Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Admin Fights Missing White House Email Lawsuit

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the what-happens-in-dc-stays-in-dc dept.

Government 345

DesScorp writes "The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue by trying to have a lawsuit dismissed that would have kept investigating whether or not email was still missing. Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President expressed disappointment with the Obama administration's actions. Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, noted that President Barack Obama on his first full day in office called for greater transparency in government. The Justice Department 'apparently never got the message' from Obama, Blanton said."

cancel ×

345 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CHANGE (5, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948159)

I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.

It's government corruption (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948345)

The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. Bush administration officials should be prosecuted, not have the complaints dismissed. Read the book House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties [google.com] . It documents clearly that every time the needs of the Saudi government and the needs of U.S. citizens conflicted, the Bush administration did what the Saudis wanted, and got paid at least $1.4 billion. There are at least 100 other books that document the abuses in other ways.

Do a Google Image search for images of Bush holding hands with top Saudi officials [google.com] .

Re:It's government corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948435)

It sounds to me like you believe everything written in a book simply because it's in a book. Ever read the Bible? :p

Political differences are not and should never be made into the objects of a criminal witch hunt. The screw will turn, my friend, and your party won't always be in power. Then we'll see how much you like all the investigations.

Re:It's government corruption (1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949011)

Believe everything in a book? No. But, how about the newspapers? In the days immediately after the World Trade Center collapsed - how many planes were in the skies, departing America? And, who was aboard that plane? The Bush and Saud families are indeed much to cozy, and questions beg to be asked.

Re:It's government corruption (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949331)

Believe everything in a book? No. But, how about the newspapers? In the days immediately after the World Trade Center collapsed - how many planes were in the skies, departing America? And, who was aboard that plane? The Bush and Saud families are indeed much to cozy, and questions beg to be asked.

I'll bet Elvis was on there, too. And Jim Morrison.

Re:It's government corruption (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949057)

The screw will turn, my friend, and your party won't always be in power.

That's the point: deterrent. If crimes were committed by the Bush administration then they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to send a strong message to the next Republican administration that the law must be obeyed.

Then we'll see how much you like all the investigations.

Bring it on. While I strongly believe that Obama is far better than the Republican alternative, I have no love for Obama either. If Obama breaks the law, punish him to the full extent.

Read the books. They are VERY well-documented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949089)

"It sounds to me like you believe everything written in a book"

That sounds to me like the opinion of someone who doesn't read books, and didn't read the book mentioned in the grandparent comment, which is VERY well documented.

Re:It's government corruption (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948595)

The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. Bush administration officials [...]

I know /. news tends to be a bit behind the times, but I would have thought folks would have noticed by now that Bush isn't part of the U.S. government any more.

Re:It's government corruption (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948701)

His appointees in the executive branch, his Supreme Court appointments, and the federal bureaucracies he guided most certainly are. They've been battening down the hatches for the last six months or so to protect themselves and continue their current programs and policies. Opening them up is not going to be easy.

Re:It's government corruption (0, Flamebait)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948757)

Be serious, they haven't come to grips that the "Savior" is just a Chicago politician, with all the corruption that is part of that phrase.

Until everyone in Washington is replaced in 3 election cycles (for the whole Senate) there will be no change. Try replacing them with someone who has actually done productive work, not lawyers.

Re:It's government corruption (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949099)

Try replacing them with someone who has actually done productive work, not lawyers.

As a matter of fact, the past half-century or so has seen an influx of non-lawyers into the legislature. The predictable result: Poorly written, unjust, often unconstitutional laws. Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act FTW.

And you... you want more of this?

Let's break it down: Lawyer. Legal. Legislature.

Please consider thinking before you parrot your next ignorant truism.

Be well,
Qrlx

Re:It's government corruption (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949635)

Well, thinking about it, lawyers do live in a very specific world: services industry, high income, mainly white... People with other backgrounds probably would have a different take on many things.

PLus, I personnally see lawyers as a necessary evil, not as leaders with a vision and the guts+drive to make it happen.

Leaders can hire lawyers. The reverse is, alas, not true.

Did I *think* enough for you ?

In Defense of Obama (1, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948377)

I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.

I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job. Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket, and whether or not the country is at war. Keeping track of every little detail and responding to every subpoena only weakens the President. WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the left screamed bloody murder about email and the Cheney energy task force does not entitle us to scream bloody murder about email and the stimulus package. These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President, and not the far more limited powers imagined that he has today. If we are to live by a Hamiltonian Presidency, then we should die by it as well.

Re:In Defense of Obama (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948483)

We must not allow the government to operate in secret. It is our lack of vigilance that put us where are today, with a government that becomes more corrupt with every passing day. We don't need you making excuses for them.

