Clinton presses for WH papers: "(Hillary) didn't know what (Russert) was talking about."

Source: AP

By JESSICA MINTZ, Associated Press Writer
Fri., Nov 2

REDMOND, Wash. - Former President Clinton said Friday that a letter he wrote to the National Archives was to expedite release of his papers, not slow the process or hide anything as rivals are suggesting in criticism of his wife.

Hillary Rodham Clinton was quizzed during this week's Democratic presidential debate as to why correspondence between her and her husband from their White House years remained bottled up at the National Archives. Barack Obama said that was a problem for her as a candidate after "we have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history."

One issue is whether Bill Clinton had sent a letter to the Archives asking that the communications not be released until 2012, and whether Hillary Clinton would lift any ban, a question raised by debate moderator Tim Russert. "She was incidental to the letter, it was done five years ago, it was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down," the former president told reporters Friday. "And she didn't even, didn't know what he was talking about. And now that I've described to you what the letter said, you can readily understand why she didn't know what he was talking about."

Russert's question "was breathtakingly misleading," Bill Clinton said.

In response, Barbara L. Levin, spokeswoman for NBC, said: "Tim's question was entirely on the mark."

Clinton said that under the presidential documents law, he is not required to release any material until 2012. "Unlike previous presidents, I have already released one million pages of documents, about half of which affect Hillary — the records of the health care task force," Clinton said....

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_on_el_pr/bill_clinton_papers_6

Bill or Timmeh.

We could also mention his blatant lies about Barak's "generous offer" to Yasser Arafat, but that discussion belongs in the I/P forum.

Former Clinton pal and contributor David Geffen said that the problem with the Clintons was not that they lie, but that "they lie with such ease."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your hatred of the Clinton's really knows no bounds at all.


"We could also mention his blatant lies about Barak's "generous offer" to Yasser Arafat, but that discussion belongs in the I/P forum."


Okay, so post PROOF in the DU I/P forum then, I often hang around there and post. We could have a discussion and then I could, probably with EASE, dismantle your entire "proof".

thank you for the clarity.

This has nothing to do with sex either so I think you're a bit confused.

If you're going to bring up something about Barak and Arafat you should provide a link.

Who cares what Geffen said about the Clintons? Just because somebody says something doesn't mean it's a fact.

Most people already know that the Clintons have a lot of enemies. People like you for example.

Because you hate the Clinton so much you'll say almost anything---but that doesn't make it true.

We've known that for years....once a RW whore always a RW whore.

Sad to say the Far Left HATE the Clinton's as much as the Right-Wing do....and there's several examples of that in this very thread....of course not too surprising, the first piece of smearing came from The Lady With The Karl Marx avatar.

I mean....Karl Marx in this day and age :eyes:



On Edit: Dammit spelling error....*sigh* more coffee needed

Think anyone will apologize?

I don't know whether it was in John Dean's book, Worse than Watergate or in a news article that I read. Bush has delayed the release of the papers of previous presidents. I would guess, but do not know, that he is trying to protect his father and possibly also Reagan.

I am not a Hillary fan so I am not trying to help her campaign. But I thought Russert was extremely out of place with that question!

"I am not a Hillary fan so I am not trying to help her campaign."

That line makes it seem like you actively try to hurt her campaign. If I am off base with this, I apologize... just seemed odd to me.

There are hysterical partisans on all sides, who will haul out the broad brush no matter what a poster writes. Disclaiming support for a candidate (at least when I've done it) is intended to deflect some of that, and hopefully establish a more objective position to say something positive. It appears, however, that even this little disclaimer may no longer serve around here.

Perhaps folks who think we've got a good crop of candidates, all of whom are capable of beating the pants off of any Republican next year, should just leave the field to the hyperpartisans?

would lead to something other than the usual way of doing business. I expected there to be some critical analysis of every candidate. But the partisan hacks from all sides have poisoned the well of sanity.

is not her supporter can see that asking her about the release of her White House documents was an unfair question. It should not have been asked. Anyone would expect a Hillary supporter to take her side on this issue. But I am not a Hillary supporter generally, but I think she is right on this issue. I don't think she handled the question very well. But it still was not a fair question.

