Obama blocks list of visitors to White House

[kpete]

Source: MSNBC

Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs

By Bill Dedman

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.

CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407 /

[MNDemNY]

1. Defenders?? Anyone???

[Javaman]

37. I'm waiting for the folks who say...

"Obama is a poker player, a long term viewer, he wouldn't be doing this unless he has a master plan, it will all be revealed later that it is actually a stroke of genius", blah blah blah.

So tiring.

I now am giving limited support to Obama, but I am just going to say, he was never my first choice. Kucinich was my guy.

[LisaM]

121. You forgot a couple

We have to trust "our" president! He knows what he's doing!

[pundaint]

202. No, he has to earn our trust

Aside from talking points, I am seeing no improvement. Time to retire the Repugs, admit that the Dems have occupied the right wing, and add a new second party for the majority of us - the People's Party, I only trust Democrats to CAVE IN to the Repugs, that is the trust they continue to earn every day.

[happygoluckytoyou]

255. stem cell is back... green energy is on the table... global opinion... IM NOT READY TO WRITE HIM OFF

i agree he has a lot to prove.... but he has taken steps in several areas which i appreciate----- AND HE HASN'T CLEARED A SINGLE ACRE OF TEXAS BRUSH...
taken steps on health care... education... jobs... stimulus package... focus on leaving iraq and on afghanistan... loosened restrictions on CUBA...

HE WAS NOT ELECTED ONLY BY PROGRESSIVES.... HE HAS A GREAT MANDATE, BUT IT HAS A BASE IN "SOMEWHAT LEFT OF CENTER"


not perfect by any means------- but....

[happygoluckytoyou]

256. oh.... and an american president who SAYS there should be a 2-state solution in the mid-east...

come on.... how about a little credit for the guy

[FedUp_Queer]

309. Credit, eh?

Keeping Bagram (Guantanamo in Afghanistan open); allowing further discharges under DADT; continuing TARP; oh, and we can NOT forget Mr. "Fierce Advocate" for we GLBT folks. Wow...with "Fierce Advocates" like that, who NEEDS the right wing...oh wait, Dick Cheney and Ted Olson are to the left of Mr. "Fierce Advocate" on these issues. Give me a break. Obama has made some changes, yes, but "Change We Can Believe In?" Not hardly. He DOES give a good speech (and to think I supported him).

[allincompassing]

297. Pay close attention, I'm only going to say this once!

THE MILITARY STRATEGY OF DIVIDE and conquer--as first developed by the Chinese general, Sun Tzu, 2,500 years ago--has been used successfully down the centuries by empire builders as a means to subdue subjugated nations, thus maintaining power more easily.

If you want to know what's changed since Pres. Obama got in office, check out this link

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

If you want to know why he can't divulge who is visiting the Whitehouse, read the following book.

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty the Powerful forces that put it in the Whitehouse, and what their
Influence means to America.

MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS all represent specific corporate interest that are going to lose money as Pres.
Obama's legislative agenda moves forward. Most importantly, peace in the middle-east represents the single
greatest threat to the Military War profiteers. There are powerful Israeli Lobbyist that will do anything to
defeat the presidents middle-east agenda. Haven't you noticed that none of the potential defeats in congress
reared their ugly little heads until he started to put pressure on Israel. Aipac owns our government, and for the
first time in almost 50 years we are addressing that issue. If you really want to know what to do, check out this photo!

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/09/awesome_h...

[FedUp_Queer]

310. Thanks for the clarification.

Secrecy is good when the "good guys" do it, but bad when "they" do. Gotcha!!!

[barbtries]

179. me too

after i gave up on Gore.

but i was positively euphoric when obama won in november. today i am sad.

[MNDemNY]

221. No not poker, chess....

bad news is that we are all just pawns.

[ChazII]

223. Sadly, I agree with you. Pawns

in a chess game describes what we are in this political game.

[Mike K]

238. Obama vs Kucinich

Mine, too. Even though it seemed clear that Kucinich wouldn't stand a chance in our corrupted political system I was extremely disappointed by the margin he lost by.

