• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should Hillary's White House papers be released for public review?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Way to miss the point guys. [Golf Clap emoticon]

It's about records to prove campaign claims/boasts, not investigaing HRC for her activites as First Lady.

GWB and Cheney ain't running anyway.

So, the question is (and has absolutley nothing to do really with any other candidate, much less non-candidates) do you think HRC should produce records supporting her claim of superior experience earned as a First Lady if she wants us to belive it?


Originally posted by: GrGr
I'm all for transparency across the line.

Sure let Hillary disclose her record, but let the Bush administration lead the way showing all their records inlcuding everything they have on torture (in particular cases directly approved by Bush), everything they planned before, during and after the invasion of Iraq etc, all the secret deals by Cheney etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: GrGr
I'm all for transparency across the line.

Sure let Hillary disclose her record, but let the Bush administration lead the way showing all their records inlcuding everything they have on torture (in particular cases directly approved by Bush), everything they planned before, during and after the invasion of Iraq etc, all the secret deals by Cheney etc. etc. etc.
Yeah, aint that the truth. It's been almost 8 years fo the most secret administration ever but all of a sudden all the BushBots are for releasing records..... Of course they don't start a thread asking Bush or Cheney to do so, just the ones they want to bash. Can they get any more transparent?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Yes, and while we're at it can we ship her and Rudy off to an island and make Edwards tow the boat by swimming?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, aint that the truth. It's been almost 8 years fo the most secret administration ever but all of a sudden all the BushBots are for releasing records..... Of course they don't start a thread asking Bush or Cheney to do so, just the ones they want to bash. Can they get any more transparent?
Ah, the timeless "BUT BUSH!" arguments. :roll:

Perhaps you missed the topic of this thread?
How can a "BUT BUSH" not come up in a BUT BILLARY" thread? :p
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
How can a "BUT BUSH" not come up in a BUT BILLARY" thread? :p
You really should get those spectacles checked out. This thread is about Hillary Clinton's White House papers, not Bush. Have you taken your BDS pills this evening? :laugh:
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,016
308
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Yeah, aint that the truth. It's been almost 8 years fo the most secret administration ever but all of a sudden all the BushBots are for releasing records..... Of course they don't start a thread asking Bush or Cheney to do so, just the ones they want to bash. Can they get any more transparent?
Ah, the timeless "BUT BUSH!" arguments. :roll:

Perhaps you missed the topic of this thread?
How can a "BUT BUSH" not come up in a BUT BILLARY" thread? :p
That doesn't even make any sense.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
I don't care about HRC records from a decade ago.

I want to see Bush & Cheney records from this decade. That is what is affecting us now.

WTG trying to divert the discussion from what is important.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,016
308
126
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
I don't care about HRC records from a decade ago.

I want to see Bush & Cheney records from this decade. That is what is affecting us now.

WTG trying to divert the discussion from what is important.
Good point. The current election is not important at all....:roll:
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
All elected officials need to be held responsible for their actions as elected officials. Therefore, all "hidden" papers need to be released. why is there a need to hide anythign anyways? This goes for Bush and Clinton.

If seeking to be elected, pertinent information should be made available so that the citizens can make the most informed choice.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,016
308
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
All elected officials need to be held responsible for their actions as elected officials. Therefore, all "hidden" papers need to be released. why is there a need to hide anythign anyways? This goes for Bush and Clinton.

If seeking to be elected, pertinent information should be made available so that the citizens can make the most informed choice.
I agree. As long as the info is not classified of course.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
Obviously it should, but I'd have to assume she keeps them locked up for political reasons. Maybe even legal reasons.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
I don't care about HRC records from a decade ago.
Of course you don't. You're a Clinton Kool-Aid sipper.

The rest of us realize that HRC is running for POTUS and attempting to use her time as first lady as "experience" and credentials now. It's time for Billary to put up or shut up.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
The only reason that this is even a minor issue is that the GOP desparately wants it to be an issue
and use that focus to deflect attention from their own plagues and pestulence.


Do you really care what the wife of an ex-President did between 8 to 20 years ago when she was not a functionally elected official?

Not only is it a 'fishing expedition' - it's an 'ice fishing expedition', any fragment of anything no matter how cold or stale
they 'might', just 'maybe' with a little outrage to the bleating sheep from Rush Gasbag, they could get that
right wing extremist fruitcake fringe riled up for the Holidays.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
This is about hypocrisy if you ask me. The same people who didn't say anything about Bush's secrecy are now demanding the opposite from Hillary Clinton.
Very typical for GOP.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The only reason that this is even a minor issue is that the GOP desparately wants it to be an issue and use that focus to deflect attention from their own plagues and pestulence.
There are other threads where there is plenty of dicussion on other issues. Should the whole world focus on one issue at a time? Are you grand-master of all that is important?

Do you really care what the wife of an ex-President did between 8 to 20 years ago when she was not a functionally elected official?
You're g'damn right I care! Especially if those years comprise most of what she refers to when she claims to have "the most experience" of all the candidates!

Not only is it a 'fishing expedition' - it's an 'ice fishing expedition', any fragment of anything no matter how cold or stale they 'might', just 'maybe' with a little outrage to the bleating sheep from Rush Gasbag, they could get that right wing extremist fruitcake fringe riled up for the Holidays.
We are talking about a Presidential candidate here! AFAIC, her entire life should be an open book for the entire world to read.

I'm not looking to initiate an investigation here, but it would be nice to see her provide something to substantiate her claim that she is the "most experienced candidate."

Besides, my current plan is to vote for Obama, so you know where you can stick your "right wing extremist" fantasies!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
This is about hypocrisy if you ask me. The same people who didn't say anything about Bush's secrecy are now demanding the opposite from Hillary Clinton.
Very typical for GOP.
really? I would like to see both.

Then again, I'm not GOP, so maybe you were directing that ignorant comment toward another group of people who would like to see Hillary's papers...?

OK, raise your hand if you're a sworn member of the GOP, PNAC, or any other subgroup of the vast neocon conspiracy that has ruined sensecamp's life...

<crickets>

nobody? wow... that's suprising given the fact that according to the poll, and sensecamp, nearly 77% of the votes in this poll have been evul neocons who are on a partisan fishing expedition! CRAZINESS!
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
GOP should be more concerned with demonstrating that they should ever be trusted to govern again after the mess they made the last time they had that opportunity.
Instead they are wasting time bashing Hillary, which they are welcome to do, Hillary can take it. But GOP is going to remain a permanent minority party until they do some self reflection instead of Clinton bashing.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
This is about hypocrisy if you ask me. The same people who didn't say anything about Bush's secrecy are now demanding the opposite from Hillary Clinton.
Very typical for GOP.
George Bush is not running for office, and this thread is not about Bush. Please take your BDS pills and disperse.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP should be more concerned with demonstrating that they should ever be trusted to govern again after the mess they made the last time they had that opportunity.
Instead they are wasting time bashing Hillary, which they are welcome to do, Hillary can take it. But GOP is going to remain a permanent minority party until they do some self reflection instead of Clinton bashing.
hear that loud WOOOOOSH sound that just went by? That was the point of this thread flying right over your head...

This is NOT a partisan issue. As an Obama supporter, I'd ALSO like to see Hillary's papers that represent her time as First Lady.

Her eight years as First Lady comprise almost half of the "more experience" she keeps claiming. Therefore, I'd expect her to back up those claims of experience with actual records of what she supposedly accomplished during that time.

77% of the votes in this thread should make it pretty obvious that the desire to see her papers has almost nothing to do with the GOP - unless you're claiming that 77% of the voters here are evul GOP members out to bash hillary...?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP should be more concerned with demonstrating that they should ever be trusted to govern again after the mess they made the last time they had that opportunity.
Instead they are wasting time bashing Hillary, which they are welcome to do, Hillary can take it. But GOP is going to remain a permanent minority party until they do some self reflection instead of Clinton bashing.
hear that loud WOOOOOSH sound that just went by? That was the point of this thread flying right over your head...

This is NOT a partisan issue. As an Obama supporter, I'd ALSO like to see Hillary's papers that represent her time as First Lady.

Her eight years as First Lady comprise almost half of the "more experience" she keeps claiming. Therefore, I'd expect her to back up those claims of experience with actual records of what she supposedly accomplished during that time.

77% of the votes in this thread should make it pretty obvious that the desire to see her papers has almost nothing to do with the GOP - unless you're claiming that 77% of the voters here are evul GOP members out to bash hillary...?
Desire != entitlement. You have no entitlement to see those papers for your fishing expedition. Her accomplishments are already in public record. SCHIP, for example.
What you want to see are internal memos.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who voted NO, and why?
I voted non bvecause if she has to release her records then ALL the presidential candiates should have to release theirs, GOP and Dem alike..... including their IRS records.

Otherwise this is (despite you claim) nothing but a partisian with hunt.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Desire != entitlement. You have no entitlement to see those papers for your fishing expedition. Her accomplishments are already in public record. SCHIP, for example.
What you want to see are internal memos.
The voters do have an entitlement to all her records. She claims experience and credit, for example, for her failed 1994 Health Care Task Force. If she's so damn proud of her work there, why not release it all?

Like it or not, those records are relevant. She's running for POTUS based largely on so-called experience and credentials from her years as first lady. Those records would (seemingly) lend creedence to that and validate her claims. Or would they?

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who voted NO, and why?
I voted non bvecause if she has to release her records then ALL the presidential candiates should have to release theirs, GOP and Dem alike..... including their IRS records.

Otherwise this is (despite you claim) nothing but a partisian with hunt.
IRS records? How would those exemplify their experience?

The goal here is to demonstrate her leadership experience, nothing more.

I do agree that all of them need to release all records concerning their time spent as First Lady. :cool:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Who voted NO, and why?
I voted non bvecause if she has to release her records then ALL the presidential candiates should have to release theirs, GOP and Dem alike..... including their IRS records.

Otherwise this is (despite you claim) nothing but a partisian with hunt.
IRS records? How would those exemplify their experience?

The goal here is to demonstrate her leadership experience, nothing more.

I do agree that all of them need to release all records concerning their time spent as First Lady. :cool:
Your goal is transparncy, right?

Originally posted by: palehorse74

I voted YES because I believe that anything that is UNCLASSIFED is public record - and that goes for the current administration as well.

Then lets see their IRS records.... unless they have something to hide? I think it should be a requirement of running for POTUS myself.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Desire != entitlement. You have no entitlement to see those papers for your fishing expedition. Her accomplishments are already in public record. SCHIP, for example.
What you want to see are internal memos.
The voters do have an entitlement to all her records. She claims experience and credit, for example, for her failed 1994 Health Care Task Force. If she's so damn proud of her work there, why not release it all?
Because the record is there for everyone to see. You think it's failed, fine. You don't need to see the internal records to make that evaluation. But it's also the opening salvo in the Health care reform battle. Notice that even Romney is pushing for government mandated healthcare.

Like it or not, those records are relevant. She's running for POTUS based largely on so-called experience and credentials from her years as first lady. Those records would (seemingly) lend creedence to that and validate her claims. Or would they?
She is not claiming they would or wouldn't. You are, but you have no evidence either way.
Those records are irrelevant. What's relevant is what came out of those internal discussions, not what the discussions themselves. And that record is there for everyone to see.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
I dont know if this is deemed classified. But Hillary was on Bills council prior to his testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky. What I am curious about is if she was part of the group that told him he could get away with lying. Or if Bill came up with that all on his own.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY