As I said before, you can be the most transparent president ever without giving up every single document someone asks for. The issue is whether, on balance, the Obama Administration is more secretive than the Bush Administration. Without looking at the totality of the picture, saying that Obama is becoming what he mocked based on his refusal to give up visitor logs is just plain stupid.
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
As I said before, you can be the most transparent president ever without giving up every single document someone asks for. The issue is whether, on balance, the Obama Administration is more secretive than the Bush Administration. Without looking at the totality of the picture, saying that Obama is becoming what he mocked based on his refusal to give up visitor logs is just plain stupid.
This is what you said during the Bush Administration:
Basically, your position was that these documents were "outside the law" and that, unlike a congressional committee with subponea power, a watchdog group isn't necessarily entitled to the documents. You seem to be changing your tune now.
And there isn't necessarily a conflict between being the most transparent administration ever and keeping white house visitor logs from being public. It is possible to do both.
No, I said I think hiding it was ridiculous and the argument was based on a false premise. I don't believe the watchdog group should have to ask for what I believe should be public record. I spoke then directly about the law that was referred to, and I am right watchdog groups do not have subpoena power. I then progressed to the actual point I was making. The idea that I wouldn't give candid advice simply because I was on a published visitor list? Rubbish.
Yes, you thought the argument was ridiculous, but you didn't think that the documents should have been public record. In fact, you said that they were "outside the law" and suggested that absent subpoena power the WH shouldn't have to give them up, "just as congressmen don't have to put out their meeting schedules."
Backslide all you like, I'm not buying it.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm referencing this instance, why is that stupid? And to me running on changing Washington (which there are obviously many people who want to fight his attempts at change but nonetheless) goes a beyond just being a little more transparent than supposedly the most secretive administration in history. This story is hardly front page news but I'm sorry if even a little criticsm of the man offends you.
Again, reflecting on what the law says does not promote my opinion, the portion that promotes my opinion are the parts that say, "I think".
It is unrealistic and wearing partisan-colored glasses to suggest that pointing out what a law says means that the law is my opinion.
The law says that abortions are legal <- reflecting on the law.
I think, therefore, that the man who killed the abortion doctor would be considered an assassin or terrorist, not a vigilante. <- my opinion and why....
Extrapolating that Obama is a mockery of what he argued against based on this one instance is stupid. As I said, the issue is whether on balance his administration is more transparent than the Bush Administration. It is entirely possible that the Obama Administration is a whole hell of a lot more transparent than the Bush Administration even though it won't divulge these particular documents. What's the big picture?
It isn't as though Obama has to pull a Costanza and do everything opposite of what Bush did to "change Washington."
And I'm not offended by the criticism at all. I'm just pointing out why I think the criticism doesn't make much sense. When people criticized the Bush approach to secrecy they at least had the goods to back it up:
Again, I'm not buying your backtracking bullshit. And I think it funny that you continue to call others "partisans" in light of what you are saying now as compared to what you said back then.
I think that suggesting that talking about what a law says means that it is my opinion is desperate and weak and a direct sign of an incapacity to place yourself into another's shoes once you decide that they are "them" rather than "us", it's like AHZ saying he is pragmatic while stubbornly sticking to fighting for what will never be.
It is not difficult to see, especially with examples given, that talking about what a law says doesn't express my opinion.
It's not difficult to see your backtracking nonsense either. You can hide behind your convenient theory that you were merely expressing what the law says all you like if it makes you feel better about being just as partisan as those you criticize, but don't expect me to buy it.
Given that the courts ordered President Bush to release the documents that you opined were "outside the law," it is quite clear that you were expressing merely your opinion of what you believed the law said. Shockingly, your erroneous opinion of what the law said dovetailed quite nicely with the Bush Administration's position that it did not have to release the documents.
I understand why you've had a change of heart, what with the new occupant of the White House and all, but maybe you should think twice before calling others out for their "magic letter syndrome."
I expect you to be intellectually honest, a paragraph about what the law says, then my opinion, that is what was quoted. In fact it was my opinion, a paragraph about the law, and then my opinion reiterated. You are simply wearing your Partisan colored glasses. Everything looks partisan colored when you don't take them off and look at something with intellectual honesty, and as I said, you really need a mirror, there's somebody that is in it that needs to hear that last sentence of yours.
You get a fly up your butt just reading any post made by me and you consistently read into it whatever you want to believe based on your own ideological view of what I should be. Instead of reading the post, you try to interpret foolishly.
What you don't seem to understand is that what you believe to be a simple factual statement about what the law says was actually a statement of your opinion on what the law said. And, shockingly, your opinion of what the law said was the same as that of the Bush Administration.
Interestingly, it is also the same position of the Obama Administration. Suddenly, your tune has changed.
And that opinion remains the same while Obama is in office, I think the law is ridiculous, but it does say what they say it says, and the argument that says that a person wouldn't give untainted advice because they were on a guest list is retarded.
What part of this is difficult for you to catch? I know, it's the part where my opinion has not changed!
