Slashdot Mirror
Thousands of White House E-mails Deleted
kidcharles writes "The Washington Post reports that in the midst of an investigation by the U.S. Congress into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Department of Justice, numerous White House e-mails have been lost. Among them are communications from presidential adviser Karl Rove. Parallels are being drawn with the infamous '18 minutes' missing from the Nixon Watergate tapes. Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain. This is a violation of the Presidential Records Act."
..Bush will still be allowed continue on this rampage without being impeached. Incredible.
Blerg.
gwb43.com and georgewbush.com domains are marked as spam domains. Would you keep copies of spam mails ?
...how much has to happen before impeachment proceedings? He is clearly at least as deserving as any former president, and probably far more. If you can have people impeaching you over a blowjob - which I know is a very tired statement, but bear with me - then bush's long, long list of offenses surely must qualify. As if I needed any further proof that the Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same gang...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What is the penalty for violating internal White House policy, I asked? "I don't believe the staff manual contains penalties for failure to preserve," the lawyer said.
Stanzel, possibly unwittingly, offered one possible explanation for why the rule on preservation was flouted so widely: Because there was apparently no prospect of personal consequences. "There are no personal violations of the Presidential Records Act, but you can have a personal violation of the Hatch Act," he said.
The lawyer criticized the crystal-clear (to me) ban on using non-White House e-mail for official purposes as being "too concise" and described a new, more extensive White House policy No accountability, no responsibility, no repercussions for stepping over the line, no penalties, maybe they'll make some new rules as a token gesture of fixing the problem, they'll be sure to leave better loopholes with even less accountability in the new rules...
Our government has become everything that the first settlers to America were trying to get away from.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Given these facts, you're surprised he thinks the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to him? You're joking right? You think these people want to be held accountable 5-10 years from now? Put it in the memory hole, so we can have one of those swell state funerals like they had for Ronald Reagan, put on the rose-colored glasses and talk about how greatness of this catastrophy of a President. America wins the war on intelligence!
Also at issue is the use of Republican National Committee e-mail domains (such as gwb43.com and georgewbush.com) rather than the official White House domain.
On the plus side, I bet it will be tough to claim executive privilege on those e-mails.
#!
"I'd like you to cite one example where the administration knowingly deceived the American public. "
OMG. Your head must be so far in the sand you hear Mandarin.
"many democrats were privy to the very same information the president was and they chose to support the war. Did they lie? The UN believed Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction. Did they lie? Europe also believed Saddam had those weapons. Did they lie?"
No, there mistake was thinking Bush had some inegrity and believed him.
~
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
There was no evidence of this, at all.
~
The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002
No, many nations wanted evidence, they wanted to know where Bush was getting his information because they couldn't confirm what he was saying.
~
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
WHen you are the top dog, what your spokeman says counts as coming from you.
~
What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.
- White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
UN inspectors never said such a thing.
~
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003
Again, false.
Intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004
~
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003
Not a lie, but an interesting statement from a man in 2002 said that the definatly had them.
~
Motivation:
From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CBS' 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004
~
My resientment and disgust towards our president is not party based, it is based soley on the action of this administration.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Didn't he also say that he was going to be the CEO President and run the government like a business? That's why I voted for him in 2000. I didn't vote for him in 2004, because I realized that the business he meant was Enron.....
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
You stupid shit. He is running this country exactly the way he's run every company he's ever been in charge of. He's probably the only man in history who's been unable to make a profit running an oil company in Texas, for christ's sake. CEO president does not mean good president; it just means attempting to slash costs and benefits while maintaining maximum profit for himself and the other "executives" of this nation. That's what corporatism is about...
It's always a mistake to think you can run government like a business. It's a double mistake to vote for a politician who claims they can; they're either lying (most politicians) or stupid (take your pick).
Three out of ten businesses go bankrupt within the first year. When a government goes bankrupt it destroys an entire country. Immediately you see there is a difference; you can't run a government like a business and simply hope you're not in that bottom 30%. Governments need to be far more risk adverse.
Governments work with much larger time frames. They need to think in terms of decades. Businesses barely think in terms of years. I think one of the problems with the current administration is that they do only think in terms of years. That works fine in business where you can always bail before the stock tanks - the new investors take the loss instead of you - but it's disastrous for a government.
The US government handles significantly more money than any single US business. This means there are more opportunities for corruption so there is a corresponding stronger need for oversight and accountability. This is one of the reasons why government works so slowly; the public service structure has been designed to obstruct and detect and resolve corruption.
Governments have significantly more power than businesses. Businesses only have to follow the law; governments can create them. Governments can declare war. Government can imprison people. Government enforces the judiciary. These responsibilities make government both more powerful but also more difficult to manage. A businessman is not trained for that sort of responsibility.
And I can't end without taking an easy swipe at the current administration. GWB is a terrible businessman and perhaps the worst choice for "CEO of the USA". He managed to financially cripple three oil companies before finally making money on the Texas Rangers; and IMO his profit from the Texas Rangers had nothing to do with his skills as a businessman. Despite having a huge family wealth and an MBA from Harvard, he was worse than mediocre. His track record has spoken for itself. I'm not surprised you wanted the government to be run like a business - it's a common desire amongst free market advocates - but I'm very surprised you chose GWB as the champion for your ideology.