Although Obama is a vast improvement over Bush it seems rather clear that he is in the pocket of the finance industry. I believe a Kucinich presidency was necessary for the resurrection of America as we've known it in the past. We're not going to see that with Obama.

[pokercat999]

248. I don't think Kucinich would have brought back an old

America. I think he would have made a new America, much better for average people, much stronger in the world via peace, more valuable for future generations and maybe for the first time in a long time, maybe for the first time ever.......he would have brought JUSTICE, to America.

Too bad we got Obama, the slightly better choice than the rethug guy. I know some reading this will fame me, call me a DINO or worse, but sometimes it tough to face the truth. LOOK AT THE POLICIES, NOT THE MAN! President Obama is a beautiful figurehead, his speeches are superb, his family and his life is one the whole of America can admire.........JUST LOOK AT HIS POLICIES.

[Celtic_88]

262. Look At his policies!

I am looking at them!
I don't like what i'm seeing .. I wonder did I do the wrong thing when I voted for him. I have 3 more years to make up my mind on if I'll vote for him again/ Right now I would say no!

[NJmaverick]

48. All I can offer up is fact

<<Asked Monday whether the White House plans to continue to oppose release of the records, White House spokesman LaBot said the policy is still under review. >>

[MNDemNY]

What on earth needs to be "reviewed"???? That is crap.

[No Elephants]

332. You are not offering facts but WH attempts to have it both ways in the mind of the public. The case

is now in the court system. You don't fight a case in court without first deciding how you want the case to come out. And, with court deadlines, you don't have the luxury of taking forever to make that decision.

Putting what the WH said in the very best possible light, the WH is saying, "We don't want to be legally obligated to provide this information, but we may decide to provide it voluntarily." That is not satisfactory because once the court precedent is set, it's set for a very long time. We might have another Obama in there, or we might have another Nixon in there. I want the law to favor disclosure.

Here is a President who ran on transparency, fighting in court to keep secret what was available to the public until Dummya got into the WH. Transparency in government does not mean, "We'll tell you everything we're perfectly comfortable telling you and not a whit more."

[glitch]

49. It's only been 5 months!

It takes time to unblock the list of visitors you know.

[ooglymoogly]

65. Meanwhile he has been a legislative and monetary goldmine

for the rabid right wing zealot pugs.

[saigon68]

306. K & R

He's on his way to being a 1 term president like bush 1

[razorman]

66. It would take about 5 minutes with a Presidential order.

[No Elephants]

333. Just make the logs available for the press to copy and then worry about whether an order is needed..

[jakeXT]

96. I wonder if it's all according to the timeline or if public opinion is still good

among uninformed voters.



After a round of applause, Biden continued.

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it. This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going 'oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough? We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

Noting that he's a practicing Irish-Catholic, the Delaware lawmaker said, "Let's not be, for those of a different faith remember St. Peter denied Christ thrice, you know? We don't need anybody denying us, this is gonna be tough. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go 'whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/joe_biden_seatt...

[glitch]

280. Hoo boy, "if they're popular they're probably not sound"

They ask for faith in them but they have no confidence in us.

[Bushknew]

230. That's right, give some more time Geez!

[No Elephants]

335. Takes a lot more time to fight in court to keep logs secret than it does to make the logs available

Besides, I think Reply 49 was highly sarcastic.

[AllTooEasy]

110. Yes, I'll defend.

Is the issue with Obama or the Secret Service? In many respects, the secret service does what it wants and the President(their boss) can't do anything about it. For instance, there was time when you could drive right past the WH gates. After a mad man opened unloaded an AKA from the sidewalk in the WH's direction during Clinton's administration, the Secret Service blocked off surrounding streets. You can walk pass the WH after you go through security check, but it's all blocked off to cars now, traffic congestion is worse, and it's an eye soar. Clinton tried several times to reopen the streets and...drum role please...the Secret Service (Clinton's employee's) told him NO! The WH area still looks like crap! You can google all of this.

I would like to see the records open, but I'm not sure where my WTF should be directed now that I know that the Secret Sevice is envoled. I understand and appreciate their job and sacrifice, but those guys can snatch the president off his wife in mid stroke if their rational has anything to do with "the president's safety". Their unchecked discretion has always worried me.

[LisaM]

117. What was the policy under Clinton?

That's what I want to know. Is Obama continuing changes implemented under Bush?

IIRC, Clinton got a lot of grief about anyone who came to the WH while he was there.

[liberation]

140. Why would Clinton be considered the Litmus test for this case?

Who cares what Clinton did or didn't do.

The White House is public property, unless the President is paying the rent from his pocket, the list of visitors should be public. Period. I don't care who is in office...

[marshall]

142. Maybe Babs jumping on the Lincoln bedroom bed is what sparked the secrecy

Remember the tabloids harping about the Hollywood elite who were visiting during the Clinton years. I'm sure the Clintons didn't like their guest list being ridiculed.

[liberation]

147. Again... I don't care what the president likes or does not like...

he lives in public housing. There are some compromises that come with the free rent...

If Clinton did not want to be made fun for inviting the "Hollywood Elite" he was free to not invite the "Hollywood Elite." I am just tired of politicians always trying to have it both ways. They have no problem stripping us of our privacy, even when we are in the midst of our very own home. Yet they require the upmost secrecy even when they enjoy public property.

I am just tired of the government requesting compromises from its citizens, while they do not even pretend to even try to compromise on anything themselves.

[Seldona]

210. I disagree entirely.

Just because he was elected to be President doesn't mean he gives up ALL privacy. Like we own him or something?

I agree there are a lot of things he gives up. The right to privacy in one's own home, even if it is the Whitehouse, shouldn't be one of them. What's next, live feeds from every room? Give me a break.

[liberation]

214. If Obama had not supported things like FISA, yeah... I can see where the benefit of the doubt comes.

However, If Mr. Obama has no problem with me having to give up my privacy.... in my own house (for which I paid BTW). Rest assured, I am not going to shed a tear when he has to surrender his privacy regarding his guest staying in public property and supported with our own dime.

So how does Mr. Obama like them apples now, eh? I would be first in line defending Obama's right to privacy, if he had extended the same courtesy to us. Since he hasn't, probably... taking him to task on this issue, may "enlighten" him?

[orleans]

283. wrong. he lives in the PEOPLE'S house--he signed up for the job and

understands the job description. olbermann said this shit has gone to court TWICE during the bush era and TWICE the judge ruled that the list should be made PUBLIC. the second ruling came in this past january. after the first ruling homeland security got involved and the judge still ruled that the visitor's log should be public. this white house is following "rules" made up in bushworld when it does shit like this.

[No Elephants]

336. Straw man. An exception can be made for anyone whose visit did not involve government business. So,

if Michelle's brother visits to see his family, no need to publicize. On the other hand, if he lobbied for funds for his school while in the WH, note his visit.

It's not as though people who run for the Presidency don't know before they run that their lives will be under a microscope. The powers and privileges of the office are worth it to them.

I can see wanting to shield people who had no choice in the matter, like Michelle's brother, but, as I said, exceptions can be made. Besides, what need really is there to hide the fact that a friend or a relative is making a personal visit? Typically, people are not ashamed of being in the inner circle of the President or First Lady.

[LisaM]

193. Thanks for playing "Missing the Point".

Bush put in a lot of secrecy policies. Clinton was not only the president prior to Bush, he took a whole lot of crap for visitors to the White House. I don't expect Obama to be as poorly treated as Clinton was - it kind of set the standard - but I do expect him to undo bad Bush policy.

[liberation]

211. I think you are the one who completely missed my point...

... I don't care what Clinton did or did not do. I am tired of the law and common sense being subdued by precedent. Because it always boils down to try to justify that if a Dem does it, it is OK.

If Obama, or any administration, want to have their guest in public property hidden from public records, they are free to rent a conference room in a motel with their own money and meet at will...

[LisaM]

216. I don't think it's okay at all!

I just think that Clinton took a lot of crap during his presidency, which effectively prevented him from getting a lot of stuff done.

