Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama tougher than George W. Bush in prosecuting disclosures of government activities

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:14 PM
Original message
Obama tougher than George W. Bush in prosecuting disclosures of government activities
Obama is already toughest president on leaks
More prosecutions sought in 17 months than any previous administration
By Scott Shane
New York Times
June 12, 2010


In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.

As secret programs proliferated after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, were outspoken in denouncing press disclosures about the C.I.A.’s secret prisons and brutal interrogation techniques, and the security agency’s eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants.

Though the inquiries began under President Bush, it has fallen to Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to decide whether to prosecute. They have shown no hesitation, even though Mr. Drake is not accused of disclosing the N.S.A.’s most contentious program, that of eavesdropping without warrants.

Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, who has long tracked the uneasy commerce in secrets between government officials and the press, said Mr. Drake might have fallen afoul of a bipartisan sense in recent years that leaks have gotten out of hand and need to be deterred. By several accounts, Mr. Obama has been outraged by some leaks, too.

Though he is charged under the Espionage Act, Mr. Drake appears to be a classic whistle-blower whose goal was to strengthen the N.S.A.’s ability to catch terrorists, not undermine it. His alleged revelations to Ms. Gorman focused not on the highly secret intelligence the security agency gathers but on what he viewed as its mistaken decisions on costly technology programs called Trailblazer, Turbulence and ThinThread.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that defends whistle-blowers, said the Espionage Act, written in 1917 for the pursuit of spies, should not be used to punish those who expose government missteps. “What gets lost in the calculus is that there’s a huge public interest in the disclosure of waste, fraud and abuse,” Ms. Radack said. “Hiding it behind alleged classification is not acceptable.”

Gabriel Schoenfeld, author of “Necessary Secrets,” a book proposing criminal penalties not just for leakers but for journalists who print classified material, said that whatever his intentions, Mr. Drake must be punished.

“The system is plagued by leaks,” said Mr. Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research organization. “When you catch someone, you should make an example of them.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37653773/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

It should be noted that the government stamps virtually every document involving government spying as classified, especially those that might reveal illegal and criminal government activity. They hide and classify their activities in the name of "national security". It's clear that any government "whistle blowers" who expose such activities will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by this administration. BBI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R for more of that "change".
As Straight Story (Grits?) said earlier, "we thought it was going to be change for the better".
:kick: & R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. This just in....
Disclosing classified material is a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. So is torture.
And your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. So what government documents are not classified to hide illegal and/or embarassing military actions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. Are you really trying to argue
that documents are only classified for PR purposes? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Many military "intelligence", CIA, FBI and Homeland security documents are classified to hide
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 10:45 PM by Better Believe It
illegal and unconstitutional surveillance and disruption activities directed against peaceful protest and progressive groups that disagree with and oppose government policies.

The people who conduct such operations try to hide them by classifying such programs.

Are you denying that such the military and other government agencies try to conceal such activities from the American people by classifying documents that document those activities?

And Why do you think that whistle blowers that expose such violations of our democratic and constitutional rights should be prosecuted and thrown in prison by the federal government?

So the answer to your absurd question "Are you really trying to argue that documents are only classified for PR purposes" is obviously no.

Now answer my serious questions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. This is a fair question
"And Why do you think that whistle blowers that expose such violations of our democratic and constitutional rights should be prosecuted and thrown in prison by the federal government?"

In my view, in order to exempt them from prosecution it would have to be an example of illegal activity that is so blatant, so brazen that it leaves absolutely no doubt and no ambiguity as to the legalities of it. Other than that, when you proclaim that you can be trusted with classified material you agree to set your personal and political feelings aside and maintain secrets no matter what. When you agree to the terms you are told up front that disclosing classified material is a serious crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #44
58. You need to defend our Constitution paratrooper, rather than those who violate it.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 10:26 PM by Better Believe It
So in your view it seems that only in the most extreme cases do you think the public should be protected from unconstitutional government spying and interference in civilian political activities protected under our Bill of Rights.

Well, you need to study the Congressional investigations of those kinds of government spying and political disruption programs that happened back in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. Study the Church Committee investigation findings.

Those and other congressional investigations resulted in the release of thousands of U.S. military, CIA, FBI and other government documents that were classified CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and even TOP SECRET. Once Congress declassified and released those documents to the public, it was clear that none of them concerned defending the "national security" of the United States. However, it was clear that government bureaucrats automatically classified those documents to conceal their secret violations and attacks on our civil liberties and rights. The "national security" claim is a bogus one.

