make a rational and informed assessment of Hillary Clinton's thoughts and actions during the Clinton Presidency. But you aren't.
You are -- and I usually reserve this kind of open statement for the crassest sort of idiocy -- an unmitigated fool. You know nothing about me, why I advocate a position, or what my perception of the electoral process is and should be, except what I've written here. However, putting your naked-moron status to the side:
Your opinion of her will never change, and all you want here is a chance to sift through thousands of pages and find some good "gotcha's".
This is indeed part of why we ask for candidates for office to disclose their records: We want gotchas, on both sides, because those gotchas are frequently revealing in ways big and small. Your side of the aisle was all in a tizzy about President Bush's military records, and used your side's newsmedia organs to try to put out those gotchas far and wide. We wanted to do the same thing with Jon Carry, to which your side and he objected for reasons that boil down to we don't wanna -- but the object on both sides was clear.
This is why we have elections, and the process we do, bub. Sorry you live in a Republic and not an autocratic socialist fiefdom.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Whatever happened to "advisers need to be assured of secrecy, otherwise they won't speak openly"? Wasn't that the rationale behind not releasing the details of Cheney's energy task force?
Why is it that transparency is good for thee but not for me? If you are all about the transparency, let's throw the gates open. I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Cheney is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat, could it?
I did say why there's a good reason why an investigation is beside the point.
No, what you did was to continue to try to equate the demand for the release of potentially privileged information during a lawful investigation to the demand for the release of potentially privileged information for the sole purpose of allowing political opponents to sift through it and look for out-of-context gotchas and cheap-shots.
While (and this might not be your opinion, but it is certainly the opinion of your party, which is why I referred to "you guys" in my post) maintaining that your political opponents don't have the right to sift through your records and look for gotchas and cheap-shots.
You are -- and I usually reserve this kind of open statement for the crassest sort of idiocy -- an unmitigated fool.
Oh, call me a dummy, too. I love it where we get to the point in the discussion where you start calling me names.
Sorry you live in a Republic and not an autocratic socialist fiefdom.
I also apologize to you that we don't live in a an autocratic fascist fiefdom. Good, now we've both gotten our crazy stereotypes out of the way. That was fun.
or, better descibed as one of these except far less productive.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
This issue will go nowhere.
Now if it were Cheney or Rove... Chucky Schumer would be ranting "This strikes a dagger into the heart of democracy" ect ect ect.
When I was recruiting for the military, we had a maximum of 30 days to answer a FOIA request.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison