News Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
38
165
Here we go again. Another layer has been added to the Bush administrations unprecedented record of secrecy.

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 complex are not subject to public disclosure.

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.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6325579,00.html
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Yeah, I saw this the other day. How long can they hope to hide behind their abuses of power? Hopefully the subpoenas coming soon will take care of this.
 

Rach3

It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
 
What makes them think that they have any right to hide information from the people they serve?

As far as I'm concerned, this should be an impeachable offense.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists.
Why is that? Do the terrorists check the logs before attacking?

It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
Democracy is not based on trust. Also, most journalists are not terrorists.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Ivan, you've done it again.
 

siddharth

Homework Helper
Gold Member
1,110
0
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure :rolleyes:. Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis :uhh:! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log :eek:? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers :devil:

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts o:)
 
Last edited:
210
0
It's not an abuse of power, it's a necessary and proactive measure against the terrorists. It's a national security issue, and if we can't trust the president with issues of national security, the terrorists win!
:rolleyes: Honestly, I never know when u are being sarcastic or not...

Indeed! Bush is clearly 'defending the safety' of the country with this measure . Secrecy and security are vital during times of crisis ! What if al-qaeda got a hold of the visitor log ? People should learn to trust the government! Those criticizing this 'brave' initiative, are unamerican bush-bashers

See? I've gone overboard, but the point is that the use of smilies can clear things up, especially for those not familiar with the style of your posts
lol
 

slugcountry

.... lol rach.. for the record I think your intent is blatantly obvious :rofl: some of these folks are being a bit ridiculous
 

demospec

Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
Interesting! I hadn't heard about this. Got a reference?
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
There's no other reference apparently.
Here's the story:
MSNBC said:
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House-
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.

Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.
...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

Disappointing!
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.
 

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,817
0
Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.
Ivan, I can't tell. Are you being serious here?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
The second sentence was a joke. Otherwise what I said is true: As yet I have no concerns.
 

ibnsos

Why would anyone change their opinion? Obviously we can trust a Democrat.

This will probably shake out over time. Bush was into his 8th year and there were a hundred reasons to be distrustful. Note that at the time there was a known scandal. Obama is into his 6th month. So far I have no reason to believe that Obama is trying to hide anything.
So, it's not the act but the party? I find it very odd especially since Obama is the one that ran on transparency.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!
 

kyleb

Note that I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt right up until we found no WMDs. I kept telling myself that surely they would never invade a country unless they have far better evidence than they have shown. No one would be that stupid!
Do you not see this as a mistake to learn from? While I respect our President, I'd rather avoid having to trust politicians as much as possible.
 

ibnsos

Funny that I gave my real reason but you only cited the joke.

One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence. So far Obama has been accused of being everything from a black militant to a foreign terrorist, and every assertion was bogus.
Unfortunatly your follow up post was posted while I was reading and replying so I didn't see your comment that it was a joke. I appologize.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
No problem. I shouldn't joke around like that without providing a qualifier.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
One report about one issue hardly constitutes a betrayal of confidence.
I would say that each incident constitutes a betrayal of confidence. And each act of betrayal deserves condemnation.

And you can condemn an action without condemning the person in general.
 
38
165
The intent of the Bush administrations blocking the list was to support Dick Cheney's blocking of his list. Unfortunately the original link no longer works.

We don't know what Obama's intent is. I would imagine that it is to prevent the media from starting a feeding frenzy of rumors and innuendo that would only tend to obfuscate our more urgent problems.

Obama is a busy person, much more so than reclusive Bush/Cheney.

Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.

This administration has also had very diverse groups visit.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2009/05/13/obama-to-host-poetry-party-at-white-house/

http://www.rushmoredrive.com/LatestNews/Obama_to_host_Pakistani_Afghan_leaders_at_White_House.aspx?ArticleId=11456899440268625518

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090606/pl_afp/usitalyg8obamaberlusconi [Broken]

The list includes among many others includes, everything from a poetry group to the leaders of mid eastern countries.

Not all of them may want to see their names in print or on Fox news for security reasons, nor would it be wise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
24
1
The conspiracy theorist would say that he's trying to cover up his associations with Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Soros. All that nonsense about him being a Muslim or black extremist is just smoke and mirrors sent out by Obama himself to confuse people. In reality, Obama is the pawn of the Trilateral Commission, international bankers, and the Bilderberg group.

Here's some conclusive proof:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852818/?tag=pfamazon01-20

You can also check out the video "The Men behind Barack Obama" on Youtube.


In reality though, it's not uncommon for people going into office to realize that there's a reason things are done a certain way and change their minds about many of their campaign promises. One gets a different perspective on the desirability of transparency when one sees what secrets are being kept and why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LowlyPion

Homework Helper
3,079
4
Even so the administration has stated that the issue will be taken under consideration. Bush just said no.
I think the issue is under litigation appeal, and to open the records at this point certainly forecloses any opportunity for the Government to maintain any position but to abandon defense against the appeal.

To a certain extent it seems a matter of balance. Would we want for instance to publicly log the visit from an Ambassador at the height of an international crisis? Would divulging Kennedy meeting with the Soviet Ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis have served any purpose for the benefit of the Nation?

On the other hand, if there are meetings that might have been illegal such as influence peddling and there is some light to be shed about the timing and activity by the Executive Branch ...

When people are acting in good faith, and they don't just classify meetings as Secret or Proprietary lightly, they don't label every e-mail, and every office document as Top Secret, just to hide their embarrassment or malfeasance or untoward partisan business ... then I'd say there is a public benefit to knowing.

These days though it seems there are beau coup ways around this, like remote conferencing, or meeting off the White House campus, where no records would be kept, that it does seem that worrying about a visitor log is a little silly. Potentially embarrassing meetings or unethical activities don't have to be held at the White House, but if there is a desire to that, the log would be no real deterrence, given alternatives. But then again neither should any one with business at the White House, whether seeing the President, or coming to give Robert Gibbs a hair cut, automatically have their privacy interrupted. There are after all 2 parties involved in a Visitor Log, the White House and the Visitor.
 

Related Threads for: Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
351
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
6K
Replies
27
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Top