Someone once argued.... (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948885)

That anonymity, a form of secrecy is necessary for honest communications. If the President cannot communicate honestly, then he cannot do his job. Imagine if LBJ's tapes had been made public during his administration. Do you want to throw away the Civil Right's act because he's also tailing MLK? You can take a paranoic distrust of either people too far and you need to learn how to hope and how to trust. Let the public decisions an administration makes stand for themselves, right wing or left wing, and don't let yourself get trapped up needing to see every frank discussion that takes place behind the scenes. This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you need to let leaders lead. If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.

How so? (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949121)

That anonymity, a form of secrecy is necessary for honest communications.

How so? Particularly with regard to government operations.

If the President cannot communicate honestly, then he cannot do his job.

And yet you have not established that secrecy is a necessity for honesty.

But I can give you MANY examples of secrecy being a necessity for DISHONESTY.

Imagine if LBJ's tapes had been made public during his administration. Do you want to throw away the Civil Right's act because he's also tailing MLK?

Why would that be necessary?

Let the public decisions an administration makes stand for themselves, right wing or left wing, and don't let yourself get trapped up needing to see every frank discussion that takes place behind the scenes.

And that makes sense as long as you agree with every decision made.

Fuck that.

This is our elected government. Not our king.

This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you need to let leaders lead. If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.

So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.

Fuck that, too.

They're elected officials. This is not an autocracy.

A Republic is Thus. (1, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949303)

So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.

That's a Republic, exactly that. You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment. Yeah, that is exactly what a Republic is.

What you are after is a genuine Democracy, where, steps towards giving the public all the information they want leads to some sort of a national voting on every issue. Dude, that's crazy. Mob rule is pretty stupid...

Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job. In a Republic, they are elected with their powers to some extent take a bunch of shit from the mob during the daily grind in order to protect the rights of the minority. If there's a bit of a backroom give and take needed to make the system tick.

Ever since we have had all of these subpoenas and inquests into the Presidency, the country has had nothing but political infighting and a rather sharp decline. I mean, what has all of this conflict accomplished? Not a damn thing, but national ruin and a bunch of finger pointing and blogs dredging up email.

I'd say, take all the leaders of all the corporations, all the governors and mayors and senators and congressman, and the president, and lock these assholes into a room, throw away the tape recorders and transcribers and let them not come out until they have a real plan for economic recovery. Right now, there's just too many damned lawyers involved for anyone to communicate honestly and honesty is what is needed.

Republics work.

Re:A Republic is Thus. (0)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949449)

Republics work.

Where? Rome?

Re:A Republic is Thus. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949517)

Republics work? Where? Rome?

Hey, 2000 years later, we're still talking about them. So, obviously that answer is YES. And indeed, the Constitution was defined by Madison to correct some of the flaws that lead to the Roman drive to Empire.

Time to end this thread. (1, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949587)

Republics work? Where? Rome?

Hey, 2000 years later, we're still talking about them. So, obviously that answer is YES.

2000 years from now we'll probably still be talking about Nazi Germany. So your "obviously" is 100% wrong.

Simply being a subject of discussion does NOT mean anything beyond being a subject of discussion.

Once again, you are wrong.

Re:A Republic is Thus. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949601)

...the Constitution was defined by Madison to correct some of the flaws that lead to the Roman drive to Empire.

Doesn't seem to have worked as we follow our "manifest destiny"

What the .... ? (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949543)

So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.

That's a Republic, exactly that.

We are electing politicians. Not princes and kings.

You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment.

And now you're confusing oversight with "harassment".

Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job.

Your "logic" is self contradictory.

By your "logic".
They were elected to do a job.
Once they are elected, they can do whatever they want to do.
And no matter what they are doing, the public must not bother them about what they are doing.
Even if what they are doing is the opposite of what the people who voted for them asked them to do.

Fuck that. Fuck princes and kings. I'm watching my elected officials. I'm watching what they're doing. If I don't approve, I let them know.

You can keep your princes and kings.

Re:A Republic is Thus. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949813)

...and they can do whatever they want, without harassment.

That's exactly the kind of thing that got us into this second quagmire in less than 40 years. Sometimes, and this would be one of them, the majority is wrong. Winning an election does necessarily mean you are qualified for the job. It just means you're a good salesman and you won. The campaign is not the job. The majority continues to vote for those who allegiances are very questionable, either because they are misinformed or are just as greedy for a piece of the action, and the minority has to fight back with a bit more vigor. We might not win an election, but we sure as hell won't just let these people "do whatever they want, without harassment". The last eight years should be glaringly obvious as to why not. With government, openess and honesty go hand in hand, and I for one, will demand both.

