Tiger in Spain 0 Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 "We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.†Meaning: There's a lot of embarrassing stuff that could really screw things up. A true Liberal's explanation: "Dubya' made him do it"! Complete Article Excerpt: As investigative reporters and “oppo†researchers flock to Vermont to dig into Howard Dean’s past, they have run into a roadblock. A large chunk of Dean’s records as governor are locked in a remote state warehouse—the result of an aggressive legal strategy designed in part to protect Dean from political attacks. 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.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Maybe he's got an old DUI he doesn't want his kids to know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,046 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 You don't suppose he can swim as well as Teddy do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Isn't Dean supposed to be the second coming of "Straight Talk"? Guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 "We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time.†Meaning: There's a lot of embarrassing stuff that could really screw things up. A true Liberal's explanation: "Dubya' made him do it"! Complete Article Excerpt: As investigative reporters and “oppo†researchers flock to Vermont to dig into Howard Dean’s past, they have run into a roadblock. A large chunk of Dean’s records as governor are locked in a remote state warehouse—the result of an aggressive legal strategy designed in part to protect Dean from political attacks. 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.†Gee, what's the big deal? Bush has hidden his entire corporate record from public scrutiny, including sweet heart deals with Harken (now bankrupt), his ties to the Bin Ladens, the Texas Rangers (using taxpayer monies for profits) and large parts of his record as Governor of Texas. Since the election, he's hidden the minutes of Dick Cheney's meeting with Enron and co. to create an energy policy, the Saudi's role in 9-11, what HE knew before 9-11 and the top administration official who revealed a CIA agent's identity. Of course, he tried to hide his arrest records before the last election but one of them came out. It didn't matter, enough Americans were willing to elect someone with a criminal past that the election was close enough for the Supreme Republican Court to steal it. What's the outrage over Dean hiding his? I don't see any of you that seem to mind Bush hiding his past (and present) from the rest of us!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I don't think that's the point Donut. The point is, libs have been crying bloody murder about anything and everything Bush has chosen to keep secret, yet....your boy Dean is doing the same thing without a peep from your quarters. It's you guys that have been making secrecy such a big friggin' deal, not us...that is until your frontrunner does the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 I don't think that's the point Donut. The point is, libs have been crying bloody murder about anything and everything Bush has chosen to keep secret, yet....your boy Dean is doing the same thing without a peep from your quarters. It's you guys that have been making secrecy such a big friggin' deal, not us...that is until your frontrunner does the same thing. Well actually, I'M a Clark supporter but what Bush does as president should be known to the public. I've never asked for records of his past. I already know most of them. When a VP meets with energy companies to set policy, that should be available to scrutiny. When a top official in his administration breaks the law in the CIA scandal, there needs to be accountability. When an independent counsel tries to determine how 9-11 happened and steps we could have taken or steps we could take in the future, our president shouldn't be able to pick and choose what information to share with the counsel. I don't think you'll find a post on here where I've attacked Bush's pre-presidential past or asked that his past be investigated. However, when he's OUR representative, THEN he should be open to scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Well actually, I'M a Clark supporter but what Bush does as president should be known to the public. Well, give it time. Once Clark is out of the race, you'll be singing Deany Boy's praises loud and long. When a VP meets with energy companies to set policy, that should be available to scrutiny. No it shouldn't. Presidents should be able to solicit input and advice from all quarters and expect that the input they get is unfiltered by whether or not it will be made public fodder for political spin. If you have evidence of illegal activity, that's one thing. But you don't get to go on fishing expeditions just because you don't like his policies. When a top official in his administration breaks the law in the CIA scandal, there needs to be accountability. This has been hashed and rehashed. For one, it was pretty common knowledge that this woman was a CIA operative. Several reporters and political analysts have said so publicly. Second, the husband can't even get his story straight. And third, despite all of the above, there IS an investigation into the matter. When an independent counsel tries to determine how 9-11 happened and steps we could have taken or steps we could take in the future, our president shouldn't be able to pick and choose what information to share with the counsel. I don't think you'll find a post on here where I've attacked Bush's pre-presidential past or asked that his past be investigated. However, when he's OUR representative, THEN he should be open to scrutiny. I'll say this...if you saw the report on threats and such that he does, I'd bet you'd be "picking and choosing" what info goes to a Congress that apparently has never met a morsel of info it couldn't leak to the press if it could be used for political gain, consequences to the country's safety be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 It's an independent counsel, set up by both parties to find ways to prevent another terrorist attack. It's funny that you'd talk about Congress leaking information immediately after dismissing the administration's role in leaking a CIA operatives identity!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 It's an independent counsel, set up by both parties to find ways to prevent another terrorist attack. It's funny that you'd talk about Congress leaking information immediately after dismissing the administration's role in leaking a CIA operatives identity!! No, I dismissed this because this was about as much of a secret as who Karl Rove is. Numerous people have stated publicly that this was common knowledge inside the Beltway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 It's an independent counsel, set up by both parties to find ways to prevent another terrorist attack. It's funny that you'd talk about Congress leaking information immediately after dismissing the administration's role in leaking a CIA operatives identity!! No, I dismissed this because this was about as much of a secret as who Karl Rove is. Numerous people have stated publicly that this was common knowledge inside the Beltway. AND YET, Novak stated inequivicably that "top administration officials" informed him of it, which is a federal crime, whether Republicans now contend it was common knowledge or not. Novak has refused to divulge who the top administration officials are and has yet to be charged with obstruction of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.