The most transparent administration in history

[thelittlecheese]

Well,

Obama's administration had leveled more prosecutions against "whistleblowers" than any administration in history.

Thomas Drake is the most egregious example. The man exposed fraud, waste and abuse in the NSA and then he was prosecuted with charges that are usually only reserved for SPIES. Thomas Drake won the court battle brought at him by Obama's Justice Dept and Eric Holder. I bet you never heard THAT from the mainstream media, did ya?

I like this guy, Thomas Drake. A stand up gentleman with class.

Here is a video interview of his and this guy is one of the most interesting media interviewees I've ever watched on a news piece.

Go to this video and especially visit 6:50. VERY interesting interview. Worth the watch.

[Moriarty]

I think the Obama administration's handling of whistleblower cases is extremely disheartening.


However, funny thing -

http://whistleblower.org/action-center/save-tom-drake

In late 2004/early 2005, after years of investigation and thousands of pages of documents from Mr. Drake, the DoDIG released a report substantiating Drake and the complainants. Using the Freedom of Information Act, GAP later obtained a redacted copy of the classified report.

Meanwhile, when the New York Times published a story exposing the NSA's unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program, the FBI launched an expansive – and fruitless – investigation into the sources for the article. Although Drake was not a source for it, the federal government used the "leak" investigation as a pretext to persecute him. In November 2007, a few months after the FBI subjected three of the original DoD IG complainants to simultaneous armed raids, approximately a dozen armed federal agents raided Drake's house

The issues Drake reported and the beginning of his persecution all happened under the Bush administration.


So, my question to you, TLC, would be - where was/is your outrage towards the Bush admin and his baby, the NSA?
Or is this just a convenient excuse for another partisan hack job?

[seahawksfan837]

I think the Obama administration's handling of whistleblower cases is extremely disheartening.


However, funny thing -

http://whistleblower.org/action-center/save-tom-drake






The issues Drake reported and the beginning of his persecution all happened under the Bush administration.


So, my question to you, TLC, would be - where was/is your outrage towards the Bush admin and his baby, the NSA?
Or is this just a convenient excuse for another partisan hack job?

Did Bush claim and put an emphasis on being "the most transparent administration" in the history of the county?

[RayClay]

Did Bush claim and put an emphasis on being "the most transparent administration" in the history of the county?

So, if i say I'm the most evil and vicious person in the world, I can murder and pillage at will, because I didn't say I was nice or honest.

Makes sense to me.

Security agencies tend to be a bit touchy about bringing classified documents home, or leaking security infromation to the press. Pretty much the nature of security operations, regardless of administration.

Not saying it's right, but that is what spies do, retain classified material they shouldn't possess.

[seahawksfan837]

So, if i say I'm the most evil and vicious person in the world, I can murder and pillage at will, because I didn't say I was nice or honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Yellowknifer]

So, if i say I'm the most evil and vicious person in the world, I can murder and pillage at will, because I didn't say I was nice or honest.

Makes sense to me.

Security agencies tend to be a bit touchy about bringing classified documents home, or leaking security infromation to the press. Pretty much the nature of security operations, regardless of administration.

Not saying it's right, but that is what spies do, retain classified material they shouldn't possess.

Three times in history prior to this has this law been used.

We're up to 6 with Obama. The guy is really disturbing on many levels and it's shocking how many people will actually go and vote for him.

[RayClay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Actually, I am not making a straw man argument, i am ridiculing your position by logical exaggeration, which is a different thing. you might want to read your own link, not every logical fallacy is a strawman. Mine wasn't even intended to be a logical argument, it was in response to your logical fallacy, a tu quoque.

Are you arguing that transparency is not a positive goal?

Are you arguing that the Obama administration is less transparent than another previous administration? (name it please). If not, then your argument is, because Obama made a goal of being more transparent, if he is not absolutely perfect, then he is worse than administrations who were less transparent.

This is an appeal to hypocrisy argument, or a tu quoque argument.

[flyerhawk]

Did Bush claim and put an emphasis on being "the most transparent administration" in the history of the county?

What an odd argument.

[seahawksfan837]

What an odd argument.

