Obama Opens Up Presidential Records; Some Conservatives Forget History

January 23rd, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

As Michael noted earlier today, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order on Wednesday the essentially revoked Executive Order 13233, written by former President George W. Bush in November 2001. 13233 is particularly notable as it essentially made the incumbent president the just about nearly the only decision maker on access to records of former presidents, whereas in the order it replaced, 12667, it was more of a team effort involving the Attorney General, as well as the Counsel to the President, and other agencies.  It also extended Executive privilege claims and review of former records by the incumbent president to former Vice Presidents.

One can see why this would be a problem, of course.  While there are legitimate reasons for Executive privledge (national security and the like, but perhaps others), giving near unlimited control of review to one person means that that one person can decide to keep away a record that may not affect national security, but may be simply embarassing.  Perhaps details of a scandal from a former administation that never gained public light.  Could be anything, really.

The point is that this kind of control over records doesn’t speak much to transparancy in government.  Admittedly the other actors in 12667 still serve at the pleasure of the president, but having multiple people who do reviewing the feasibility of releasing a record is better than just one.  Anyway, I was looking around the blogosphere on the response to this action.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air thinks it’s a good move.  Some of his commenters?  Not so much.  But I think they forget their history.  Lets take a look at some of the opposers (emphasis mine):

Maybe he did this so leftists could plow thru Bush’s records in an attempt to find ammo for prosecution. I simply have a hard time believing Obama had some kind of altruistic intent here. [...]

This only applies to former presidents and not Obama and can be recinded before he leaves office by another executive order or by the loopholes in how he wrote this one. Keep in mind openness and Obama don’t have any sort of relationship as he has kept. [...]

Bull Sh!t. this was done to dredge dirt on the Bush admin. It will be closed up again before The One leaves office. I see more and more people are drinking the Kool-Aid and seeing the unicorns and rainbows. The cult is spreading….

Fun, are they not?  Obviously, this was done by Obama so Bush’s records could be plundered.  And note my emphasis in the second quote as we continue.  Be fearful because Obama is going to use whatever holes are in this order to get out of it.  Sneaky, that one is.

You need to not worry, though.  Not all the hyperbole is done by the far right.  Liberals too are shouting out, though for different reasons.  Obama has saved the world, you see.  He’s created this order to bring back peace, justice, fairies, and Falkor the Luckdragon.  Just look at this praise.

Now to the juicy part and the problem for both left and right alike.  Obama didn’t create this Executive Order! Or at least not all of it.  The new order is by and large reinstating 12667 which was created by (drum roll, please)…

RONALD REAGAN!

You know.  The 40th president.  The guy before Bush the Elder.  Politely asked Gorbachev to tear down some wall in Eastern Germany.  Yea, that Ronald Reagan.  I’ve read both orders, and except for a reformulated Section 5 and a new Section 6 revoking 13233, the new order is practically verbatim to Reagan’s.  I read quickly but that’s what I saw.  A closer inspection would probably show the copy and paste job that it is.

So, conservatives, you can’t blame Obama for this one.  You need to look back further first.  Liberals, you can perhaps thank Obama for reinstating what is a better order, but he didn’t pull off a masterpiece here.  Probably took him (or his staff) a short amount of time to draw up given that most of the material was already there.

So can we stop with all the hyperbole and hyperventilating on this, please?  Besides, Bush’s records won’t be available for at least five years.  There could be a different president by then.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Orson Buggeigh
    January 23rd, 2009 at 17:09
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Good call. Michael. I’m with you and Captain Ed on this one. Transparency in government is essential for our republic. It is wrong to allow the President to close his records and be the final arbiter of what should be opened to the public. The President works for the public, which has a right and a duty to keep asking questions about how the president is performing.

    Reagan’s policy was a good one.

  2. Jay_C
    January 23rd, 2009 at 18:13
    Reply | Quote | #2

    I give Obama cudos for this! So far I am 2 for 3 in his decisions. Not crazy about the Gitmo decision, like this one, and the pay freeze.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.