Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Failing to Learn from History; the Neocon's are Back

host · 11-28-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.

Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.

This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?

Research does wonders for a truly curious mind.........

Quote:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Richard Cheney) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."

On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31; on November 21, the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[i]

Footnotes

[i] Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.

One thing you are right about, ustwo, is that there is much that we cannot know for certain. Bush and Cheney have worked O.T., to insure that!

Quote:

http://hnn.us/comments/10377.html
24 March 2003)

<h3>1. REP. OSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REVOKE PRA EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).</h3>

This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."

In his floor statement introducing the bill
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/h032703.html) Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."

[quote]

Quote:

http://www.smh-hq.org/gazette/volumes/142/ncc.html
BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER

On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.

Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/wh032503.html). Because of copy deadlines, the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials. Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.

The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years -- but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." ........

Quote:

http://www.archivists.org/statements...in2.asp?prnt=y
Statement for the Record on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States

July 22, 2004

Although the Society of American Archivists (SAA) would have preferred a process in which we were permitted to testify at the hearing regarding the appointment of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States we thank the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to comment. The choice of a qualified nominee to become the Archivist of the United States is an important decision that ultimately benefits all Americans by ensuring that our history will be preserved and that our citizens will be able to hold their government accountable for its actions and decisions through the careful and impartial management of the records of government.

To that end, we express our intent to cooperate with Professor Weinstein and to work with him if he is appointed Archivist of the United States.

However, we also wish to convey again the strong reservations that the Society of American Archivists and thirty other archives, history, and library organizations have expressed about the manner in which this nomination was made. As noted in a Statement developed by SAA, the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (issued shortly after the April 8, 2004, announcement of Professor Weinstein’s nomination), Congress created the National Archives and Records Administration—and the position of Archivist of the United States—to be both independent and non-partisan. In the National Archives Act (Public Law 98-497), Congress intended that filling the position of Archivist of the United States should involve an open process, with consultation with appropriate professional organizations that could speak from knowledge and experience concerning the qualifications of nominees. Attached are copies of the “Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States”(including the names of the organizations that supported it), as well as “Joint Statement on Selection Criteria for the Archivist of the United States” and “Joint Statement on Questions to Ask the Nominee for Archivist of the United States.” We ask that these documents be entered into the permanent record of these hearings.

It is our view that this nomination was undertaken outside both the letter and the spirit of the law. We believe that the evidence is clear that the White House effectively removed John Carlin when it asked him for a letter of resignation in December 2003 after having already identified a replacement in the fall of that year. It is within the power of the President to remove the Archivist, but if he takes this action, the law calls for him to provide Congress with an explanation of his reasons for doing so. To date, no such explanation has been provided. We hope that the Committee will ask the White House to fulfill its obligation under the law rather than create another precedent that erodes the power and authority of the United States Congress.

We also hope that the Committee will begin working with interested professional associations to establish a more formal procedure that can be used for future nominations. Development in advance of a list of qualifications and other considerations would make the process smoother and ensure that the Archivist position does not become politicized.

Let us be clear: We do not believe that the manner in which the nomination has been handled reflects negatively on Professor Weinstein or his interest in this position. But we do believe that the failure to follow the process outlined in law threatens the tradition of independence and non-partisanship that enables the Archivist of the United States to fulfill his obligations effectively to the benefit of all Americans.

roachboy....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?