PDA

View Full Version : Gunrunning from the White House?



LWW
09-09-2011, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Law: Operation Gunwalker, the rogue ATF operation to arm Mexico's cartels, extends now to three White House officials. A bell goes off with the one named Dan Restrepo.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Late last Friday, CBS News and the Los Angeles Times almost buried the news that Restrepo, the National Security Council's top man for Latin America, and two other officials, were in on ATF memos from the Gunwalker operation called "Fast and Furious."

That blows apart White House claims that it had no idea the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was encouraging frontmen for Mexico's cartels to buy weapons from U.S. gun dealers — to "trace" them afterward.</span>

Some 2,000 U.S. guns were sold in Gunwalker but simply disappeared — until they turned up at massacres in Mexico and at the murder scenes of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata.

But outgoing ATF acting director Ken Melson and others who've been the fall guys in this scandal darkly hint that their orders came from the White House, and domestic critics think <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Gunwalker can only be explained as a White House bid to boost support for gun control. Restrepo's involvement distinctly raises both possibilities.

Restrepo is a political operative whose interests are more domestic than Latin American. As a result, he's botched every Latin American operation he's had his hand in, appeasing enemies and blaming the U.S.:

• Honduras: In 2009, Restrepo was behind a U.S. bid to swiftly declare Honduras' constitutional ouster of its president "a coup" and sanctioned the country, playing into the hands of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who had attempted to make Honduras a colony.

• Cuba: Restrepo was behind loosening sanctions on Castro's Cuba, which has emboldened the regime to act against Americans. While Castro imprisoned Alan Gross, a U.S. contractor who was distributing satellite phones to dissidents, the Obama administration said nothing.

• Colombia: Its troops captured drug "kingpin of kingpins" Walid Makled, who had extensive knowledge of Venezuelan official involvement in trafficking. U.S. attorneys wanted him extradited, but Colombia's President Juan Manuel Santos said President Obama never asked. When IBD asked Restrepo whether he advised Obama to ask, Restrepo defensively said he did. But that's at odds with what Santos said.

• Venezuela: Treasury Department officials complained Restrepo kept names of high-ranking Venezuelan officials with ties to drug dealers off its "Kingpin List," in a naive effort to keep pressure off Chavez.

• Now Restrepo tries to pin Mexico's drug war not on Hugo Chavez's trafficker allies, but on gun dealers from the U.S.</span>

There's little doubt that's his line, because blaming U.S. gun dealers and calling for a U.S. assault weapon ban were his ideas from his days spent at the Center for American Progress, an Obama-linked think tank.

The U.S. "will work to inhibit the flow of weapons ... across our border," Restrepo told Mexican media.

Meanwhile, when Obama met with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, both erroneously declared that U.S. weapons fueled Mexico's drug war — on Restrepo's advice.

Blogger Mike Vanderbroegh thinks that if Restrepo wasn't the author of Gunwalker he'd know who is and should be called to tell Congress. Either he's kept Obama in the dark about Gunwalker, or Obama should be impeached. </div></div>

WHEN WILL HEARINGS BEGIN? (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584023/201109071801/A-White-House-Gunrunner-.htm)

Sev
09-09-2011, 03:05 PM
It would be nice to see Holder indited.

LWW
09-09-2011, 05:25 PM
Do you think the buck stops there?

Soflasnapper
09-09-2011, 05:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Today, the Congressional investigation into ATF's Fast and Furious scandal officially expanded to include White House staffers. In a letter to President Obama's National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asked for records involving three current and former White House staffers.

The staffers are: Kevin O'Reilly, former Director of North American Affairs, National Security Council; Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council; and Greg Gatjanis, Director for Terrorist Finance and Counternarcotics, Counterterrorism Policy, National Security Council.

The information requests were made after revelations that ATF's Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix during Fast and Furious, William Newell, "provided regular updates to Kevin O'Reilly" at the White House..."as early as the summer of 2010." The emails indicate O'Reilly asked to share information about Fast and Furious with Restrepo and Gatjanis.

