Should the White House be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
"Most transparent administration."
OK, 21% of Democrats, please defend your position that the white house should be exempt (remembering a Democrat may not be occupying said house in the future).
It's transparent alright. Transparently racist, Marxist, anti-American, pro-radical Islam, and anti-Israel.
They want to be excluded because of course they have something to hide
Your guy did promise to be more transparent than was Bush's administration, BTW. This makes him a liar too.
"This administration will run on a platform of transparency!*" - Obama
* - terms and conditions do not apply to obama or his office. Or anyone else that obama deems it shouldn't apply to
1% of "Libertarians" on this app read it as "Librarian".
"Most transparent admin. in history"
One more lie.
No one is above the law. Not even the White House.
What happened to bills being on the Internet for 72 hours before a vote? Oops...
you're a joke.
Deflect blame from Obama ALWAYS.
Absolutely not. With the exception of documents and info that are vital to national security against imminent and great threats to the country, everything done in public office as a public official should be available for public information and view.
Remember when Obama promised the most open and transparent administration in history, and then proceeded immediately to actually enact the least open and transparent administration in history?
The White House should not be exempt from a damn thing.
It's not all national security.
Black = white
Up = down
0bama = smart
Transparent = opaque
You only wanted one, right?
So much for transparency.
In other words, you were beat in round one. Now, you want to change the rules of the fight into something I'm not even fighting for.
What? Of course not. That's exactly the sort of thing for which the FOI act exists.
On military information, yes.
On anything else, hell no.
No exemptions should exist, except for national security of course. We have a right to know what our government is up to.
This administration couldn't be any more transparent.
SF ... there are miles between no secret and transparent. Has MrO kept his promise to have a transparent administration -- in the context of the Bush administration -- which was MrO's promise?
They're transparent alright! You see nothing except smoke and mirrors.
Tex ... has MrO kept his promise to be the most transparent administration?
How does the Supreme Court excuse MrO's lie?
What happened to a more transparent presidency??
I'm reminded of one o' the great irony's of my life: President Obama awarded the Transparency Award at the Freedom of Information Day Conference, while all media was locked out. This was never placed on Obama's calendar, there are no pictures, video,
Given the Administration's vociferous war on whistleblowers and investigative journalism, this is totally unsurprising. GWB was terrible when it came to transparency, but Obama is even worse. Don't expect the next administration to be any better.
Slick, and you believe that justification? Keep the blinders on, my friend, your government has your best interest in mind, don't worry, keep moving on, nothing to question...
Seems contrary to the point of the legislation.
...or even a transcript of this event. This award is not even mentioned on the White House website dedicated to its own transparency! My answer here is "No", but IMHO, the White House exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act long ago...
Presidents, not kings
Absolutely, positively, NOT... unless it is unmitigated National Security, not *everything* "classied" like this Admin has done. Sneaky 12-yr-old style.
No, no part of the government should be. Any and all activities involving the people's business, from back room conversations to publications should be recorded and made available to the public, with a very few exceptions based on national security.
Though I do not disagree with your statement, a great deal of moder-day liberal politicians are idiots. (But then again, a vast majority of american politicians are spineless mouthpieces for banks and corporations, sadly.)
Yes but only for certain classified information, like Bill and Monica's "meetings," BO's Allah prayer sessions, or GW's etch-a-sketch drawings.
Their internal discussions really shouldn't be open to inspection. The fruit of their work, however, including policy, regulations, proposal for law, are and should continue to be the focus of scrutiny and debate.
As of this post, nearly 1/5th of democrats say yes. How would they have voted if George W. Bush was in office?
Transparency has it limits but strongly believe in a need to know basis. We don't need to know when it comes to National Security. Tell us and you tell the world, that's not smart diplomacy.
It isn't just liberals, m8. Bush brought us the Patriot Act and NSA spying, after all. It is simple government corruption, and... well, oligarchialism (is that a word?). A matter of authoritarian policy as opposed to left vs right.
Democrats, really? Imagine president George W. Bush and vote again!
This arrogant, naive, ideological administration needs to do things in secret "for our own good" even though they couldn't successfully run a lemonade stand at the equator.
Third paragraph, first sentence: "The ruling stems from a lawsuit that began before the obama administration took office..."
Now logicman81 you have 2 options: (1) Claim a conspiracy by evil muslim commie Obama, or (2) Claim satan wrote that part.
Statement: "USA is a democracy."
Corrected: "USA is an oligarchy."
I'm aware. The problem with that is obama said he was going to make his administration transparent. Instead, he fell back on what bush started and decided to be a hypocrite.
Surely you understand this as a neocon troll, no?
Yes, but that's irrelevant as it doesn't excuse this guy.
House should get what it needs and Hilly Should wear prison stripes. 😇