[liberation]

236. I think in that case it took two to tango. The GOP's shenanigans and Clinton political instincts...

... getting the best of him. A president needs to adapt his MO to the law, not the other way around. Eliminating something that should be public domain, because it is inconvenient for the political interests of the president... is a very dangerous precedent IMHO.

So maybe Obama is a swell guy, and he pinky swears he is not going to invite any shady character over. That is not good enough, not when it leaves a mechanism open for future Dick Cheneys to abuse. That is not a risk this country should be willing to take. Furthermore, if Obama does not intend in inviting any shady character, why should he care if the list is accessed by the public?


If Obama wants our trust, he should earn it... just like everybody else. In the same sense I can understand some people saying that his sort term in office is not enough to give a negative verdict regarding his performance... it also works both ways, he hasn't been in office long enough to assume our trust just because. This is one of those situations for which the whole concept of "track record" was created IMHO.

I have lived and worked in places in which I had to disclose my visitors, a tad annoying... but I understood the concept of why those regulations were in place, and I had no issue compromising. I believe the same applies to Mr. Obama... he obviously should have a right to a certain level of privacy. But giving that he lives in public property, sans having to pay rent, and those guests are supported by public dollars during their stay.... I believe having to disclose the names of visitors is a really small compromise. Heck, seems like a swell deal to me... I can trade with Mr. Obama if he wants.

[pokercat999]

253. Thank godness he didn't have time to get anymore of the

rethug agenda passed.

[HarryTrumanDem]

237. Agreed

Really, an argument could be made for like 24/7 webcast from the Big House. The MO-cam!

It's the Peoples' right.

[orleans]

284. what the fuck is a "MO cam" (since you expect to only last a "day or three" n/t

[HarryTrumanDem]

292. Uh

Isn't the f word verboten?


It was a joke, like the other few hundred here, ese. Ah, you appear to be mujer. Either way. Though quite a few progressives have for a few years called for closer monitoring of ALL elected officials, national and state, at least during working hours. Had Bush/cheney been on tape/monitored at all times many problems would have been prevented. Transparency as they say (and that's what this thread concerned). Anyone who thinks Demos should be exempt from that is not an authentic democrat. Let's not forget that Pelosi actually blocked C-SPAN from the House in 2006 as well.

And a bit hypocritical to fly zappa's icon when you appear to be another another moderating, moralizing DINOcrat, and a crass one to boot.

No seniority.

Now, snitch away.

[orleans]

295. dinocrat? ha! go "snitch" yourself!

[MNDemNY]

152. This is not the doing of the SS alone.

[No Elephants]

338. The SS is not elected. They work for Obama. In the end, he has the final say. Witness the

Blackberry brouhaha. The SS is a convenient excuse, though, isn't it?

[LuckyLib]

158. You do not need to go through security to walk around or past the WH.

The streets are blocked off to auto traffic, but foot traffic is fine -- groups or tourists stand around the area all the time. The concrete planters all over DC are to guard against crazy truck bombers -- our most well known, Timothy McVeigh got too close to a building, and these efforts try to preclude that happening in the nation's capital.

[Strong Atheist]

175. Belated Welcome to DU!

[Autonomy]

205. LOL In mid stroke

Giving us sanity and humor in the same post... I am not sure you belong here.

[rhett o rick]

250. with all due respect your argument is bull crap. The Pres can make the decision.

this isn't national security we are talking about. It is a friggin visitors list.
There is no excuse for lack of transparency. I want to know who is visiting MY PRESIDENT.
The secret service works for us.

[pokercat999]

251. Gee let's see how this might go:

The President to his chief of staff "Get me the list of everyone who's visited the WH since I took office"

The President on the phone to Bob Woodward "Bob, how about stopping by I have a list I'd like to get printed in the Washington Post"

Period end of discussion.

[troubledamerican]

272. Scenario. Discuss.

Someone in the FOX News organization obtains a White House Press pass.

Somehow, this pass is "lost" and ends up in the hands of a schizophrenic who is also a member of "NAMBLA", the pro-pedophilia organization (I don't know if this organization still exists, but it did exist back in the 1970s and was a big, big right-wing strawman for a while).