Re:Someone once argued.... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949383)

If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.

Doubt I'd pass the piss test, but I will seek out and vote for people who do believe in an open government. The government is our servant, not our master. And remember, he just signed the civil rights act. He didn't write it. His comment? "We just lost the South". I would venture he had no choice. A veto would have probably been overridden. And maybe you don't remember Nixon as well as I do. My message is, if you want want to operate in secret, go somewhere else. Don't want you here.

Re:In Defense of Obama (4, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948487)

Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket,

Economic policies have long lag times. It has taken 6 years to the results of Greenspan's low interest rate regime. Similarly, Volcker's policies were very unpopular when they were implemented, but they paid off 3-4 years later.

You judge a president by whether he has the balls to not push the cost on to future generations and make politically unpopular decisions. A good president would say "we've spent way more than what we have, so let's take the pain for the next 4-5 years and make sure our children are not burdened".

Don't hold your breath to see someone like that.

Re:In Defense of Obama (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948563)

I think I can expect a little more from my government than cash in my pocket and no occupying forces in my neighborhood. In particular the way the government treats minorities of various kinds (both in terms of physical characteristics and ideological views) is very important - even if the average person ends up better as a result. Should I be happy if the government institutes slavery if it makes me weathier and doesn't cause a war - I should think not!

I can't say I'm surprised by the current administration - it is all working out basically how I thought it would. I'm sure that Obama will right some of Bush's wrongs, and create more than a few wrongs of his own. Republicans will hail him as the antichrist, and Democrats will hail him as the messiah. Eventually the Democrats will make some major blunder and the Republicans will sweep in to save the country. Lather, rinse, repeat... No doubt the promoted special interests will be different, but corruption will be there.

The one thing that gives me hope is that it would be very difficult for the next four years to be as bad as the last four were. It is certainly possible, but I'd think it would be difficult to pull off even by design. That doesn't give the current administration a free pass when they blunder, and it doesn't make any Republican proposal not worth considering...

Re:In Defense of Obama (1)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948565)

tell that to NIXION

Re:In Defense of Obama (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948679)

How did the parent get modded flamebait? Does someone have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term flamebait?

Re:In Defense of Obama (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948909)

It's funny, but all I was arguing was that the very arguments we conservatives used to defend Bush should apply to Obama as well. Like, if Obama does something that we though Bush did that was ok, why should we be up in arms about it? If you agree that Dick Cheney was right about the Presidency needing to reassert itself over a pathetic Congress, then, that reassertion should apply to the left wing as well as the right, even though we may not agree with the results.

Re:In Defense of Obama (4, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949275)


Do not ignore the many non-partisan people who object to any wrong-doing on any party's part. Excusing every wrong by pointing out that someone else did the same wrong, does not lead to a situation with less wrong-doing, but rather more.

My vote is for a Republic, and Harding (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949465)

Liberals regard Warren G Harding as the worst President ever. He was the epitome of smoke filled room deals .. getting the Presidential nomination in one, and his own Presidency was just mired in scandal, from womanizing, conflicts of interests, and bribes. Were he around today, he'd be impeached a week after swearing the oath. But....

During his administration, he cut taxes, deregulated, and also cut spending to match, and the economy boomed. Unemployment fell to a record 1.9%, a record which STILL stands.

Re:In Defense of Obama (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949037)

The problem is, today's presidents have more power than the constitution gave to them. Specifically, read the "war powers act". The constitution certainly gave the president no "war powers". Only Congress is supposed to have the power of war. The president's duty is to execute the war, after Congress declares it. The war powers act is a perfect example of what a bunch of idiot politicians can do when they start dicking with things they do not understand.

Re:In Defense of Obama (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949205)

The problem is, today's presidents have more power than the constitution gave to them. Specifically, read the "war powers act". The constitution certainly gave the president no "war powers".

The thing is, the Founding Father's established the limited ability of the President to engage in military action without congressional consent. Washington did not require consent to declare martial law and put down the Whiskey rebellion, and Jefferson did not seek federal consent for the missions to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates and undeclared naval war against the French.

As a matter of tradition too, even though they are not a "declaration of war" in the sense that they do not say "we the USA declare war", Bush the Junior did seek and did get congressional authorizations to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Even LBJ sought and got approval to invade Viet Nam with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So... my question is, what did the War Powers Act actually change? Not much. Before the War Powers Act, the President had a certain discretion for quick and dirty military operations per his charge to defend the constitution and in his capacity as Commander in Chief, and after the war powers act, he has the same. Both parties know that a significant military adventure requires some form of consent by Congress, and abide by that.

