Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
House overturns Bush order on papers secrecy | Reuters
reuters.com — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Brushing aside a veto threat, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn a 2001 order by President George W. Bush that lets former presidents keep their papers secret indefinitely.
lisuebie- 959 diggs
- digg it
- CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -8/+71Shortly after the House's decision, an unidentified source quietly ordered a large number of document shredders and hard drive incinerators to be delivered to Dick Cheney's office immediately.
- Swifty227, on 10/12/2007, -16/+29I for one welcome our new document shredding overlords.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4And the Rose lawfirm
- licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13So, in 2001 who do you/I/we think the President was protecting?
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+215-6 ***** years it took for those jackasses to stop suckin bush's dick. ***** them.
- amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Suddenly Fawn Hall is in demand again.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"So, in 2001 who do you/I/we think the President was protecting?"
His father dumbass. - nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4>an unidentified source quietly ordered a large number of document shredders
In other news, FORMER CLINTON OFFICIAL SANDY BURGER was unavailable for comment... - knightmare01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i'd ask for pictures but they might pshop em :
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5BUSH IS A SHELL OF A MAN, GOP IS NAZI
A silver spooned fed drunk, coke snortin’ awol former male cheerleading, barely coherent, powdered-puff, border-line retarded puppet criminal fake president man propped up by unbridled corporate whore lobbyists, foreign special interests and well paid corrupt professional politicians who brainwash 45-60% of ill-informed America through Nazi propaganda tactics using fake cable "news" stations to steal elections through GOP supported corporate owned paperless fake e-voting machines.
Bend over in a major butt-pyramid Republicans, you got served! - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Only criminals have so much to hide.
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If you believe Dumbya is keeping you "safe", you have to be the stupidest waste of sperm and egg to walk the Earth.
- Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"5-6 ***** years it took for those jackasses to stop suckin bush's dick. ***** them."
5-6 ***** years for American voters to wise up to the ridiculous amount of corruption in the Republican party and put the Democrats in control of Congress.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53Honest politicians market their openness; sensitive politicians begs for privacy; criminal politicians demand secrecy.
- redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10no, all politicians market their openness. politicians market a lot of things, and politicians all have plenty of secrets. that's how you get the good jobs.
- ToastyBagel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Honest Politicians? Dugg down due to blatant inaccuracy.
In other news: One legged man wins butt kicking contest, Canada declares hockey to be a "waste of time" and a bacon shortage looms as Iowa farms have had to shut down operations due to the fact all of their pigs have spontaneously sprouted wings and flown south towards Cancun. Film at 11. - drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Trouble is any position of power attracts people who crave power for its own sake, and are therefore clearly not suitable to be given it.
In my view, there should only be one question required to be asked of all candidates for the US Presidency, or for that matter, any head of state -
"Do you WANT to be the President of the United States?"
(replace with appropriate title / country as appropriate)
If the answer is yes, then you're clearly NOT a suitable candidate. - FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1REPUBLICANS DEFINITION OF FREEDOM
THE FREEDOM TO DRIVE ONE OF FOUR BRANDS OF TRUCK OR SUV, WITH THE SAME "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS" RIBBON MAGNET, AND THE SAME CHROME, XTIAN FISH SYMBOL, AND THE SAME "W" BUMPER STICKER AS THEM AND THEIR FRIENDS.
ALSO, THE FREEDOM TO REGURGITATE THE DAILY TALKING POINTS FROM RUSH, HANNITY, FOX NEWS, O'REILLY AND COULTER.
FINALLY, THE FREEDOM TO GIVE UP ANY RIGHTS, PRIVACY, LIBERTY OR SECURITY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THEM IN THE NAME OF "FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR".
YEAH. I FEEL REALLY FREE. THANKS, CONTURDS.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -8/+55Government officials who demand secrecy have much to hide.
- redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -45/+5that's not right. what if a cop (or the fbi) applied that same logic to you. not everything is a conspiracy.
- Frozo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42redlemon, WE'RE not in public office, numbnuts.
- redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -35/+2edit: whatever, flamer.
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35@redlemon
This isn't about their private lives, this is about public service. When you ask the people of our country to hire you as their leader, you should expect to be scrutinized. What if you told your boss he couldn't oversee the work you do anymore? - redlemon, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5i don't disagree with the publics desire to learn all the secrets the publicly elected officials keep. i just dont get the totally utopian idea of an open government. it doesn't jive.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So you understand the situation after all?
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What in your opinion doesn't it jive with?
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hey "redlemon"
You might wana' go back and pass the third grade before posting.
- Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Its nice to finally see the walls start to crumble around these criminals.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4This applies to ALL presidents do you think Bill Chilton thinks this is a good idea? Jimmy Carter?
- Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I really don't give a ***** what Clinton or Carter think about this. Our government has kept way too many secrets from us all around.
Listen, I don't need to know exactly what is going on with top government secrets. But I tell you what, they sure as hell need to make these things known to a congress member that I trust.
I think you need to stop thinking so red or blue and more Red, White and Blue. - caketank, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@floorman:
Not that it really matters, but I'll bite. Yes, I do think Carter and Clinton think this is a good idea. Your "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans" ***** smokescreen doesn't hold up for two reasons: 1) This is a Democratic Congress that's rolling back Bush's order, and 2) Clinton took a lot of important steps toward open government, fighting the Republican Congress all the way[1].
