Not that this fool has snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency, but apparently he feels the need to keep secrets because he has an embarrassing past. Interesting.
What’s in Dean’s Secret Vermont Files?
Dean—who has blasted the Bush administration for excessive secrecy—candidly acknowledged that politics was a major reason for locking up his own files when he left office last January. He told Vermont Public Radio he was putting a 10-year seal on many of his official papers—four years longer than previous Vermont governors—because of “future political considerations… We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.”
Of course everyone with an ounce of logic in them can see that the inference of that last statement is that there exists something embarrassing in those files. If not, why worry about being embarrassed at a critical time?
Sure, sure… the left will try to get this off the radar as quickly as possible, but the only question I have is this: if Bush ordered all of the records from his presidency to be sealed until after the 2004 election, would or wouldn’t all hell simply just break loose?
December 1st, 2003 at 3:21 pm
Um, Pete? See Exec Order umpty-ump dated 11/15/2001; Bush already did.
December 1st, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Hmmm… the only thing I can find is one from 11/13 which, so far as I\’ve read, has nothing to do with sealing Bush\’s files… so you\’ll have to either a) Direct me to the correct executive order or b) Spell out for me exactly how that EO is anything like Dean\’s. (Feel free to post a link if it\’d be a long comment)
Now, assuming for a moment that Bush (or any other politician) has done something similar, explain to me how it\’s NOT reprehensible behavior…
This is not a situation that calls for a \”Bush did it too!\” response (after all, Dean\’s supporters wouldn\’t exactly like to think of them as two peas in a pod) but an outright defense of the action…
If that\’s even possible.
December 1st, 2003 at 7:29 pm
Try this for starters. Note that it applies to current as well as previous Presidential papers. Then do a search for \”Ashcroft and FOIA.\” You\’ll get lots of references there to a DOJ order telling agencies that DOJ will happily help obstruct FOIA requests made to all agencies.
I haven\’t yet read the Dean material; the point I\’m making is that Bush, as he was contemplating making war on Iraq, obstructed researchers from learning just what dealings prior Administrations might have had with Saddam Hussein, among other things.
December 1st, 2003 at 7:40 pm
Quite interesting, and not something that, on face value, I agree with it doesn\’t make me any less critical of Dean\’s order.
Of course, what\’s good for the goose is good for the gander… I can\’t see anyone being able to make a strong case that one of these is OK and the other isn\’t.
Just because Bush did it doesn\’t make it right — surely that\’s not what you\’re suggesting, is it?
December 2nd, 2003 at 3:22 pm
Absolutely not. Bush was wrong, Ashcroft was wrong, Cheney was wrong to hide details of his Energy Task Force, etc. Sunshine is required. We now know that Bush and his gang cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq, using only the parts they wanted rather than the facts in toto; this Administration can\’t stand the light of day.
I still haven\’t read the Dean material, but I will.
December 2nd, 2003 at 3:30 pm
Just as I suspected… you\’ll criticize Bush all day, but will shy away from doing the same to a liberal. Typical.
So much for an unbaised, objective take on Bush… not that I expected it from you.