Bush White House email controversy Wikipedia The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5] The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10] The "gwb43.com"[11] domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[12] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[13] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[14] On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[15] Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves. Full Article
Your source is tainted, as this Wikipedia content that has recently been vandalized on more occasions than not by contributors with obvious political motivations . . . apparently a carefully crafted attempt at obfuscation of the seriousness of the Clinton scandal by trying to implicate the Bush Administration of similar wrongdoing . . . NOT, but nice try . . . very much in keeping with other underhanded liberal ploys.
Words are written by people. The typical article found on most sites is either self-edited or edited by a very limited number of people. Wikipedia has groups of people monitoring edits, and they have the power to restrict edits to be concise and factual. Democrats and republicans may want to edit the article, but they face a gauntlet of people who's goal is to be factual rather than partisan. So, "nice try", but your opinion is based on political beliefs, something frowned upon on Wikipedia. You can whine like a pissant all you want, it just doesn't mean shit to people who are not fools.
Or, are you disagreeing with any of the following facts presented in the first paragraph of the article, as posted above?: "The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys." True, or false? If true, then why are you whining? If false, in what way? "Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available." True, or false, and again, be concise about your argument instead of the typical "the liberals wrote it" bs. "Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.[1]" Again, do you view this as true, or false, and why? "Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]" Again, true or false, and why? Or is your argument going to continue to be that the article is, to paraphrase, "a left-winged conspiracy to alter historical fact and distract people from Clinton's email controversy"? If it is, that's rather pathetic of you, but it's what I've come to expect from right-winged fuck-heads.
You're a complete moron for not going back and examining the revision history of the Wikipedia content. It is rife with revision notes indicating corrections made after repeated attempts to vandalize the edited content. Can't hide behind that curtain D'IQless1.
Wikipedia is a good starting point for reference, but he considers Wikipedia as unquestionable source material. You'll have to forgive him; he just doesn't know any better.
I can forgive him for not knowing any better, but I cannot forgive him for pretending to know better.
You see Wikipedia articles as unsupported opinions, when it doesn't favor a republican belief, yet you state an opinion with no supporting evidence and you expect people to trust it as fact. That is laughable lol
Given your comments, I doubt you understand how an article is edited on Wikipedia. You appear to think that if it's been edited, there must be something wrong with it. Do you understand that all news articles, magazine stories and books are edited? Does that make them suspect, as well? Or is it because the subject is not to your liking? You don't approve of the subject, so you argue that the article itself must be tainted. The truth is that, on Wikipedia, most edits are minor. They are done to improve the article by fixing grammatical errors, improving sentence structure to be more concise, adding links from certain words or phrases to previously completed works on Wikipedia and adding source material via notations. If the subject is political, or controversial in any way, it's bound to have supporters and detractors who edit the article. Wikipedia takes measures to impair such tactics, and watches these types of articles closely. When it's edited, an alert is sent to specific groups who are tasked with verifying and judging the new content for such things as accuracy, it's relation to the previous work, it's acceptability, and so forth, along with the typical "grade school teacher" aspects of correcting grammatical errors and such. You view the article as suspect for a very flawed reason. The facts are that all articles are edited, and most of the edits on Wikipedia are minor, amounting to the notations a high school English teacher would make on a paper submitted for grading by a student. It is also true that you do not like the subject. You disagree with it. Fine. Disagree with it as you see fit, just don't expect everyone to use such pathetic excuses.