I have said in other posts that I do not think that Hillary or, for that matter, very many members of congress really appreciate the strategy of the Bush administration in withholding the documents of past presidents. They are trying to the extent they possibly can to deprive the American people of honest information not only about what they are doing at the present time in their administration, but also what has been done in previous administrations. It is all part of a huge cover-up and a strategy to make sure that by the time Americans realize just how this administration and some of the previous ones have pushed America into a rapid descent into Fascism and poverty, it will be too late for us to turn the country around and choose good leaders. I believe this is an intentional strategy. Read Naomi Klein's Book The Shock Doctrine.

:)

This is just one more reason not to like the guy.:mad:

Funny how people take on the looks of the animals they seem most like. Russert looks like a buzzard in his physical form, head bent low and forward, as if to pick at rotting flesh. He is a vulture or sorts. Nothing against vultures, they keep the streets clean. But never let a vulture give advise or counsel. Allthey want is dead meat, food. Russert is a vulture. Bob

good for him.

......Clinton said that under the presidential documents law, he is not required to release any material until 2012.

"Unlike previous presidents, I have already released one million pages of documents, about half of which affect Hillary — the records of the health care task force," Clinton said.

He spoke to reporters after delivering remarks to Microsoft Corp. employees about corporate giving in connection with his book, "Giving."

One can release 10 million pages on a topic and withhold the 3 pages that might be damaging.

That's not a good thing.

I'm to believe that Senator Clinton, running for the Democratic nomination for president, recognized to be the most well prepared and crafted candidate, was surprised that her records as first lady became an issue and was something that caught her off-guard? Funny thing, it's been something that I have thought about quite a lot since she announced. HEY! Maybe she should hire me.

Maybe I am as big an idiot as they think I am.

that is 10 years earlier than the law requires. Why the cynicism?

He is and always has been in bed with the right-wing. His questions were not in-depth they were attacks.

And what bothered me more was that Obama and Edwards slept with the enemy to attack Clinton--using twists and distortions and outright lies.

Obama owes her an apology with regard to that question--the way he suggested she was like Bush. So much for unity

Explain yourself. It appears there's nothing to hide. Given that, your demand that she "come clean" appears to be nothing but a cynical (and empty) attack.

http://jesseberney.com/scorecard_print.html

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that presidents have the power to overturn laws with an executive order. But President Bush doesn't let that stop him from protecting Reagan, his father, administration cronies, and himself from the eventual release of their records. In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which was designed to check the evil whims of future presidents with the promise that all their papers would be released to the public 12 years after they left office. Reagan's papers were slated to be released this year, but Bush delayed the release several times. (See 9-1-2001 and 6-9-2001 below.) Surely this was connected to the fact that many of the worst criminals in the Reagan administration now serve under Bush. Now the president signs an executive order invalidating the PRA, ensuring that his most heinous deeds can be hidden from the public eye for all time.

I can no longer link to the original Washington Post article - but you can go to the Wage Slave Journal and see the snippet and the timeline.

What's to stop the next President from invalidating his invalidation, so to speak?

Me, I'd just issue my own executive order rendering all executive orders signed after 01/20/2001 invalid. I'm sure the next President will be more circumspect. But at the very least, I'd expect him/her to order a full review, with recommendations.

That's what I'd expect, anyway. Time will tell.

Hillary should have slapped the vicious little MoFo upside the head.

She should have known what he was talking about, and I think she did, on the other hand, how long was GWB one papers held.

their documents, it will take historians years to go through them all. Skip Rutherford (is that the correct name?) is in charge of the documents. They were in Little Rock before the library was built. The papers took an entire warehouse (the old Bale Chevrolet building on LaHarpe). It has been widely reported in the Ark Democrat-Gazette about all of the documents and the Dem-Gaz publisher (Walter Hussman hates Clinton) reported on these documents. I'm surprised ya'll didn't know about the absolute abundance of documents the Clinton's have released. Oh well...

I wonder how Hillary enjoys being condescended to.

she be expected to know about it. That's not condescending at all.

I find it impossible to believe that with the obvious fact that this was going to be asked, Bill didn't put Hillary in the loop. I can't imagine any other voter (at least any of those paying attention) believes that, either. That's why I didn't (and still don't) see it your way, but having read your post I suppose I can see why some do.

point that Hillary would be a presidential candidate. And it probably would have been inappropriate to put Hillary in the loop on this issue. I think it is amazing how everyone thinks they know so much about what Bill is telling/has told Hillary or how much he may have considered a possible Hillary candidacy when he made decisions. Just because we find something impossible to believe does not mean it did not happen.

that they were stil in the dark in 2002 as to whether she'd be running or not, but since you're dismissing everything that people think because they can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll stop discussing it. If you think what Bill said was cool, fine. If you honestly believe that the plans to have her run for president weren't in full swing by 2002, that's fine too.