[1]: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=6555
Bonus! Here's a letter from Carter on government secrecy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200674.html
- hockeysmurf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11A move in the right direction.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Government secrecy hides crimes.
- thesoze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2the cloud of the darkside is fallin
- porcupus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2In unrelated news;
Huge bonfire spotted in northeast Virginia at some place with the word "water" in it - crstern, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I wonder how many of G Dub's secret files have "TOP SECRET" written on them in crayon surrounded by badly drawn stars and underlined numerous times.
- jp3550, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I can see CNN Headlines-- "President Bush was last seen running in the Oval office with his father, with a pair of scissors and a lighter."
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"The Emperor has no clothes!" cried the little boy, and all the people saw that he was right. They began laughing at the naked emperor, because the bandwagon was now going the opposite direction and the whorish, craven people were scrambling to board it, the same people who previously voted the Emperor ridiculous powers and suckled at his crotch.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13I remember when Bush suspended the practice of letting a president's papers fall into the public's hands after a given period of time had lapsed. Let's see... which president would that have been? Oh, right. His dad. Go figure.
Not to mention the cost it takes to keep the most minuscule datum that might even POSSIBLY embarrass the prez a secret. At least Clinton recognized that when he de-classified a ton of the stuff that the FBI is trying to (stupidly) re-classify. - scottelloco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Too late. Bush's Executive Order to keep the records of his father and Reagan secret has already served its purpose. I'm sure Bush and the war criminals would like to keep them secret for longer, but the real damage has already been done.
One of the main reasons for Bush's Order for past presidential records to be kept secret were to protect Bush's cabinet and advisers; namely Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld, but there were a lot more.
When a group of people are allowed to use the law as a means to an end and not be held accountable for their actions then this is what we get. They break the law just long enough to serve their own purposes, then apologize and promise to fix the problem and never do it again. - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Does this have to pass the Senate as well to really override the veto? If it does, looks like it won't happen. :(
- caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It has to pass the Senate as well in order to even get to the President's desk, at which point he may sign it into law or veto it. If he vetoes it, Congress can still make it law, but it requires a 2/3 vote in each house.
There might not be enough votes to overturn a veto, but I'll be pretty surprised if the bill doesn't pass the Senate. There's a slim Democratic majority, and a lot of legislators of both parties are fed up with Executive power grabs (or at the very least, smart enough to know which way the wind is blowing).
- caketank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It has to pass the Senate as well in order to even get to the President's desk, at which point he may sign it into law or veto it. If he vetoes it, Congress can still make it law, but it requires a 2/3 vote in each house.
- Hobofuzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I really wish there was some way we could strip the white house of its veto power until Bush is finally out of office.
It's not like he ever used it for what it's there for anyway. - analyze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2This is a slam dunk veto. It can't be overridden...end of story.
- caketank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We already know the House passed their bill with well over the 2/3 margin required for an override (provided they can keep the votes). Why do you think the Senate won't do the same?
I mean, maybe that won't, but I haven't seen any statements from anyone about vote counts yet.
- caketank, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We already know the House passed their bill with well over the 2/3 margin required for an override (provided they can keep the votes). Why do you think the Senate won't do the same?
- katanaswordfish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Aw, how cute hes trying to cover his ass! A little suspicious though eh?
- secretivecoward, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Bush will use his veto to protect his father and himself.
Republicans in congress know they need to keep the documents secret to get elected again, this will never pass. - bevis315, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The second paragraph of the Constitution of The United States
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.- whichDan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just to help out whatever idiot modded down the above comment. Look at the last sentence:
"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." - canonfodor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4That is not the second paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. That is from the Declaration of Independence. As wonderful of a document that it is, it holds no legal power in the USA. It was a rationalization of the desire to be rid of English Rule. So unless you are proposing an armed rebellion, I'm not sure the why you are quoting it. I might point out that S.C. and several nearby states tried out that idea over 100 years ago, it didn't go so well.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So then how does open government = armed revolution? You are dismissing the importance of "let the facts be submitted to a candid world" over the incorrect assumption that by following this objective we must also overthrow our government. That is a false choice, and thus your argument for a closed government if faulty. Want to try again?
- whichDan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just to help out whatever idiot modded down the above comment. Look at the last sentence:
- secretivecoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0See how your Rep. voted
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll143.xml- Cable, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Mine voted against it! What a surprise!
- bevis315, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The second to last sentence should be changed to;
STRIKE- King of Great Britain
ADD- Our Sitting President and his Cabinet - jlhoben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wonderful. Make him publicly veto it if he wants to.
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In retaliation, Dick Cheney mailed a little girl her own dog's head.
- amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But first he went off his blood pressure medication so he could get an erection for skull ***** the dog as a coup de grace.
- ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hate this ***** soooooo much.
- dsmeryage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This story and bill passed by the House is mere theatrics unless the senate passes the same and Bush signs it. Looks like exercise to me. much like the first few weeks of Pelosi and the bills she was passing which never became law. Just a show which the liberal media has fun writing stories about.
- alllie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Now this they need to pass. And quickly.
- nwoantibody, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"5-6 ***** years it took for those jackasses to stop suckin bush's dick. ***** them."
It took them that long to find it. That's all.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by