I note with irony that as much as Jefferson railed against Federal Power and the power of the President, he did all sorts of stuff that he would have previously argued unconstitutional, giving both liberals and conservatives sufficient room to argue that he was really a liberal or a conservative, and he remains one of this country's most popular presidents. Now that, my friend, is some politician!

Re:In Defense of Obama (2, Interesting)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949211)

The President needs to be held accountable to the constituency. If he's done something illegal or illicit, he needs to be held accountable to it, which was the point of the missing emails, hiding it. I agree there are more heinous things that Bush and Cheney should be put on trial for, but hopefully this is a step forward.

The ends justify the means is against everything the country stands for and is fighting against. If we ok that, we ok terrorism because they are only fighting for their own freedom through extreme and desperate measures.

Re:In Defense of Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949267)

We should all remember the actions of the "right" during the Clinton administration. No issue was too petty for republican's to generate a subpoena (via their boy Ken Star) to be followed by their shills in the media calling for Clinton's head.

It is disingenuous to claim that the "left" is unprincipled and operating in bad faith because they use the same tactic. But republican has become synonymous with hypocrisy so it is no surprise.

 

One month... (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948379)

The new Administration has fallen far short of a lot of people's expectations, including mine. Two points though. One, it's been only a month. And two, if you consider the situation that they have been handed, I think they are at least trying to do best that they can. I can't comment on the e-mail case specifically, but I have done a lot of reading on the black hole of illegally held terrorism suspects. In that case, they have two choices: bring lawsuits against a greater part of the current government and past governments involved, or do the right thing from here on out.

Personally, I would love to see every senior officer kicked out in disgrace over what they have done to American principle. Even if it's often violated in secret, at least we could pretend that we had some moral standards. But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job. If the new Administration spent years wringing the necks of officers following orders, would the chain of command still work?

Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail. And sure, the economic crisis may be something that the Obama Administration is intentionally overplaying in order to have some breathing room on everything else. They're not stupid, so they either believe the situation is that dire, or they are pretending to for political purposes.

For the sake of argument, imagine if you bought out a poorly run company. You may find mountains of incriminating papers, a staff that was half corrupted, and accountants who deserve to be set on fire. But if you're to turn this company around, would the smart thing to do be to march them all into the street for a mob lynching, or quietly and over time reform the company without completely ruining it's reputation in the process? The absolutely right thing to do is probably bankrupt the company and start over. It may be that in the current steaming pile of shit situation that the Bush dynasty has left us, re-forming the government is correct, but reforming the government is prudent.

Re:One month... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948497)

Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail.

Pretty good reason sabotage the economy and create a nice distraction. Works better than a sex scandal.

Re:One month... (2, Insightful)

bechthros (714240) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948689)

i mostly agree with you. i'm gonna godwin myself, though, and say that

"But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job."

is exactly what all the nazis said at nuremburg. "i was just following orders." well, some orders are just evil. and it's every human being's responsibility to know that. if i showed up tomorrow and my boss said, "lock this guy up. don't let him see a lawyer. don't tell him what he's done wrong. then beat the crap out of him and pour water down his throat until he's starting to die a little" i would NOT DO IT. neither would you. THAT's the real issue.

Re:One month... (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949419)

Yes, creating the RAT board was certainly the best way to create honesty in government. Lets force our inspector generals to clear any controversial investigations with Congress and the RAT board. That's a good idea.

Re:CHANGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948411)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/02/21/0221clinton.html

There will be no change today. Just because Obama is president doesn't mean the way government and big business operate is going to change.

What Clinton has done has made me think twice about Obama and his cronies. Did we really get change or just more of the same?

Re:CHANGE (-1, Troll)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948455)

Yes, because Obama has REALLY fucked the country over in his 1 Month in office. In case you haven't figured it out I'll paraphrase Obama, "He Won". If you feel like you are being fucked I hope you have a lot of vaseline cause you are going to need it.

Re:CHANGE (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949771)

Or as the joke went "Hope and Change: Obama hopes you don't notice the only change is from a Rep to a Dem in the White House." but I think Bill Hicks nailed [youtube.com] this one over a decade ago. Sadly cancer took him away from us too soon, because his wit could sure be used right about now.

Pretty much the only "choice" we have in voting anymore is Coke VS Pepsi. Because both sides are bought before you ever get a chance to say anything. And the only problem with "The lesser of two evils" is you're always voting for evil,no matter what.