It appears that this is once again happening on the biggest scale in the past 35 years.

As I said, these types of documents are only classified to hide illegal and surveillance and disruption activities directed against peaceful progressive organizations that disagree with and oppose government policies. They falsely claim that such activities must remain a big secret in order to protect the "national security" of the nation, when in fact it has a lot more to do with protect their personal government job security and in some cases avoidance of prison! "National security" my ass! Total b.s.

Now, once again, why do you think that whistle blowers that expose such violations of our democratic and constitutional rights should be prosecuted and thrown in prison by the federal government?

It seems you don't regard defending our Constitution and the rule of law as very high on your list of priorities.

You revealed that when you wrote: "when you proclaim that you can be trusted with classified material you agree to set your personal and political feelings aside and maintain secrets no matter what."

Maintaining military discipline, order and secrets is more important to you than any "political feelings" one might have about defending and protecting our freedoms, liberties and Constitution. One must "maintain secrets no matter what" even if they represent a violation of our civil liberties and rights.

Is that what the military brass taught you "USArmyParatrooper" or did you learn that elsewhere?

Shame on you!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Self Delete
Edited on Mon Jun-14-10 05:07 PM by Better Believe It

Deleted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. When information is classified, it's generally to protect
government officials and business interests from the law, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
43. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard
Particularly your use of the term "generally", as if classifying documents for malicious reasons would be the rule and not the exception. Have you even ever had access to, or worked with classified information? My guess is you haven't, but something tells you you're going to claim you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. I base the statement on the fact that most of the *formerly* classified
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 06:40 PM by Marr
documents I've seen regarded information that would've made government officials, or influential people, look bad at the time, and had no connection to national security that I could see.

What are you basing your statement on? C'mon--let's hear your impressive internet resume. I can tell you're very anxious to share it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. So what you're saying is...
Based on documents you see on TV that become unclassified you don't see any connection to national security; therefore, documents generally only become classified for non-national security reasons. Is that about right?

As far as my "internet" resume' I've been on two deployment so far and both times we've acted on, and shared information with our Intel sections. My last deployment I worked in the Brigade level TOC (Tactical Operations Center) and sat through countless intelligence briefings.

Also, by all means elaborate on what you meant by "internet" resume'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I never said "on tv".
Formerly classified data is available to the public through other channels, and is used by a lot more people than conspiracy promoters.

No one is talking about military movements here, and the fact that mundane information like that is not made public is neither surprising nor suspicious. I know you were anxious to state your resume, USArmyParatrooper-- and I'm happy to have given you the opportunity, but really-- it's not relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Where did this come from?
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 08:40 PM by USArmyParatrooper
"I know you were anxious to state your resume"

Actually, I wasn't at all. I don't work in the intelligence field (though I literally know everyone in my unit who does), and if I did I wouldn't be itching to discuss it on the internet. You're quite presumptuous.

But I do know that between the military, the CIA, the NSA and other agencies there is an unfathomable amount of classified documents that are out there. To say documents are "generally" classified only to avoid some type of embarrassment is absurd. By the very nature of what they do it goes without saying that the majority of their activity would be classified.

Edit: And why did you say "internet" resume' instead of just saying resume'? What exactly were you implying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I was implying that you would state an unverifiable and therefore meaningless
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 09:05 PM by Marr
set of credentials so as to lend your argument more weight with strangers on the internet. I thought it was obvious.

Still, I will admit that "generally" may have been a poor choice of word, as I wasn't considering the endless amount of data classified by the military for understandable security reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. I guess "meaningless" is in the eye of the beholder.
If a poster has special knowledge in an area that comes up it's understandable they would cite their credentials. If another poster doesn't believe them, or in some cases pretends not to believe them that's on them. Meaningless implies it's not even worth mentioning. It's a sad state of discourse someone can't share personal knowledge and experience without others saying "lair liar pants on fire" without cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I'd say meaningless is pretty accurate here, for two reasons:
First, as I said, it's unverifiable. Second, we're not talking about classified military data. Everyone already knows the military classifies a lot of information for security reasons. Time in the military doesn't give you any special insight into the subject being discussed (whistle-blowers exposing criminal activities on the part of government officials), but you continue to speak as if it does.