Somehow, this deranged individual shows up at the White House and gets in for five minutes before he's uncovered and kicked out.

Bingo:

FOX News reports the next day that Obama is inviting pedophile organizations into the White House.

I may be wrong on specifics about press passes, etc., and I'm sure the DU COINTELPRO dopes will come out of the woodwork to squeal how this scenario is impossible.

I'm all in favor of holding Obama accountable. But I want to know WHY this policy is considered a good idea by anyone in the White House. So far, all I see are the "Obama-Is-Just-Another-Harry-Reid" crowd and their knee-jerk reactionary lashing out.

[No Elephants]

337. Why isn't the truth a complete solution to your scenario,(which is highly unlikely to begin with)?

Maybe a pigeon will carry off a press pass and give it to Hugo Chavez, too. Let's keep everything as secret as possible so weird stuff that MAY require an explanation from the WH one day never happens.

Sorry, makes no sense. I'd rather have Obama have to explain something now and again than have Cheney like secrecy in place all the time. Better to risk MAYBE taking a few minutes from Obama's schedule than close off the right of people in our democracy to know.

Besides, he frickin' ran on transparency and the logs are not exactly the formula to the hydrogen bomb. Inasmuch as he cannot give me back my donations, time or vote, he should do a lot better with his campaign promises than taking up in court where Buscho left off in every damn court case so far.

[marshall]

144. If it was good enough for Bush.....

But seriously, not EVERYTHING Bush did has to be changed. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[No Elephants]

339. If Bush was correct twice a day, I must have missed it. If I hear a great reason to keep the logs

secret, I'll be the first to admit it. Haven't heard a one yet.

[jhrobbins]

156. No defense here and the reason is exactly what Jonathan Turley

said would happen. He was speaking a couple of years ago when the subject of habeas corpus was the hot topic. I believe Rachel (I'm not sure about this) asked that once a Democrat took office, then of course things would be made right. He said that these rights were not easily regained; that most presidents, even liberal democratic ones, would not relinquish those rights once they had been abrogated by Bush. I guess he was right.

[kallyn]

159. Here you go -- a defense

Per usual the Right and the Outrage Enthusiasts on both sides of the aisle have chosen not to lget a few facts get in the way... Here's how it goes. The watchdog group (CREW) and MSNBC have both requested visitor logs from the Secret Service. The Secret Service sent them a boilerplate response along the lines of "we don't release this information," which is correct: apparently that is Secret Service policy and has been Secret Service policy for as long as anyone can remember. You can understand how the Secret Service would, as a general sort of rule, tend to keep things secret.
CREW unsuccessfully sued the Bush administration for release of these records a couple of years ago, and now are trying the same kind of suit against the Obama administration. For now, the Secret Service is doing its job and saying, "we don't release this stuff." However, according to the blog of ABC News's Jake Tapper, a White House spokesman emailed him that they were in the process of reviewing the visitor log policy and that the "refusal" was basically a simple statement "how visitor logs have been treated historically."

Stealth blogs from the Right are now trying to spin this as "Obama ran on a platform of transparency and now he refuses to share information so he is no better than Bush," i.e., they are concern trolling.

The sensible position in so complicated a system as the White House surely is, "until further notice, continue business as usual." Now that someone has actually *requested* the information, the administration can try to figure out how it can released safely and securely, or if there is some kind of division between public business and private guests. (The example would be: if Tasha and Malia have a sleepover, the names of their guests should be published in a press release?)

[MNDemNY]

161. Did you set up an account just to reply to this???

[kallyn]

166. Well, I'd been meaning to anyhow...

I confess to being a lurker for some time now.
But yes -- that article pushed me over. The extent of the manipulation of any given story is very frustrating. The man is a politician. His halo was not placed upon his brow by a benevolent god, but rather photoshopped on by his more, um, fervent supporters. Still and all, he's what we've got, and he's for sure better than we've had in a looooong time. So maybe we can all breathe for a moment, get the story straight, and then if some reasonable outrage is still indicated, go to. But this? A red herring.

[MNDemNY]

168. He seems to be collecting a lot of these "red herrings".

Soon he will have enough for chowder, then what???I am VERY glad that Obama is President. But I will give no POTUS the benefit of doubt. Openness was one of his campaign planks, this can not stand. I, for one will call him out on this and anything else that I feel I need too. To do any less, does this country no good.

[kallyn]

169. He sure is.

It's going to be a bumpy ride. People need to understand that the Right wants a piece of this guy. The chunk they took out of Clinton is going to look like a love bite if they find anything that really has traction on BO. It's incumbent upon the left to really focus and not buy any bull****. There's enough to disagree about in good faith (with Obama or anyone else) to get distracted by half a story, deliberately spun to make him look bad.

[MNDemNY]

177. It could not be "spun" to make him look good, now can it?

[kallyn]

185. It doesn't need to be spun to make him look ANY particular way.

It is what it is. The secret service has, and has had, a policy. Folks sued Bush, et al, to get it changed. They failed. They're trying again. The Obama Admin has publicized the secret service's policy (and obeyed it), whilst reviewing it. If the administration can change policy to give more information to the public while protecting the private lives of, for example (although there could be other scenarios, I suppose), the minor children living there, then they should do that. Also, the administration should keep us posted and be transparent in its PROCESS of reviewing the transparency itself, even if the end result is less transparency than some of us might wish for. We have the right to expect a general freedom of information from this president. We don't have the right to expect that years-old secret service policy can, or indeed should, be tossed into the garbage without a second look. We had 8 years of a president who acted without taking a second look -- setting aside his tendency to err on the side of too LITTLE transparency rathter than too much, one can still see that it's the same instinct? To act too quickly from an emotional perspective? Bad? Review away, Mr. President. And if you end up with something I don't love, I'll expect you to convince me. That's what I voted for, was the substantive conversation amongst serious people.

[newspeak]

315. well, when I first heard this, my first thought was

O was protecting the * administration. Because it seems to me, that there are some people who are still interested in who the previous administration met with. Remember the secret energy meetings, and don't forget the online media guy, Gannon? My first impression was that Obama was actually protecting the * administration. The * administration has made "secrecy" a main point in our government, not transparency and I don't believe it has anything to do with security, but with backroom corporate deals against the public.

[Window]

246. Welcome to DU kallyn. One thing though, you're not supposed to make sense.

Peace

[Window]

247. I, for one, am very glad you decided to join and post on DU.

Peace

[Window]

164. WHY IS NO ONE REPLYING TO THIS POST THAT MAKES SENSE??

Unbelievable!

[jmowreader]

183. You know why...

The day Obama took office he was supposed to end the war in Iraq, end the war in Afghanistan, make gay marriage legal all over the US, close Guantanamo Bay, make government operations completely transparent, disseminate all the classified information, order George Bush to commit seppuku at the inaugural, arrest the entire last administration, end the recession and put every American back to work. The fact he hasn't done all these things--even though fixing just one one-hundredth of all the things Shrub did in his rich supporters' names is going to require at least three consecutive two-term Democratic presidents' full attentions--is enough to turn Obama into Evil Incarnate.

[Redneck Socialist]

234. I"m still waiting for my pony, damnit! n/t

[Window]

241. Yes, I do know. It is also why I spend very little time here lately.

Peace

[No Elephants]

341. Message boards are vehicles for expressing opinions, many of which are likely to differ from

yours. If that upsets you, maybe keeping diary or blogging online would be more to your liking.

[primavera]

293. I'm not critical of what he hasn't yet done...

... only of what he has done. It's a strawman argument to suggest that disgruntled Dems are concerned by things Obama hasn't yet accomplished. I don't see anyone complaining that George Bush hasn't been put to death yet. But that doesn't mean that Obama has had no opportunity to make any decisions. Declining to disclose who visits him is a decision, not a goal he has not yet gotten around to. Logs are kept of everyone who enters and exits the White House. It would take no exhaustive hunt for records to provide that information. Such a list could easily be generated within minutes. Yet Obama, or someone in his administration acting under his authority, is declining to make that information available. Responsibility for one's decisions, or those of one's staff, goes with the job. If Obama isn't prepared to account for his decisions and those made under his authority, he picked the wrong job.

[tan guera]

298. hmmm

"If Obama isn't prepared to account for his decisions and those made under his authority, he picked the wrong job."

I believe he was picked for the job!

[U4ikLefty]

331. That's the best you could do?

weak

[No Elephants]

340. The flaw in your post is that this involves a court case. Obamadmin has to deal with it, one

way or the other, no matter how much or how little is on Obama's plate.

This has nothing to do with not having enough time. To the contrary, it would take much less time to make the logs avaiable than to keep fighting in court for secrecy, as Bushco was doing when Obamadmin took over this case.

[texastoast]

187. There's this train

And it appears that many want to ride it. It's called the "Ahhhhh HAAAAAHH" train.

And, I will say, this "policy" needs review, and review asap.

But being used to a board that prides itself on knowing the facts, this thread could be the platform for the Olympic sport of jumping to conclusions.

[Window]

245. I agree the policy absolutely needs review and change. However, I am saddened

by how often the "Ahhhhh HAAAAAHH" contingent on DU feel propelled to pounce on everything Obama lately. Sloppy posting.

Peace

[No Elephants]

343. Please see Reply 332, which replied to Reply 48, which raised the review issue. If

Obamadmin did not review this policy BEFORE going to court on it, the negligence is massive and reprehensible. I don't believe for one second that they did not review it before going to court to try to set a precedent of secrecy that may stand as long as the Presidency stands.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

271. That fantastic post has been mentioned in a number of other threads today.

That member is welcome in my house any time.

[NYC_SKP]

190. Thank you, kallyn, and welcome to DU!

We need more members with critical thinking skills, who also read.

[sandnsea]

200. Welcome Kallyn

Thanks for the facts, but don't expect them to be appreciated by too many around here anymore.

[No Elephants]

344. An opinion that matches your own opinion is still an opinion, not fact.

[brentspeak]

203. Thanks for the laugh of the day (n/t)

[Raine1967]

212. K&R

Bookmarked for this very post.

[lxlxlxl]

226. great reply...thanks for cutting through some b.s.

x.x.x./

[Tempest]

227. Except you're wrong

CREW unsuccessfully sued the Bush administration for release of these records a couple of years ago

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/visitor.logs/ind...

[kallyn]

273. Hm.

I thought that was appealed? I guess I'll cast about and see what the status of the appeal is, whether the Obama administration could drop it if it's still underway and it wanted and, y'know, etc. I thought this Secret Service policy was still policy under the current circumstances, assuming an appeal is in process. And the Obama DOJ's responsibilities regarding previous matters? Dunno. But you can bet your ass I will by tomorrow.

[texastoast]

279. Welcome to DU!

You caused a welcome stir.

[kallyn]

282. Thanks

I've been made very welcome.
Obama wasn't my first choice, but I've been very pleased so far. One thing I been really looking forward to, is the moment when he REALLY steps out on me. Does something quite contradictory to my will. Because then I'm going to take a deep breath and inhale the sense he makes and his ability to articulate a position I disagree with. There's no perfect simpatico, and he will step out, guaranteed -- but it certainly is nice to not cringe with fear of stupidity every time he draws breath to speak.

[MadHound]

286. Don't have to wait until tomorrow

The original case brought by CREW saw Judge Royce Lamberth rule against the Bush administration. They did indeed appeal it, but the US Court of Appeals threw out the appeal, kicking it back down to trial court and back into Lamberth's court. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/0... >

Lamberth retried the case, and in January of this year, again found for the plaintiff CREW and ordered the visitor logs released.
<http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=9893 >

Bush basically defied the ruling for his last week in office. Obama's administration is just as bound by law to follow this ruling as the Bush administration was. The question is whether he will defy this ruling like Bush did. So far, it looks as though he will. Is this more of that change Obama was talking about?