"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.


or pre-Sept 11th briefings about terrorists flying airplanes
into buildings.

Ask Sandy Berger for the memos to those. He was caught stuffing them into
his socks.

NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

Nope. Still boiling on the back burner.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the
Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

Nope. Still boiling on the back burner.

Where it will remain until after November. And then nobody will give a damn
until the '06 mid-term elections.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

And that's OK with you? You think those results are acceptable???

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the
Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

And that's OK with you? You think those results are acceptable???

Not just acceptable. Desirable.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the
Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy
Policy
meetings;

Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

And that's OK with you? You think those results are acceptable???

Not just acceptable. Desirable.



Let's get this straight: Corporate personnel are involved in making PUBLIC
POLICY, and you think it's desirable that the proceedings be kept secret?
Explain.

More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;


NOYB wrote:
Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
More to the point might be a release of some of the papers from the Bush
Presidency... such as Cheney's notes from his top-secret Energy Policy
meetings;


NOYB wrote:
Your side already went to court on that one...and lost.

Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.

"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters. If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn. If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011109.html

Try typing the words "Bush" and "Executive Order" and "secrecy" into
Google. Here, I've made it easy:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...+Order+secrecy

The results startled me. I knew of Pesident Bush's initial secrecy
order, the constitutionality of which has not yet been testes, but he's
done it 3 times!

Oh and one more thing... I believe the Bible has some words of wisdom on
the subject... something about who it is that "hateth the light"... let
me see, is it honorable upstanding Christians? No, that doesn't sound
right... hmmm who can help me out here...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, that is a sad thing. "My side" is the side of freedom for U.S.
citizens to know what their gov't is up to... one of the founding
principles of our system.


NOYB wrote:
"Your side" is a bunch of politically driven witch-hunters.

Oh, you mean like, people that would spen $60+ million of taxpayers
hard-earned money trying to nail somebody for getting a blow job?

... If it weren't
an election year, nobody would give a damn.

That's entirely untrue. To you, it may be "no big deal" that a
fundamental liberty of U.S. citizens is being stolen. To others, it is a
very big deal.

... If the case didn't go before
the extremely liberal Clinton-appointee Emmitt Sullivan (the same guy
forcing the implementation of all of those ridiculous manatee zones),
there'd be no case.

Really?

I think you may find this interesting... note the source, a well known
libby-rull spinmeister named John Dean:

You use the opinion of a liberal attorney to refute my argument that the
only reason the case has teeth is because a liberal judge ruled that it
might? That's downright laughable. In case you haven't figured it out, I
don't have much respect for the opinions of attorneys and activist judges.