Posted July 9, 2007 2:27 PM
by Mike Dorning
This just in from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who objects to the president’s claim of executive privilege:
"By continuing to act as the most secretive White House in modern history, the Bush Administration has once again placed itself above the law in order to hide its abuse of our justice system from the American people,” Obama said in a written statement.
“On the first day of an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to shed sunlight on the decisions made by government and put the interests of the American people at the center of every decision that's made.”
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Most secretive in modern history"?
Evidently for Sen. Obama,
"modern history" doesn't include the Clinton administration.
But if he's really against secrecy, how come he supported the Immigration bill that was drafted in secret? How come very day sees a new revelation about his relationship with Tony Rezko?
To Obama, secrecy is something to denounce only when others are doing it.
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 2:58 PM
I can't wait to read the books about what this pathetic administration has been up to ever since they stole their first election in 2000.
When the W/Cheney administration leaves office all the rats will be able to speak freely without fear of repercussion, this is exactly what this criminal administration was afraid of with Scooter Libby.
Posted by: John E | July 9, 2007 2:58 PM
The Bush Administration Department of Justice has indicted Barack Obama for malfeasance? Oh wait you are making wild accusations.
Posted by: jethro | July 9, 2007 3:32 PM
RNC Bruce,
Why do you hate President Bush's immigration policy?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 9, 2007 3:58 PM
Bruce,
Even Clinton didn't evoke executive privilege without accounting for the documents it was withholding and why, as Bush is attempting to do. Leahy is right, Dubya's arrogance amounts to nothing short of "Nixonian Stonewalling".
Posted by: dt | July 9, 2007 4:17 PM
dt,
Sorry to quibble. But for the 21st century how about Cheneyian stonewalling.
Tricky Dick I would be so proud of II.
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 9, 2007 4:34 PM
"Doug", I don't "hate" the Bush-Reid-Kennedy-McCain immigration bill. You're the one who deals in hate, not me. I do oppose the bill, for reasons I've detailed in other postings which you could read if you bothered to.
I'll repeat my challenge to "doug" and the Obamaphiles: how can you square Obama's professed devotion to "open" government with his support of the immigration bill being drafted in secret? How can you square his professed devotion to open debate with his vote FOR cloture?
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 5:13 PM
RNC Bruce,
What is your obsession with Obama? I thought you were a Republican?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 9, 2007 5:45 PM
I'll repeat my challenge to "doug" and the Obamaphiles: how can you square Obama's professed devotion to "open" government with his support of the immigration bill being drafted in secret?
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 5:13 PM
I'm sure this isn't the answer you're looking for, but it was the same answer I got when discussing Libby. It's OK...the republicans did it also.
Posted by: bill r. | July 9, 2007 6:09 PM
Hmmm, Bill Clintoon used executive privilige more than Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations COMBINED!!
In addition to Johnny E getting a gig at Zanies for his comic prowess, perhaps Obama should seek his comic career there too!!
Posted by: John D | July 9, 2007 6:42 PM
Ooh, a "drafted in secret" immigration bill and Obama voted FOR cloture in a dastardly attempt to bring the bill up for a vote? I'm shocked that our senator would be involved in something so unprincipled as voting on legislation. At the very least, he should have consulted with a few lobbyists and let the cash contributions help him decide how to vote. That's the way the last Congress did it and, with the exception of the poor and the middle class, we're all better off, aren't we?
Posted by: Tom O | July 9, 2007 6:50 PM
RNC Bruce,
What are your grammar rules regarding the use of quotation marks?
When you're typing do you put up the bi-digital peace sign upon execution?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 9, 2007 8:24 PM
Obama:
"On the first day of an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history to shed sunlight on the decisions made by government and put the interests of the American people at the center of every decision that's made.”
Such as...?
Fine. President Bush and his folks are secretive, and I don't defend their motives, but what does Obama mean: "sunlight on the decisions made by government"? He's vague and evasive as usual (using the term "government" instead of "president"), but it almost sounds like Senator Obama equates secrecy in the executive branch in and of itself with dubious ethics. And that would seem naive to the point of outright silliness. How can any president be all that effective if every decision he or she makes is subject to this "sunlight" thing Obama champions (if ever so tepidly)? We elect and trust our presidents to make decisions that are in the country's best interests, and it's just plain unrealistic to think we'll know everything about every decision.
Hello, Senator: It's called "classified" information for a reason. We don't need to know everything -- at least not immediately.
I'd like to see him fill in for us how his adminstration will make decisions that are transparent to all, yet effectively protect our national interests.
I hope Obama recognizes his statement for what it is: Populist nonesense calculated to get him elected. Otherwise...
And this from the guy who, other columnists complain, consistently and intentionally fails to release accurate and complete information about his campaign schedule. What a load of #@%&!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 11:18 PM
"I do oppose the bill, for reasons I've detailed..."
Posted by: Bruce | July 9, 2007 5:13 PM
By "detailed" I'm assuming you mean "cut and pasted"
Posted by: jethro | July 10, 2007 9:26 AM