In addition to the new documents request, the Congressional Republicans also requested to interview O'Reilly by the end of this month.

President Obama has said that neither he nor Justice Department head Eric Holder knew about or approved of the operation. </div></div>

CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20104044-10391695.html)

eg8r
09-09-2011, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama has said that neither he nor Justice Department head Eric Holder knew about or approved of the operation. </div></div>I could believe this either way. There is no way of knowing what Obama knew and there is no reason for me to believe any sitting President would own up to it if they did.

eg8r

LWW
09-10-2011, 01:37 AM
If Obama says he had no involvement you slavishly accept that as the truth?

LWW &lt;---Unsurprised.

Soflasnapper
09-10-2011, 05:13 PM
It may or may not be true.

In this case, since there's now been an official and specific denial that neither official knew of or approved of this plan, at the same time that Issa and his committee are hot on this trail, it does seem to me that this claim will be most likely proven true.

Because if it isn't, that will probably come out shortly, and I doubt Obama would speak so definitively when he knows if he's lying, it will come out and damage him almost immediately.

LWW
09-11-2011, 06:26 AM
Yet over three decades later you still believe in the "OCTOBER SURPRISE" ...

Soflasnapper
09-11-2011, 01:40 PM
Yes I do. And possibly now, we will have the release of the SS detail records from the National Archives that W thought he'd quashed as one of his earliest EOs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush’s ‘October Surprise’ File in Dispute
September 9, 2011

Exclusive: The enduring October Surprise mystery – whether Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages in Iran – has reached a possible turning point, whether details of George H.W. Bush’s activities on a key day will be released, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The National Archives is reconsidering its initial refusal to release Secret Service records regarding the whereabouts of George H.W. Bush on Oct. 19, 1980, when the then-Republican vice presidential candidate is alleged by some witnesses to have secretly traveled to Paris for illicit meetings with Iranian officials.

Gary M. Stern, general counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), told me that a “serious review” is under way regarding my complaint that an earlier decision – to withhold that information out of concern for the safety of Secret Service agents – made no sense.

Stern said a decision is likely in the next couple of weeks, a time frame that suggests that Bush’s approval is being sought before any final decision is reached. Under existing rules, Bush could assert executive privilege to prevent a release, but that could be overturned by President Barack Obama or the White House counsel’s office.

For the past two decades, the senior George Bush has resisted releasing this information, even when it was sought by congressional investigators in 1992 as part of an inquiry into whether Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign went behind President Jimmy Carter’s back to delay release of 52 Americans then held hostage in Iran, the so-called October Surprise controversy.

Though redacted Secret Service reports were released in the early 1990s showing that Bush was taking that weekend off in Washington (with two non-public visits on Oct. 19, 1980), key details of those movements were whited-out, including the destination of an afternoon trip.

As the sitting president in 1992, Bush stopped the congressional investigators from checking out his presumed alibi, thus raising questions about whether some friendly Secret Service supervisor might have simply created false reports as a cover story for Bush’s trip to Paris. Under that scenario, Bush might have feared a full investigation would have uncovered the subterfuge.[...] </div></div>

From ConsortiumNews (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/09/bushs-october-surprise-file-in-dispute/)

LWW
09-11-2011, 02:57 PM
Tell us the one again about how Orville Reddenbacher, or whatever his name was, did the following:

- Was released overnight from prison by order of then POTUS Jimmy Carter.

- Flew a CIA SR-71, which he had never even flight simmed before, to Paris with George Herbert Walker Bush as a passenger ... even though an SR-71 barely has room for the crew.

- Became astronaut rayed, along with GHWB, as all Blackbird crew are.

- Crossed over the eastern USA, and the UK and western France, at supersonic speed without creating a sonic boom or being sighted by any of several hunder radar stations along the way.

- Landed in Paris at Orleans Airport, without going through customs and without leaving any paper trail.

- Took GHWB to a hotel, which has no record of the meeting taking place, for a meeting with the Iranians ... who deny it ever happened.

- Reversed the route in the same invisible mode.