Apparently (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948163)

They didn't get the email.

missing emails .. (5, Insightful)

viralMeme (1461143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948193)

Does anyone seriously believe the excuses [washingtonpost.com] as to how the emails went 'missing'?. Even if they deleted the emails there would be numerous copies on the backup tapes.

openness (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948489)

If we had a completely open government [metagovernment.org] , this sort of problem wouldn't exist.

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948663)

Open government is not the American way. We get strength through _pretending_ to be a democracy, not by actually doing it!

Re:openness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949333)

And Pakistan is doing so much better?

backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948545)

Does anyone seriously believe the excuses [washingtonpost.com] as to how the emails went 'missing'?. Even if they deleted the emails there would be numerous copies on the backup tapes.

You're assuming they were competent enough to actually be doing backups.

Re:missing emails .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949181)

if an email is deleted before the backup process runs there will be no backup.

The excuses actually seem pretty plausible to me. Archiving all email isn't easy, and without directly being told I can see how the RNC IT guys would overlook it.

Re:missing emails .. (1)

Monkeyman334 (205694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949197)

Wow, good idea, except that was in TFA:
Recently, the Bush White House said it had located 14 million e-mails that were misplaced and that the White House had restored hundreds of thousands of other e-mails from computer backup tapes. The steps the White House took are inadequate, one of the two groups, the National Security Archive, told a federal judge in court papers filed Friday.
They even use "emails" as the plural "email" like you do.

The stimulus package concession? (1, Flamebait)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948203)

Is this the "concession" to the republicans for the stimulus package?

Re:The stimulus package concession? (1)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949105)

I think they'd have had to actually vote for it (excluding the 3 house RINOs) for there to be concessions.

The bailout mascot (3, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948231)

new government mascot [imagehost.org]

Re:The bailout mascot (1)

Ardeaem (625311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948783)

Did I miss something? How is this post on topic?

Re:The bailout mascot (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949123)

You missed something.

who would do the work? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948237)

Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails? If the task falls to Obama's staff who weren't even there during the whole Bush thing, then I can't really blame him. If you took on a new job, would you like to be told that rather than focus on the tasks that they were hired to do, instead your staff was going to have to digging around through your predecessors crap to try to find something that may or may not be there?

Re:who would do the work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948287)

Hah! It's Obama, so you "can't really blame them," but I bet if McCain won, you wouldn't be so forgiving.

Re:who would do the work? (2, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948537)

If McCain won the least of our worries would be Bush's emails but the fact the old man will keel over any day and leave a complete dimwit in control of the country.

Re:who would do the work? (3, Funny)

bechthros (714240) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948703)

"and leave a complete dimwit in control of the country." ...again...

Job creation. (4, Funny)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948291)

Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails? If the task falls to Obama's staff who weren't even there during the whole Bush thing, then I can't really blame him. If you took on a new job, would you like to be told that rather than focus on the tasks that they were hired to do, instead your staff was going to have to digging around through your predecessors crap to try to find something that may or may not be there?

they can hire extra IT staff to do the job.

See, job creation!

Re:who would do the work? (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948297)

"Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails?"

If there was openness and transparency in these things, then the person/s or organizations wanting the records in the first place could be enlisted to aid in their recovery thus freeing "your staff [from] digging around through your predecessors crap".

Unless, of course, there's something there that you wish to hide.

Re:who would do the work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948779)

Unless, of course, there's something there that you wish to hide.

What could Obama possibly have to hide? He's been there a month.

Re:who would do the work? (1)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949743)

That is what scares me. Only one month and he has things to hide.

Re:who would do the work? (2, Interesting)

INT_QRK (1043164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948711)

I'm quite certain that President Obama and his staff recognize, now that they are in executive power, that any precedent weakening executive privilege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege) also weakens separation of powers, and would very likely come back on him in the future. In politics, what goes around very often comes back around. So, every opponent wants more "open" policy making, while every executive wants to be able to have his ducks in a row to fight once, rather that dying by a thousand cuts while opponents criticize every step of the sausage making process.

Have you ever had a job? (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949185)

Who would have to do the work hunting down the "missing" emails?

Someone appointed/hired by Obama's administration.

If the task falls to Obama's staff who weren't even there during the whole Bush thing, then I can't really blame him.

If you were hired in the civilian sector and one of the things you sold yourself on to your new boss was your belief in email recovery, wouldn't you expect to be asked to do just that?

If you took on a new job, would you like to be told that rather than focus on the tasks that they were hired to do, instead your staff was going to have to digging around through your predecessors crap to try to find something that may or may not be there?

Get a job in IT. That's what I have to go through ALL THE TIME.

What decisions were made.

Why were those specific decisions made.

How were they implemented.

Why were they implemented in that specific way.

And yes, a LOT of it DOES involve going through my predecessor's email and notes.