Actually, I am not making a straw man argument, i am ridiculing your position by logical exaggeration, which is a different thing. you might want to read your own link, not every logical fallacy is a strawman. Mine wasn't even intended to be a logical argument, it was in response to your logical fallacy, a tu quoque.

Are you arguing that transparency is not a positive goal?

Are you arguing that the Obama administration is less transparent than another previous administration? (name it please). If not, then your argument is, because Obama made a goal of being more transparent, if he is not absolutely perfect, then he is worse than administrations who were less transparent.

Ok, you guys aren't getting this.

When someone calls themselves "the most transparent administration in history" that immediately puts an emphasis on doing so. If Obama calls his administration that, he's essentially holding himself to a higher standard. That doesn't mean Bush shouldn't have. My point all along was that the original post was an example to the contrary of what Obama has claimed. That's why Bush isn't really relevant here.

[RayClay]

Ok, you guys aren't getting this.

When someone calls themselves "the most transparent administration in history" that immediately puts an emphasis on doing so. If Obama calls his administration that, he's essentially holding himself to a higher standard. That doesn't mean Bush shouldn't have. My point all along was that the original post was an example to the contrary of what Obama has claimed. That's why Bush isn't really relevant here.

So, if a team is favored to win by two touchdowns, but only wins by a field goal, they actually lost?

[Vin Lombardi]

So, if a team is favored to win by two touchdowns, but only wins by a field goal, they actually lost?

Think of it more like PETA, who are supposed ardent animal rights crusaders who picket and slander legitimate animal rescue organizations, and then reports come out that PETA is also euthanizing animals at a high rate.

Obama is killing puppies for fun.

[FamineGod]

Obama is killing puppies for fun.

It's true; I read it on the internet.

[seahawksfan837]

So, if a team is favored to win by two touchdowns, but only wins by a field goal, they actually lost?

Doesn't make sense.

Your argument was a straw man because you were insinuating that my post meant that it was okay for Bush to get away with the same thing Obama is getting criticized for now. No one said that, and I didn't say that, which was exactly why it was a straw man argument.

When you tell people that "the way government is handled is going to change" and "this is going to be the most transparent administration in history", like it or not, that puts the President on a pedestal. And it certainly deserves criticism, since that is part of the campaign he ran on to get votes.

If Bush had said a bunch of stuff and then completely contradicted his words with his actions, you guys would jump all over him as well, and rightly so.

[thelittlecheese]

I think the Obama administration's handling of whistleblower cases is extremely disheartening.


However, funny thing -

http://whistleblower.org/action-center/save-tom-drake





The issues Drake reported and the beginning of his persecution all happened under the Bush administration.


So, my question to you, TLC, would be - where was/is your outrage towards the Bush admin and his baby, the NSA?
Or is this just a convenient excuse for another partisan hack job?

The news article I read stated that it was Obama's justice department who brought the charges, not Bush's. Also, I don't need this to be a partisan "hack job". Obama has prosecuted several other whistleblowers (more than any administration in history combined). So, go ahead and google it yourself.

And the answer is YES. If the Bush administration prosecuted this man, then I am outraged. He is the VERY KIND OF PERSON we should have working in sensitive areas of government. If we had more people like him, our country would be functioning like it's supposed to and government officials wouldn't be able to walk all over the people of this country and violate our rights.

[Yellowknifer]

Actually, I am not making a straw man argument, i am ridiculing your position by logical exaggeration, which is a different thing. you might want to read your own link, not every logical fallacy is a strawman. Mine wasn't even intended to be a logical argument, it was in response to your logical fallacy, a tu quoque.

Are you arguing that transparency is not a positive goal?

Are you arguing that the Obama administration is less transparent than another previous administration? (name it please). If not, then your argument is, because Obama made a goal of being more transparent, if he is not absolutely perfect, then he is worse than administrations who were less transparent.

This is an appeal to hypocrisy argument, or a tu quoque argument.

You are ignoring my very strong point indicating he's the exact opposite of what claimed and the least transparent admin in history however.

6 times vs 3 times for all Presidents in history before?

Ok.