And did it all to undermine the reelection bid of the man who had to have signed off on the operation.

Now ... why are you willing to accept Obama's word, in spite of voluminous circumstantial evidence, and unwilling to take Reagan's word even though everyone who has ever looked into this (Not including confirmed liars, iddiots, and /or criminals.) has explained to you that simply isn't anything even remotely resembling credible this this mother of all moonbat hypotheses?

BTW ... no answer is actually expected, the question is rhetorical in nature and the answer self evident.

LWW
09-11-2011, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I do. And possibly now, we will have the release of the SS detail records from the National Archives that W thought he'd quashed as one of his earliest EOs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush’s ‘October Surprise’ File in Dispute
September 9, 2011

Exclusive: The enduring October Surprise mystery – whether Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages in Iran – has reached a possible turning point, whether details of George H.W. Bush’s activities on a key day will be released, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The National Archives is reconsidering its initial refusal to release Secret Service records regarding the whereabouts of George H.W. Bush on Oct. 19, 1980, when the then-Republican vice presidential candidate is alleged by some witnesses to have secretly traveled to Paris for illicit meetings with Iranian officials.</div></div>

From ConsortiumNews (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/09/bushs-october-surprise-file-in-dispute/) </div></div>

Smoke and mirrors for the naive.

What was sealed is the exact details of his meetings.

His whereabouts, from secret service records, is well known ... and has been for years.

From an article entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h911104-october.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>There is, finally, solid evidence that George Bush did not go to Paris on Oct. 19-20, 1980--the U.S. Secret Service logs recorded where candidate Bush was on those days.</span> Those logs show that Bush campaigned in New Jersey and Pennsylvania on Oct. 17, and that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>he went to the Chevy Chase Country Club, outside Washington, during the day on Oct. 19. They also show that he delivered a campaign speech before the Zionist Organization of America at a Washington hotel that night. The logs show that he returned to his home at about 9:30 on the night of the 19th. The next day, Oct. 20, the Secret Service logs and press reports both record that Bush was back on the campaign trail in New Haven, Conn.</span> Given the travel time involved, there is no reasonable possibility that he could have flown to Paris, met the Iranians and returned to the United States in that time period. </div></div>

LWW
09-11-2011, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I do. And possibly now, we will have the release of the SS detail records from the National Archives that W thought he'd quashed as one of his earliest EOs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Though redacted Secret Service reports were released in the early 1990s showing that Bush was taking that weekend off in Washington (with two non-public visits on Oct. 19, 1980), key details of those movements were whited-out, including the destination of an afternoon trip.</div></div>

From ConsortiumNews (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/09/bushs-october-surprise-file-in-dispute/) </div></div>

Notice that your own link proves your nutjob source to be in conflict with reality ... unless you believe that between 12:30 and 9:30 he:

- Was shuttled to Tecas.

- Made the miracle flight to Paris.

- Made the miracle return flight.

- Cut a deal with the Iranians.

- Negotiated Paris traffic twice.

- Negotiated DC traffic twice.

- Negotiated Dallas traffic twice.

LWW
09-11-2011, 03:35 PM
The other key witness, a Richard Brenneke ... also a phony CIA operative,

Brenneke initially swore that he ould place GHWB at a meeting in Paris with the Iranians on the 10/19-20 dates.

Then the truth came out:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>There is reason to believe, meanwhile, that Brenneke was nowhere near Paris on Oct. 19-20, 1980. The evidence consists of Brenneke's own credit-card receipts and desk diary for that period of time. According to a recent story in New York's Village Voice newspaper by Frank Snepp, a former CIA agent who is now a freelance journalist and investigator, Brenneke's credit-card receipts show that he stayed at a motel in Seattle, Wash., from Oct. 17 to Oct. 19. His desk calendar, Snepp also reported, showed that he was home in Portland on Oct. 20.</span> These records, Snepp said, were shown to him by Peggy Adler Robohm, a writer who at first admired and wholly believed Brenneke's stories. </div></div>

Following Mr Brenneke's testimony, and revelations proving he was a continent plus an ocean away, he wrote to the judge that he had no first hand knowledge of Bush being in Paris.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy_theory#Jury.27s_findin gs_at_Brenneke.27s_trial)

OH MY! (http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=15376.0;wap2)

Soflasnapper
09-11-2011, 04:55 PM
Then you should have no issue with, and actually call for, the release of the materials from the National Archives.

If the NA decides no, it will be because of the interference of W Bush. Why did he hide these records at the very beginning of his term, and why should he keep them secret now?

Soflasnapper
09-11-2011, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I do. And possibly now, we will have the release of the SS detail records from the National Archives that W thought he'd quashed as one of his earliest EOs.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush’s ‘October Surprise’ File in Dispute
September 9, 2011

Exclusive: The enduring October Surprise mystery – whether Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free 52 American hostages in Iran – has reached a possible turning point, whether details of George H.W. Bush’s activities on a key day will be released, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The National Archives is reconsidering its initial refusal to release Secret Service records regarding the whereabouts of George H.W. Bush on Oct. 19, 1980, when the then-Republican vice presidential candidate is alleged by some witnesses to have secretly traveled to Paris for illicit meetings with Iranian officials.</div></div>

From ConsortiumNews (http://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/09/bushs-october-surprise-file-in-dispute/) </div></div>

Smoke and mirrors for the naive.

What was sealed is the exact details of his meetings.

His whereabouts, from secret service records, is well known ... and has been for years.

From an article entered into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h911104-october.htm)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>There is, finally, solid evidence that George Bush did not go to Paris on Oct. 19-20, 1980--the U.S. Secret Service logs recorded where candidate Bush was on those days.</span> Those logs show that Bush campaigned in New Jersey and Pennsylvania on Oct. 17, and that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>he went to the Chevy Chase Country Club, outside Washington, during the day on Oct. 19. They also show that he delivered a campaign speech before the Zionist Organization of America at a Washington hotel that night. The logs show that he returned to his home at about 9:30 on the night of the 19th. The next day, Oct. 20, the Secret Service logs and press reports both record that Bush was back on the campaign trail in New Haven, Conn.</span> Given the travel time involved, there is no reasonable possibility that he could have flown to Paris, met the Iranians and returned to the United States in that time period. </div></div>
</div></div>

Here we find LWW relying on as absolute truth the reporting of Newsweek Magazine, owned by the long-time CIA-related Washington Post company. Moreover, reporting that has not stood the test of time, and is now outdated by evidence developed afterwards.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the past two decades, the senior George Bush has resisted releasing this information, even when it was sought by congressional investigators in 1992 as part of an inquiry into whether Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign went behind President Jimmy Carter’s back to delay release of 52 Americans then held hostage in Iran, the so-called October Surprise controversy.

Though redacted Secret Service reports were released in the early 1990s showing that Bush was taking that weekend off in Washington (with two non-public visits on Oct. 19, 1980), key details of those movements were whited-out, including the destination of an afternoon trip.

As the sitting president in 1992, Bush stopped the congressional investigators from checking out his presumed alibi, thus raising questions about whether some friendly Secret Service supervisor might have simply created false reports as a cover story for Bush’s trip to Paris. Under that scenario, Bush might have feared a full investigation would have uncovered the subterfuge.

[...]

The drawn-out dispute over Bush’s whereabouts on that Sunday in October 1980 now stretches over more than two decades, from when the Secret Service initially agreed to release only redacted copies of Bush’s travel records – even to federal prosecutors and Congress.

Though most investigators – both inside and out of government – gave great weight to the Secret Service records vouching for Bush’s apparent presence in the Washington area that day, Bush’s refusal to fill in the blanks created suspicions that he might have gotten a friendly supervisor on the Secret Service detail to cook up some movements as a cover story.

Another part of Bush’s alibi for Oct. 19 – a morning trip to the Chevy Chase Country Club – previously collapsed when no one at the club recalled the visit and the account from Secret Service supervisor Leonard Tanis, who described a brunch also involving Barbara Bush and Justice and Mrs. Potter Stewart, turned out to be false.

Disproving Tanis’s account, Mrs. Bush’s Secret Service records showed her taking a morning jog along the C&O Canal, and Mrs. Stewart told me that she and her late husband never had brunch with the Bushes at the Chevy Chase club.

When questioned by congressional investigators, none of the other Secret Service agents on the detail recalled going to the Chevy Chase club at all. After his Chevy Chase story was debunked, Tanis – a Secret Service official who was known to be personally close to Bush – withdrew it

That left Bush’s supposed afternoon trip on Oct. 19 as his key alibi. But there were problems with that story as well.

In 1992, when allegations of Bush’s secret trip to Paris in 1980 were being investigated, Republicans suggested that Democrats were simply trying to embarrass the then-President because the afternoon trip might have involved a rendezvous with a woman.

Since Bush’s reelection campaign was matching up against Democrat Bill Clinton, who was under fire for his own womanizing, the GOP complaint boiled down to that the Democrats were looking for dirt against Bush to counter the dirt against Clinton.

However, that Republican argument also fell apart when Mrs. Bush’s Secret Service records showed her participating in the afternoon trip. Given Barbara Bush’s presence, the idea of a romantic tryst certainly didn’t make much sense.

So, either Mrs. Bush had gone together with her husband on the outing or a sympathetic Secret Service official had used Mrs. Bush’s visit to a family friend to create another false cover story for George H.W. Bush.

[...]

While keeping these details from the public, Bush angrily insisted that he be cleared of the Paris allegations. Congressional investigators looking into the 1980 suspicions were eager to comply, but there remained this peculiar refusal of the Bush administration to supply a confirmable alibi.

In June 1992, a compromise of sorts was struck. A few senior congressional investigators were given the identity of Bush’s mysterious host but only under the condition that they would never interview the alibi witness nor disclose publicly who it was.

The deal may have represented the first time in investigative history that a suspect provided authorities an alibi witness with the proviso that the alibi not be checked out – and the investigators agreed. Maybe only a member of the Bush Family could pull that off. </div></div>

LWW
09-12-2011, 02:43 AM
Do you realize how foolish you make yourself look with this stuff.

eg8r
09-12-2011, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did he hide these records at the very beginning of his term, and why should he keep them secret now? </div></div>This sounds eerily familiar to the question asked of Obama about his birth certificate. Why do you pose the question as legitimate of W but not Obama?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-12-2011, 10:34 AM
What is the difference between a law in place (The Presidential Records Act, duly passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the POTUS) that provides for the release of the presidential records to the public domain in the National Archives being overturned by W's presidential Executive Order, and Obama's efforts to keep in place the confidentiality of vital records materials as Hawaiian law provides?

They are similar by being entirely the opposite from one another.

W's actions thwarted a federal law on the books so as to protect his father and Reagan's administrations from the lawfully required release of their publicly owned official papers and records. Obama's actions sought to ensure that the applicable state laws were honored, and that his private records to which no one is entitled remain private, in the face of multiple privately funded lawsuits attempting to breach the law's confidentiality order.

Soflasnapper
09-12-2011, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you realize how foolish you make yourself look with this stuff. </div></div>

What is foolish is to not realize GHW Bush never accounted for this missing time in his schedule, providing instead an alibi witness name to only a few in the investigation, on condition that they not talk to the witness, not verify his story, and not disclose the name to anyone, including the chairman of the committee.

So it remains a live issue, the pitiful and now discredited apologetics debunkings of the Newsweek and The New Republic attempts at explaining it away relying on false accounts of what the SS detail said notwithstanding. The committee had tried to get the actual SS agents who'd served on the security detail on those days directly in front of them to testify, by the SS refused and instead sent a supervisor to answer questions about their written statements.

Reagan himself admitted his campaign team was negotiating with the Iranians, but claimed that it was for the purpose of getting them released earlier, not holding up the release. However, such unauthorized contacts were illegal. He said it would all come out eventually, but as of that time, the records of what they had done remained classified.

To be fair to Reagan, this remark, as a casual response to questioning on a golf course, occurred after he'd left office or not long before, and therefore were spoken under an increasingly problematic Alzheimer's Disease mental deficit. So he might have gotten the cover story a little wrong by that late date.

eg8r
09-12-2011, 11:01 AM
The question had nothing to do with the similarities of whether one was legal or not or even though had Obama not been a citizen would have posed quite a serious issue. No, the question had to do with your intent/implication behind asking the question. By asking the question you are implying something is being "hidden" with the intent to be dishonest or less "forthcoming" with info that might have negative results. That is exactly the intent that was behind the questions about Obama.

So again, I ask you, "Why do you pose the question as legitimate of W but not Obama?"

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-12-2011, 12:29 PM
That is the key point I'm making.

By hiding the Reagan/Bush Sr. presidential records, W was acting against a law in effect, and actually then, you know, HIDING something that was supposed to be made public, under the law.

By supposedly 'hiding' his BC, Obama was rather ENSURING that a law in effect continued to operate as it was passed to do, which is to ensure the privacy of the state of Hawaii's vital records, and keep them private, as per the law in force.

Moreover, there were no OTHER laws that required these documents be made public that O was blocking.

eg8r
09-12-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By supposedly 'hiding' his BC, Obama was rather ENSURING that a law in effect continued to operate as it was passed to do, which is to ensure the privacy of the state of Hawaii's vital records, and keep them private, as per the law in force.

</div></div>Kind of hard to prove you are a citizen and keep that law in place. There was no reason for him to hide it unless he was hiding something which is the same thing you are accusing W of doing.

eg8r

LWW
09-12-2011, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is the difference between a law in place (The Presidential Records Act, duly passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the POTUS) that provides for the release of the presidential records to the public domain in the National Archives being overturned by W's presidential Executive Order ...</div></div>

Sorry ... but I have to call moonbattery on that one.

Much to the O-cult's chagrin ... the POTUS cannot trump the law of the land by EO.

LWW
09-12-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did he hide these records at the very beginning of his term, and why should he keep them secret now? </div></div>This sounds eerily familiar to the question asked of Obama about his birth certificate. Why do you pose the question as legitimate of W but not Obama?

eg8r </div></div>

Actually ... it's not even close.

Obama had not presented a scintilla of evidence that he was in fact a citizen of the US. The evidence, even that presented now, is still highly dubious.

OTOH ...

- The key witness putting GHWB in Paris admitted that he was not there himself.

- A paper trail confirms that he was literally over 5,000 miles away at the time he claimed he was with GHWB in Paris.

- The second key witness, pilot Orville Reddenbacher or whatever his name was, can be demonstrated to have been in prison at the time of the supposed flight to Paris carrying Bush.

- The pilot Orville Reddenbacher or whatever his name was, proved by his own words that he had never even been inside an SR-71 ... and in fact was ignorant of the plane's specs, as he claims that he sat beside GHWB on the flight. The SR-71 has the pilot seater directly in front of the co-pilot.

- GHWB spoke in the PM of the 19th in front of hundreds of witnesses, and on the morning of the 20th in front of thousands and has verifiable appointments earlier in the day of the 19th.

But ... to a practitioner of moonbattery, none of this has meaning.

They accuse Bush of a crime, and in the mind of a moonbatterist that makes them unimpeachably credible.

LWW
09-12-2011, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is the key point I'm making.

By hiding the Reagan/Bush Sr. presidential records, W was acting against a law in effect, and actually then, you know, HIDING something that was supposed to be made public, under the law.

By supposedly 'hiding' his BC, Obama was rather ENSURING that a law in effect continued to operate as it was passed to do, which is to ensure the privacy of the state of Hawaii's vital records, and keep them private, as per the law in force.

Moreover, there were no OTHER laws that required these documents be made public that O was blocking. </div></div>

OMFG!!!!

You cleared the shark by a good 30 yards with that one.