Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Whitehouse visitor log now unavailable to public

  1. Jan 6, 2007 #1
    Here we go again. Another layer has been added to the Bush administrations unprecedented record of secrecy.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6325579,00.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 6, 2007 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Jan 13, 2007 #3
    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!
     
  5. Jan 14, 2007 #4
    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.
     
  6. Jan 14, 2007 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why is that? Do the terrorists check the logs before attacking?

    Democracy is not based on trust. Also, most journalists are not terrorists.
     
  7. Jan 14, 2007 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ivan, you've done it again.
     
  8. Jan 15, 2007 #7

    siddharth

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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: Jan 15, 2007
  9. Jan 15, 2007 #8
    :rolleyes: Honestly, I never know when u are being sarcastic or not...

    lol
     
  10. Jan 16, 2007 #9
    .... lol rach.. for the record I think your intent is blatantly obvious :rofl: some of these folks are being a bit ridiculous
     
  11. Jun 15, 2009 #10
    Now that our "almost a god" President Obama has declared his visitor logs are private, do your opinions still stand?:devil:
     
  12. Jun 15, 2009 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Interesting! I hadn't heard about this. Got a reference?
     
  13. Jun 16, 2009 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's the story:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house/

    Disappointing!
     
  14. Jun 16, 2009 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Jun 16, 2009 #14

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ivan, I can't tell. Are you being serious here?
     
  16. Jun 16, 2009 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The second sentence was a joke. Otherwise what I said is true: As yet I have no concerns.
     
  17. Jun 16, 2009 #16
    So, it's not the act but the party? I find it very odd especially since Obama is the one that ran on transparency.
     
  18. Jun 16, 2009 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jun 16, 2009
  19. Jun 16, 2009 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!
     
  20. Jun 16, 2009 #19
    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.
     
  21. Jun 16, 2009 #20
    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.
     
  22. Jun 16, 2009 #21

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No problem. I shouldn't joke around like that without providing a qualifier.
     
  23. Jun 16, 2009 #22

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  24. Jun 17, 2009 #23
    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/Latest...ite_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: May 4, 2017
  25. Jun 17, 2009 #24
    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/Barack-H-Oba...sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245276108&sr=8-1"

    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: May 4, 2017
  26. Jun 17, 2009 #25

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook