John Dean on how Bush cleverly uses archivists to keep records secret.

[madfloridian]

Bush's records came to mind on the eve of the VT hearing on Howard Dean's records. I know there have been great difficulties and many restrictions on GWB's supposedly open records in the TX State Library. I was doing some research on this and ran across this article. The use of archivists to do this never crossed my mind.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-03.htm
A Controversial Choice for the Position of Archivist of the United States: Part of the Bush Administration's Secrecy Strategy?
by John W. Dean

SNIP..."When Bush became president-elect, however, he simply sent his papers and records with no consultation whatsoever to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University -- known as the most secretive of all the existing presidential libraries.

The result was, in effect, to federalize the papers and records, placing them in a legal limbo where no one could have access. Bush Senior's presidential library is run by the Federal Government -- specifically, the National Archives And Records Administration (NARA).

But Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, refused to accept Bush's designation of his father's library as the repository for his papers. Eventually, she procured a ruling by the Texas attorney general, making Bush's gubernatorial papers subject to the Texas Public Information Act -- whereupon they were sent to Austin for processing.

Soon, however, Texas Governor Perry -- Bush's friend and hand-picked successor -- and the new attorney general found new exceptions in the state's information law that they claim give them the keys to the relevant filing cabinets. Good luck to those seeking access.

Now it appears Bush is doing what he did in Texas, on a national level....."

Here is the first part of the article about the national archivist:
SNIP.."On April 8, the U. S. Senate received the President's nomination for a new Archivist of the United States -- historian Allen Weinstein. For most Americans, this is an obscure post. But the Weinstein nomination has rightly been gathering increasing attention. Indeed, within the archival and historical communities, the nomination has sent sirens screaming and bells clanging. No fewer than nine professional organizations that deal with government records have expressed concern -- faulting Weinstein for his excessive secrecy....."END SNIP

More than one way to skin a cat, I say.

[madfloridian]

1. And a Mother Jones article called "Restricted Access".

Restricted Access
Why are journalists' requests for George W. Bush's gubernatorial documents being met with lengthy delays?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/01/bush_documents.html

SNIP..""Part of the problem initially was when Bush left, he vacuum sealed his records and sent them to his father's library. The National Archives had nothing to tell them what was in the records. At the time they were just boxes on pallets," said Ratcliffe. "In the sense that the state law allows the governor to designate a repository site, most of the time we don't care about the records. This is an unusual situation as Bush is president; his records are of vital interest to reporters and to the public."

And this was before they were sent to the TX library.

Now they have to clear the attorney general after the archivist and sometimes Perry as well.

[NYC]

2. Thanks for posting this very important information.

:hi:

[paineinthearse]

3. Has Weinstein been confirmed?

[madfloridian]

4. This was from 2004, don't know if he has.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

5. Confirmed in February this year. See press release.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=43207

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

6. The Bush Crime Cabal...

... works this way. It makes you wonder how many federal agencies are compromised by the career appointments made going back to Poppy and his political appointees while in office.

[madfloridian]

7. Weinstein is very controversial. Society of American Archivists.

Their statement

http://www.archivists.org/statements/weinstein.asp
Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States
April 14, 2004
We are concerned about the sudden announcement on April 8, 2004, that the White House has nominated Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States. Prior to the announcement, there was no consultation with professional organizations of archivists or historians. This is the first time since the National Archives and Records Administration was established as an independent agency that the process of nominating an Archivist of the United States has not been open for public discussion and input. We believe that Professor Weinstein must—through appropriate and public discussions and hearings—demonstrate his ability to meet the criteria that will qualify him to serve as Archivist of the United States.

When former President Ronald Reagan signed the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-497), he said that, “the materials that the Archives safeguards are precious and irreplaceable national treasures and the agency that looks after the historical records of the Federal Government should be accorded a status that is commensurate with its important responsibilities.” Earlier in 1984, when the National Archives Act was being discussed, Senate Report 98-373 cautioned that if the Archivist was appointed “arbitrarily, or motivated by political considerations, the historical records could be impoverished even distorted.”

[madfloridian]

8. Weinstein helped found National Endowment for Democracy..NED.

Not sure any of this makes him a qualified archivist. This is a little scary.

http://www.archives.gov/welcome/dr_weinstein-biography.html

SNIP.."Weinstein was a founding member in 1985 of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace and Chairman of its Education and Training Committee, remaining a Director until 2001, and now serves on the Chairman’s Advisory Council. He was a founding officer of the International Institute of Democracy in Strasbourg from 1989 to 2001. He chaired the Judging Panel for the annual International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award from 1995-2003. He serves on the Advisory Council of the LBJ School of Public Affairs (University of Texas-Austin). He is Chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Advisory Council. He chaired the annual "Global Panel" in the Netherlands from 1993-98. From 1982-91 he was a member of the Foreign Policy Association's Editorial Advisory Board.."END SNIP

He says NED does what the CIA used to do.
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1935&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

SNIP..."The National Endowment for Democracy was created by an act of Congress in 1983, a brainchild of the Reagan administration. Its primary source of funding is U.S. taxes. Nevertheless, the NED is officially designated as a private institution — a non-governmental organization. As such, it is not subject to meaningful public oversight or review. This seems to be intentional. Allen Weinstein, the NED’s theoretical planner, noted in a 1991 Washington Post interview, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

SNIP.." there are any doubts about the NED’s role in advancing U.S. domination, consider the following statements by Michael Plattner, an NED vice-president and co-editor of the Journal for Democracy:

“Globalization has fostered democratization, and democratization has fostered globalization. Moreover, both trends generally have furthered American interests and contributed to the strengthening of American power ... It is worth emphasizing that the international order that sustains globalization is underpinned by American military predominance.” END SNIP

[oasis]

9. Will this story ever reach the sheeple? (eom)

[proud patriot]

10. Despicable

Thanks for the work , madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

11. Well, I am pissed they are putting Howard Dean through this.

He already said the judge and lawyers could decide. He said that last year.

I am trying to find out how many states require records to be open. Will check more tomorrow.... I think only 20.

It is so hypocritical.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. It is hypocritical

People on the right demand all our democratic leaders share their records yet Bush NEVER has to open his up and prove things. Even if he does names are blotted out and all that. It pisses me off so bad.

[riverwalker]

12. Dean wrote about it in his book

"Worse than Watergate". Great book.

[madfloridian]

14. I have not read it, but I'm ordering it.

I think I should have already. Thanks.

[madfloridian]

15. What George Bush and Rick Perry don't want you to know..Chronicle

From 2003

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature.html

SNIP..."The last time Bush and Perry hooked up in an attempt to defeat the Texas Public Information Act was two years ago, when the new governor tried to help the new president keep his state papers out of the hands of journalists and scholars. Now the two leaders are at it again, threatening to create an important exception to disclosure of the same Bush records and thereby restricting the public's right to know."

SNIP..."In the future, if Gov. Perry, for example, decides that a document out of Gov. Bush's files -- an opinion by Al Gonzales might be a good example -- should be treated as confidential, it will now be submitted to the attorney general for a ruling (the same attorney general who just endorsed the idea of attorney-client privilege for state officials). In the past, there was a presumption of openness -- and with all due respect to his position, the governor would have been told to go fish. Now -- gradually, and then abruptly -- Gov. Rick Perry has laid his hands on the keys to Gov. George W. Bush's filing cabinet."

Gonzalez records are used an an example of this.