Obama to release Reagan records kept secret by Bush

[NNN0LHI]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_to_release_Reagan_records_kept_0410.html

Muriel Kane
Published: Friday April 10, 2009


The Obama administration is about to release 244,966 pages of documents from the Reagan White House that the Bush administration had held back for years during a review of whether to assert executive privilege. snip

In a letter obtained by Politico, White House Counsel Gregory Craig informed the National Archives and Records Administration that President Obama "has not asserting executive privilege over any of this material," opening the way for their release.

According to a press release from the National Archives, "On Monday, April 13, 2009, the Ronald Reagan library will open 244,966 pages of records processed in response to hundreds of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These records include the Presidential Briefing Papers collection, Office of Speechwriting research material and approximately 13,000 pages of declassified records on numerous foreign policy topics."

Another 797 pages of documents from President George H.W. Bush's administration on the topic of Saudi Arabia will be released at the same time.

[keep_it_real]

1. There is nothing in existence greateer than Truth.

It's all good . . . Truth that is.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. K&R! nt

[Autumn]

3. I'm wondering if he is going to release Bill

Clinton's papers? That is what I would like to see.I still wonder why bush hid those.

[sweetladybug]

5. Autumn, why would you be more interested in Bill Clinton' s papers than Reagan' s and the Bushes's ?

I see you're don't have a lot of post so you must be fairly new here. Are a Democrat or Republican or what?

[ima_sinnic]

7. I'd like to see Clinton's papers, too. Why did Bush feel it necessary to hide them?

we have much to "thank" Clinton for, you know, including massive cover-up of BCCI Bank and Iran-Contra, just as Obama is now covering up for lil bushie badass.
oh, and I've been voting Democratic since 1968--is that creds enough for wanting to get to the bottom of things?

[NNN0LHI]

9. Why did Bush feel it necessary to hide them? Why don't you ask Bush?

Maybe Bush did it as cover for not releasing his old mans and Reagan's papers? Did you ever consider that possibility?

Why insinuate that there is something to hide in Clinton's papers without knowing any such thing?

Whats the point of that?

And how the hell do we know who you been voting for since 1968? Because you say so?

Give a break.

I could tell you anything here. That don't make it true.

Don

[Autumn]

14. I meant to reply to post 7

,I am not insinuating that at all it seems to me that Bush hid them because of their position that President Clinton had weakened the country and had been soft on terrorism they did nothing but blame him. I don't believe that was true, and if President Obama releases them,the truth will be out. Clinton had no problem with them being released. And Clinton and Gore did a lot to fight terrorism.

[Autumn]

12. Ladybug I have lurked here since 2001

and joined after the 2002 elections , So no I am not a newbie. I always considered my self a yellow dog Democrat , only voted for one Republican in my life ( Nixon, I was young and stupid) but I am no longer going to support someone because they have a D after their name. Salazar and the Democrats of the last two years changed that. As for Bill Clinton's papers I am more interested in his history than Bush's or Reagan's. Plus I am curious as to why Bush locked them up with his fathers. Bill Clinton had no problem with them being released. Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups, post counts can be deceiving,I have seen people that signed up in March 2009 with over 1000 posts. So what are you Republican or Democrat?

[L. Coyote]

4. What about the George H. W. Bush records? Didn't Jr. secret all that?

" .... 797 pages of documents " isn't much given "Reagan library will open 244,966 pages" total.

[lpbk2713]

6. I'd be particularly interested ...

in what that RayGun SOB kept secret pertaining to the firing of the Air Traffic Controllers.

No doubt in my mind there was a hell of a lot of sneaky and sleazy skullduggery on his part.

[EFerrari]

8. Good! Just in time for the centennial pre-planning. n/t

[MiniMe]

10. How long are Presidential Papers held before release without Presidential interference?

I know there is a period of time set, just don't know what it is.

[ben_jenne]

11. Wasn't there another President

between Reagan and Obama that should have released evidence of these crimes?

[NNN0LHI]

13. I caught one. Can we keep him mods? Please, please, please?

[csziggy]

15. Before GWB enacted his order, presidential papers were made public on a routine basis

No more than 12 years after the end of a presidential term, and as soon as the outgoing president left office they had to be turned over to the Archivist of the United States to prevent preemptive destruction - as was done by Noxin.

Thus, the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo<5> dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:

Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H.W. Bush.

This instruction was repeated on June 6, 2001,<5> before the 90 days had elapsed, giving a new deadline of August 31, 2001. On the day of this deadline, Alberto Gonzales instructed the Archivist to wait a few additional weeks.<5> On November 1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, limiting the access to the records of former U.S. Presidents:

...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233

So Clinton era papers should be released in four years as a matter of course but the release of Reagan and GHWB papers was delayed by an extraordinary presidential order.

On January 21, 2009, President Obama rescinded the Bush order and restored the previous order - enacted by Reagan (!) - with additional provisions that explicitly applies it to the papers of the Vice-President as well as the President.

So the question should not be why haven't the Clinton papers been released since they are not due to be released - it should be why weren't the Reagan and GHWB papers released when they should have been?