If I am hired to recover the email, I work on recovering the email. Even if I have to recommend bringing in a recovery specialist. There are 300 million people in the USofA. It shouldn't be that difficult to find a few people to handle this. Instead, he's arguing against even TRYING.

Re:Have you ever had a job? (0, Troll)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949759)

Obama's staff is on a budged. The more people he hires, the more he needs to ask the RIAA for money. Lucky for him, he got some RIAA people working with him.

I dunno. (5, Insightful)

Aaron_Pike (528044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948299)

I kinda like leaving it the courts. If it does go to court and a decision is rendered, it might help stop future sneaky behavior. Wishful thinking, I know, but it'd offer better protection than just capitulating would.

Just More of the Same Change ... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948303)

The only change in the Obama administration is the change in Obama's pockets.

Since Obama took over the presidency, he has doubled the amount of governmental spending. He has spent more as a percentage of the GDP than any other president in history. He has yet to cut any wasteful programs as he reiterated again and again during the campaign.

After spending record amounts of money without cutting any "wasteful" programs, he now claims he wants to reduce the deficit by 2/3 by increasing the tax on the employers. (Who do you think the "rich" are anyway???) What monies are the "rich" going to use for the development of their businesses? (No, you can not write it all off. If you buy a $100,000 piece of equipment, you can only depreciate 1/5th of it per year. And that only writes off the taxes not the full amount anyway). The employers will keep their expensive homes -- by laying off workers.

He has had to recant most of his cabinet picks because they hadn't paid their taxes or were under investigation. (The funny thing is that the Obama Administration KNEW about these problems but thought that people would give them a pass.)

An amazing number of the rest of his appointees are direct holdovers from the Clinton Administration. Yep, that's change alright.

When he closed Guantanimo, he didn't even know what bill he was signing until his attorney told him at the signing / press conference or what would happen to the prisoners. (Literally, he asked his attorney "what happens to the prisoners" to which his attorney told him: "We will form an exploratory committee.") Do you get the feeling Obama is simply a patsy for the rest of the DNC? He certainly isn't leading, Reed and Pelosi are.

Obama is a wonderful speaker. I'll give him that. But all the rest of Obama is fluff and hot air. It is amazing that the American public were dupped into voting for someone with NO RECORD and NO EXPERIENCE. In his single term in the Senate, he voted "present" more often than he voted for or against anything.

Don't expect any change. Obama's brother in Africa lives in the slums and makes $20/year. Obama never gave his family member any of the change from his pocket -- don't expect him to do the same for you.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948625)

Too bad this is moderated down -- It's 99% accurate. I'm not aware of him voting "present" in the US senate, though. Not that it matters much, since he spent 2 years in the senate then was "not present" for 2 years while running for President.

It seems like he's unwilling to make any real choices, though. Like an 800 million stimulus bill, and he's happy to have 0 input on it. Or putting Hillary Clinton in the state department and letting her install all her cronies (who are there because they're loyal to her, not because they're competent).

Obama gives a nice speech, but he doesn't show any signs of leadership.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948677)

Sorry that I am again replying to my own post. That should have been: Too bad this is moderated up -- It's 99% inaccurate.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948739)

Sorry, I was right the first time. Obama just makes me want to flip-flop.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949367)

Hillary Clinton's appointment to Secretary of State also reveals that his claims of being a Constitutional scholar are a sham. Article 1 section 6 of the federal constitution prohibits any member of congress from being appointed to any federal office during the term for which they were elected if that position was created during their term or the wages were increased during their term. Obama's "solution" (which, admittedly, has some erroneous "precedent") was to have Congress reduce the wages to what they were when Clinton was elected to the Senate. Sorry, it still violates the plain language of the constitution.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949461)

Actually, he cited the Lord of the Rings and the specific wording of that section "during the Time for which he was elected" Since Hilary Clinton is NOT a "he" this doesn't apply.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (2, Insightful)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949241)

he now claims he wants to reduce the deficit by 2/3 by increasing the tax on the employers. (Who do you think the "rich" are anyway???)

Why shouldn't the rich pay more taxes than the poor?

Haven't you ever heard of Robin Hood? You do realize he was one of the good guys, right?

With Bush, we reduced taxes on the rich. Did their money trickle down? Not so much. Instead, they used it to inflate a huge stock market bubble. Now, everyday Americans see their retirement savings cut in half.

Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.

(The same mistake was made before the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, though other mistakes were made too.)

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949485)

He was a quasi-good guy in an economic situation so different from the current one as to make it incomparable, and when the 'rightful king' stepped back in he quite quickly stopped dicking around. Not to mention that it wasn't a stock market bubble, it was a housing bubble, which caused everything else to crash. If the housing bubble hadn't been created in the first place, the market still probably would have been above 10,000 points, but since it did crash it wiped out all the major money dealers, which caused the disturbances since.

Re:Just More of the Same Change ... (2, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949573)

Seems like not taxing the rich was a huge mistake.

No, the mistake is claiming that the rich aren't being taxed.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml [cbo.gov]

In 2005, the top 20% paid 86.3% of federal income taxes, and 68.7% of all federal taxes (social security, individual and corporate income, excise). The average pre-tax income in that quintile was $231,500, although that was adjusted for household size. See the footnotes for an explanation.

For the top 10%, it was 72.7% and 54.7%, on average pre-tax income of $339,100.
For the top 5%, it was 60.7% and 43.8%, on average pre-tax income of $520,200.
And for the top 1%, it was 38.8% and 27.6%, on average pre-tax income of $1,558,500.

The same URL provides information about effective tax rates, which range from 25.2% for the top 20% to 31.4% for the top 1%, when accounting for all taxes.

In comparison, the lowest 20% paid 0.9% of all federal taxes, on average pre-tax income of $15,800. The facts are a lot different than the propaganda.

The New IBM PC Jr 9000 (2, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948321)

Now with tint control!

Re:The New IBM PC Jr 9000 (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948405)

Now with tint control!

Please somebody mod this hilarious.

Re:The New IBM PC Jr 9000 (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948835)

the sound system sounds a lot better, but the performance is the same

Here in Mexico... (4, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948393)

we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.

Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?

Re:Here in Mexico... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948599)

an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out

No, one would not.

One would expect to be promised such things, but one should never expect a small event like an election to wipe out something as pervasive as corruption.
ESPECIALLY in a place as thoroughly corrupt on all levels as Mexico.

That's like saying that with a diagnosis of metastasizing cancer, one would expect total remission after the first treatment. One should not.

Re:Here in Mexico... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948709)

ESPECIALLY in a place as thoroughly corrupt on all levels as Mexico.

The simple truth is that the US is at least as corrupt as Mexico - War On Drugs, while we're the world's largest consumers. World's largest per-capita polluters. World's largest arms dealer (including the biological WMDs that Saddam used to have that we knew were over their expiry date.)

In Mexico, the cops left the police force to join the drug producers. In the USA, the cops are part of the drug economy.

Re:Here in Mexico... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949423)

State Dept liberals approved the sale of dual use biological and chemical precursors, over the objections of Defense Dept conservatives.

Once again, liberals fuck America and try to pass the buck.

I swear, they're like a pervert and a retarded girl. "Sorry you got raped last night. Let me walk you home."

maybe I'm naive (1)

Immerial (1093103) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948431)

...but I think they are still on auto-pilot. The economy has been the big crisis that they are concentrating on. Once this news item floats up, then it will be interesting to see if there is any response and the kind of response. Past articles point to similar experiences. Certain cases and ruling proceed as planned with no directive (or acknowledgment) given from above yet. I presume once he sets his sights on this in the news, the direction will be reversed. But the again I might be naive.

Slashdot versus Reality (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948571)

Slashdot articles about Obama are hilarious. There's always the initial, hysterical article about how Obama is doing something oh-so-terrible (e.g. killing net neutrality). Then, some days or weeks later (if we're lucky) there will be a followup article calmly stating that the previous article was overreacting (e.g. nothing against net neutrality in the stimulus bill).

Remember all those complains about the stimulus package being full of pork? Then we discover that the supposed "pork" is actually money for schools and Internet access.

I have no doubt that this effect is replaying itself yet again. It's a good sign that there are so few real scandals that we have to invent our own, but a bad sign that we are so eager to be distracted by scandal.

Re:Slashdot versus Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948585)

Someone needs to mod that post ^^^^ up as insightful and informative.

You don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948453)

You guys don't get it.

The deleted emails were from the Bush admin.

The whole point of finding them would be purely for political gain. By attempting to dismiss this case, Obama is tring to focus on real issues.

There is no doubt in my mind that if those emails surfaced it would be extremly bad for both the Bush admin and the republican party. That notwithstanding, Obama realizes that we currently have real problems, problems that won't be solved merely by pointing out where the stemmed from.

The fact is... (2, Interesting)

Mazcote Yarquest (1407219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948511)


if ANYONE had ANYTHING on Bush he would have been impeached a long time ago...
This tells me that they are all corrupt, we NEED a viable third (or more) political party(ies)!
Namely someone who respects the Constitution.

Every president ever has done something like this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948531)

Every president since the concept of executive privilege has fought tooth and nail for it. This includes defending your predecessor's use of it. Regardless of intent, Obama could be hurt by a ruling against the previous administration.

New solution! Prevention! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26948613)

At least there won't be a problem with future emails, after the Obama administration crashed their mail server. No emails, no problem. Maybe they should just give all the server's disks to the courts and let them find what they can.

Get over it (1)

terryfunk (60752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948879)

Bush is gone...time to move on. How much longer are people gonna beat up on him and better yet what good will it REALLY do?

This is getting ridiculous (4, Insightful)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948887)

So basically, all of the the talk of transparency was lip service, either that - or they have been made aware of what the content of those emails will show.

Obama is showing hypocrisy in record time, he's barely been in a month. It's not like he is reneging on a campaign promise, it sure makes it seem like practically his ENTIRE stated message about transparency in government was total bullshit.

I wanted Ron Paul, and I think that anybody who understands how our government really functions these days, the constitution, the lessons of history as they relate to empires and our debt based Federal Reserve manipulated economy who got a chance to hear his message likely did too...

Unfortunately I think the current state of the economy and it's effect on the day to day lives of most Americans is spec-fuckin-tacular compared to where it's headed - We're following the path of the Weimar Republic here, and guess how that turned out...

I live right next door to independence hall - it's literally something I see when I walk outside of my home every morning; I see that, and the eternal flame which burns at the mass graves of al of the unknown revolutionary solders buried in Washington Sq ....it's really sad, and sadness is what I feel every time I see these reminders of our history and founding...our empire is crumbling and most of the people on the street don't even know what the word "empire" means and how it applies to America today and are more interested in some Hip Hop MTV retard beating his girlfriend or what happened on TV last night. We don't need to be an empire, empires always end one way.

After Obama won (and out of him and McCain) I figured he would be better choice out of the two because at least he was saying he wanted to limit executive power and was all about openness, etc, etc ad infinitum - I knew the guy was a politician, but given the passion with which he seemed infused with he seemed to have some integrity....I guess we'll see how much he really does....

Right now think the best thing people can do is support the states rights movement - 20 states are taking action to formally remind the federal government of the limits of their power under the 10th Amendment, 20 states are re-asserting sovereignty under the 10th amendment - There is some great stuff going on in New Hampshire also - it seems they really do want to 'live free or die' there...; PA rep Sam Rohrer is heavily active in promoting these resolutions , and it's very important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbrXnYJOo [youtube.com]

If you are concerned about what the federal government is doing - make sure to support the resolutions, in the state, in the house and senate by contacting your reps.

can you say... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 5 years ago | (#26948901)

bait and switch....?

Re:can you say... (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949091)

I suggest that people monitor the following site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]

It gives a good overall view of whether it is 'bait and switch' or not.

So far the meter shows 15 promises kept and 2 broken. That is almost close to 90%. I'd say that is a pretty good score.

Re:can you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949477)

That site doesn't even mention all his broken promises about transparency and such.

Re:can you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949807)

I promise never to rape anyone.

I promise never to kill anyone.

I promise never to steal ID.

I promise never to beat up a child.

So, if I keep the first two, do I get credit for 50%?

"Ethical and transparent," he promised.

Oh, and smaller budget and massive government services.

If you voted for Zero, if you still believe he gives a shit about you, you just need your face smashed in with a ball bat.

He never promised he wouldn't do that, though. So it's not a violation of his campaign, right?

Worth reading-Empire by Orson Scott Card (1)

CrankinOut (629561) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949015)

I've just finished reading this novel. The interesting theme that Card points out is that intensive partisanship is a destructive force. In an even more interesting afterword, Card identifies himself as a recipient of both radical and reactionary ostracism as a tendency away from moderation and idiological tolerance.

My personal opinion is that the world has more serious issues to deal with than a witchhunt into the past. I'd rather the new administration be forward-looking, constructive, and collaborative instead of backward-focused, destructive, and contentious. Difficult times call for solving present problems in the future, not solving past problems in the present. The election did the latter.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26949203)

"The AP reports that the Obama administration has picked up where the Bush administration left off on the missing White House email issue..."

The White House is missing? Someone sent an email about it?

To quote The Who (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949701)

Meet your new boss... same as the old boss...

Hard or Soft fascism. That was the choice. (2, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#26949717)

I keep hearing about how Obama represents a "Mixed Bag".

Whatever. The whole show keeps moving forward. Keep an eye out for the "Amero".

And when the rocks start falling, people will be willing to follow this president to the shelters. Just remember, that barbed wire is for our protection. Don't be alarmed by the fact that it's facing inwards. I'm sure there will be a good rationalization for that.

-FL

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?