I thought it was lame, but then again until the convention I'll take anything that makes Hillary look bad because I'd rather see us nominate any other Democrat. My stance on seeing her look bad will change if she gets the nomination - not because I'll stop hating her or thinking she'd make a shitty representative of our party and a shitty president (the fact that she has to be at least a little better than the Chimpster isn't enough to make me happy, that's the same as saying "Hey, as long as that sandwich technically tastes marginally better than human feces, give me a bite"), but because whoever the GOP will put up will be worse. For now, I hope both Clintons screw up everything they possibly can.

But I digress. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I believe. I hope more people agree with you than me, but I'm not confident that's the case.

a better chance. If you really want to believe the worst about the Clintons that is your right. But it hardly contributes much useful to the political debate to take that attitude, imo. Hillary certainly has her faults - she was wrong on Iraq and yes she is an opportunist (but most presidential candidates are, including Obama, if I am honest) and yes she is trying to use Bill Clinton's coattails. But I submit that any other Dem candidate would do the same if they could. As to who knew what in 2002 - it is all so much speculation so I am not so much dismissing it as just making the case that no one can know to what extent Bill did or did not confide with Hillary vis a vis releasing Whitehouse documents so what is the point of making a federal case out of it? It certainly does not enhance your candidate, does it? All it does is contribute to the coarseness rampant in political debate today AND give ammunition to the GOP candidate you say you want to beat IF Hillary does get the nomination (and that is at least an even bet so why would you want to do that?)

WANT to believe the worst about anyone, it simply happens when I smell enough rats.

Second, although I'd hold my nose and take Hillary over anyone running for the GOP, I don't want to. I hope Gore runs, but if he doesn't (and I don't believe he will), then I'm with your guy, Obama. I am so much more for Obama (or any other candidate we're running) than Hillary that I will be very open about my opinion as long as my preference has a realistic chance.

Let's put it this way - say you're on a deserted island with very little food left, and all of a sudden someone comes along with an entire buffet of your favorite dishes for you. You have your choice - indulge in the buffet, or finish off the last piece of moldy bread you have.

Gore or Obama would be the buffet.

Hillary is the moldy bread, and she wins out over the GOP because moldy bread HAS to taste better than a chunk of shit.

Leaving aside my basic problems with her, such as the fact I believe almost nothing she says, her refusal to admit Iraq was a mistake, etc, her performance in the debate was a disgrace. Her license answer was embarrassing, her archives answer was worse (and is only part of what has me convinced she was in the loop). Just because I would prefer any Democrat over any Repug doesn't mean I want Hillary to be president. I think she'd suck at the job, I don't think she'd be forthright about anything, and therefore she'll get support limited to my vote and nothing more if she gets the nomination.

Further, I see nothing wrong with coarseness in political debate. I think political debate should be coarse, rough, and ruthless. The whining from the Clinton camp about "piling on" is an outright embarrassment. Just as I don't want Obama, Edwards or whoever else to be polite and smiling when they're ripping Rudy Guiliani to shreds, I don't want them taking it easy on Hillary, either - especially since I desperately want her to be beaten and flogged in the primaries.

From what I can tell from your post, you think the way to go is to keep quiet if a particular candidate really disgusts you just because there's a 'D' after her name. If that's what works for you, fine. It doesn't for me.

If you were to quantify my disgust towards a Republican at 100 out of 100, just as a reference point, Obama might ring up a 5 or 10, whereas Hillary registers at at least 80. I can't stand her, so I'm not going to be silent. She should be ashamed of her stupid debate answers, and America should really take a second look at her if they think she'll bring back the prosperity her husband presided over.

In short, can you imagine Bill screwing up those questions so badly? I sure can't.

.

does the DNC, or any other Dems have any say in this or do the whore networks just get their biggest whores to do it ?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.



He asks twice if she would release the information. Twice, she suggested that it was the fault of the Archives that the papers were not released. She could have said that Russert was misinterpreting the letter. She could have said she had no knowledge of such a letter. Instead, she came off as hiding behind the Archives to keep her papers sealed.