Finally... I've just got to mention this, because I'm getting the feeling that you think you're offering insight into the military to a bunch of 'hippy conspiracy nuts'. There are plenty of veterans on this forum. I could've started out by telling you that I spent a few years in the military myself, but it wasn't relevant to the discussion. It's not that I don't believe your statement, it's that it isn't germane to the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Two things
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 09:55 PM by USArmyParatrooper
First, I only explained my experience with classified information because you asked. As I said, my MOS isn't in the intelligence field and despite your assumption I wasn't hoping to boast about any personal experience in this matter.

Also, the CIA does work closely with the military and those that do work in the intel field do interact with them and share information. There's a mountain of classified documents the CIA has right there.

All of this being said, your assertion is still absurd even if you set aside documents classified by the US military. Just think of groups like the CIA and NSA do. ALL efforts to gather information on, and neutralize potential threats to the US will understandably be classified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frustrated_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
62. Most old-timers on this forum have viewed previously classified documents.
Just recently, there was the helicopter assault on journalists released by Wikileaks.

There has been an embarrassing amount of data released since the Hoover years under the FOIA. A lot of it suggests classified information is not classified for security reasons, but, instead, to protect the reputations of government figures.

I fully believe in the need for security based classification. The problem is, that authority gets abused.

If you doubt that, look up photos of Otto Bosch behind GWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frustrated_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
61. The US doesn't have a state's secrets law
Surprisingly few government documents fall within that purview.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Flash: So is torture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes, documents = torture
in a pigs eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Oxymoron; Military intelligence.
Making it clearer with every post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. But you set the bar so high
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 09:36 PM by USArmyParatrooper
by responding with ad hominem attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. That you would even look for a bar in reply to your 'comment' confirms the adage.
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. Oh, I get it.
Edited on Sun Jun-13-10 03:13 PM by USArmyParatrooper
Anyone who agrees with you is intelligent and well rounded. But anyone who disagrees is a big stupid head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Classifying the exposure of a crime as a crime is what's stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press; Against Torturers, Not So Much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
50. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Oh, whew!
For a minute there I thought you had posted a piece supporting the Administration.

Then upon reading I realized that it was indeed another thread criticizing the President and the Administration. Whew!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Cuz you know
"We have to look forward and ignore the past" when it's the Bush Administration killing people, so we have to destroy the people pointing out the crimes...that are probably still occurring.

Transparency at its best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Last I checked, it's okay to criticize the administration...
or are those doing it "unamerican?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I agree
I think it's a fine thing to do.

In fact, I'm going to up my criticism to 100% of everything I post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
13.  “When you catch someone, you should make an example of them.”

Latest News
4 Comments Print Share
June 3rd, 2010 10:53 AM

Bush admits waterboarding, says he’d do it again

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/bush-admits-waterboarding-says-hed-do-it-again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Obama is waterboarding!!11!!one!!11!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muffin1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Has Obama done ANYTHING with which you disagree? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. Oh, papa tooney, you must have a looney!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. doogly oogy boopido doo!!
ignoring me and then posting at me is fun huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #21
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. We have "transparency in government"...as long as it's not embarrassing to the governement. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. That's basically it. And it transcends both parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. I see no difference between Obama and Bush, in this regard.
It's sad, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HooptieWagon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
27. More tough on whistle-blowers, more lenient on offshore drillers.
I don't know about the rest of DUers, but this wasn't the "Change" I was voting for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. you said it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-12-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
29. There is a better book by Ted Gup
Edited on Sat Jun-12-10 10:28 PM by noise
entitled Nation of Secrets: The Threat to Democracy and the American Way of Life. Gup details the various ways secrecy laws are abused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
38. For Sunday DU'ers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. good morning BBI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Good afternoon!

Hope this day is going well for you.

Just a lazy Sunday for me.

Catching up on some reading, a lot of it on the web.

I'm reading now more than ever with so much information available on the web, but I haven't stopped reading books!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
41. Kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
46. The president's failure in this regard is most disturbing.
Since he's become president, we've learned that on many topics, such as this one, he was simply saying what he thought voters wanted to hear. He doesn't care about things like openness in government.

There's not much difference between his Justice Dept and that of his predecessor, unfortunately. I thought this topic and the judiciary would be where he made his mark, but not so. As Democratic presidents go, he's the biggest disappointment of my lifetime, and that includes presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Unfortunately true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-14-10 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
60. USArmyParatrooper where are you? Please respond to my post #58
Edited on Mon Jun-14-10 05:06 PM by Better Believe It

Thank you.

I believe you may have just missed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC