On Nov. 1, 2001 George W. Bush issued Executive Order #13233 which modified some of the measures of the "Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978", instituted in the wake of the Nixon Administration's legal imbroglio over which Presidential documents were private and which were public. The PRA, according to the National Archives, "changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public."

In a bit of Orwellian irony that has now become all too recognizable for the Bush Administration, their Executive Order #13233 which modified that PRA, is not listed at all on the White House website page entitled “Executive Orders Issued by President Bush”.

Despite the changes implemented by George W. Bush, the PRA still "Defines and states public ownership of the records" as the National Archives points out.

Specifically, the National Archives makes it clear:

The Clinton Administration was the first to have a White House website, and indeed the original architects of that site apparenty took great pains to create a precise "versioning" system to capture various changes to the content over time. As the National Archives website on this notes; "These versions are historical materials." One can still view all of the various versions of the Clinton White House's website via that link.

Over the past several weeks, the BRAD BLOG has been chronicling the stark difference in the Bush Administration's management of their White House website. We've caught them red-handed as they hastily removed the website's list of Iraq "coaltion" members just after the V.P. Debate when Dick Cheney accused John Edwards of being "dead wrong" for not counting Iraqi casualties as a percentage of "coalition casualties" and then again after the third Presidential Debate when the White House removed damning video footage of Bush admitting at a press conference that he was "not truly that concerned" about bin Laden --- precisely as John Kerry had charged during the debate.

Continued investigation by the BRAD BLOG has found a great deal of information that has vanished from the site. Some of it easily spotted, such as the link to "Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neil testifies about terrorism risk insurance" still displayed on this page (a sample from that page is pictured at right) but which now leads instead to a "The file you have attempted to access cannot be found" page.

More troubling, however, are those pages which have simply been modified, or deleted all together and which are not tracked and/or cached (and are therefore lost to the historic record entirely, as discussed shortly) by Internet archive and caching sites. Enormous sections of the White House website then are not indexed or cached at all by these external public archive and search engines.

Therefore, any number of modified and/or deleted pages of "historical material" may now be almost impossible to track, record or even notice. Ever.

Notably, we've documented here just some of the loads of audio and video material that has been "disappeared" from the website. Such audio and video media is not indexed or cached at all on any site by search and archive sites. So the material systematically removed from hundreds of pages at Whitehouse.gov may well be gone for good.

A critic or two have suggested that the White House Website has a policy to remove old media after a year or so for space reasons. Given how inexpensive digital storage space has become and the vast amount of material already catalogued on their website, such an explanation would constitute a strange reason to delete "historical material". As well, such a practice is likely illegal defined by the PRA. But even if one sees "storage space" as a plausible explanation for some of the vanished material, it certainly could not be used to explain their purposefully removed link to their "List of Coalition Members". Good luck trying to find any up-to-date listing of "coalition" countries on the Whitehouse.gov website at this point. Pretty remarkable considering we're in the middle of a war, and Bush/Cheney are parading around the country talking about the strengths of this --- apparently mysterious --- "coalition of the willing".

The AFP wire story that finally picked up on our original reporting at the end of last week offered this "official" explanation:

So, in other words, a simple list of "coaltion member" countries that had previously been updated regularly (here's an example of one from April of 2003) to add new countries whenever one came on board, can no longer just be updated to add or remove countries as they come and go. Now, they must just "take it down" entirely instead of updating the information on the page.

Of course they must. With Bush/Cheney running around the country telling folks that Kerry/Edwards are disrespecting "coalition" countries like Iraq (never, ever, ever named as a "Coalition Country" on any White House or State Dept. or Pentagon website page that I've been able to find - and those other Websites have also been scrubbed apparently of such information!) they've now got to use the publically owned White House website, in possible violation of both the PRA and existing campaign laws, to scrub the evidence entirely that might show Bush/Cheney are actively lying to America.

Anyone willing to bet that the "entire Iraq site" won't be "updated" accurately again until some time after, oh, say November 2nd or so?

As this story has gained momentum in the blogosphere, there has been a critic or two --- okay, one, Jim Gilliam, one of the producers of the excellent OutFoxed documentary (who, by the way, has some superb inside skinny on the late-in-the-week O'Rilly "buzz") who seems to be backing up the White House line from the AFP article suggesting the White House is simply removing old media after a year, as some sort of a space-saving policy.

He is wrong. Clearly, on the "Coalition List" issue there is no denying their purposeful cover-up to avoid telling America who the "coaltion" countries are. On that, they've been caught with a hand directly in the cookie jar.

But on the issue of various audio and video being removed from the site, also as reported here, there is ample evidence that Gilliam is giving far too much credence to the White House spin of removing old media after a certain date.

While such a "policy", questionable in and of itself, might have explained some of the media that is no longer available, there is far more evidence suggesting that there is no blanket policy for the removal of audio and video media from the site. Rather, if there is such a policy, it is either a haphazard operation or, more likely, done as the political operatives see fit.

How otherwise to explain the January 21, 2002 video from a Martin Luther King Day event which is still available from the White House website? We're well beyond the suggested one-year expiry date for such material. And, of course, that's just one of many videos well over a year old which are still available for viewing at the White House website.

And take a look at a sampling of Bush's Radio Addresses from all the way back in 2001, just before and after 9/11. Some audio is still there, some isn't:

Could that simply be the result of sloppy webmastering? I suppose so. Though it's certainly of note that audio only from "National Security" and "Compassionate Conservatism" addresses remain online, while Economic, Education and Stem Cell related addresses are no longer available.

As well, it all begs the question as to why a White House as politically structured from the ground up as this one has proven to be, who have now been caught specifically removing politically damaging material and demonstrably lying about virtually every aspect of their four years in power as part of a clearly orchestrated campaign strategy, should now be given the benefit-of-the-doubt on anything anymore.

That notion alone underscores why these guys need to go; if they can't even be trusted in their own country by their own citizens, how are they to be able to represent our best interests and be trusted by any of the nations in the world who's confidence we so desperately need to gain back at this time to assist in all forms of crucial foreign policy?

The unavoidable perception is that of arrogant attempts at deception, displayed by a willful manipulation of the publically funded and historically relevant records of the White House website. The arrogance here is revealed by the fact that it's so simple to demonstrate what theses guys are doing and yet they both continue to do it and lie about it in the bargain.

We're able to follow some of the shenanigans thanks in part to Internet cache and search sites as mentioned, such as Google's Cache and The Wayback Machine. But those sites do not cache old media (audio and video) files, only old documents --- and the White House has even attempted to block caching of those, as reported over a year ago by 2600.com and others. That policy is still in effect today via a Robots.txt file on the site which provides a long list for Internet search and archive engines describing precisely which directories should not be indexed! And yet, even with all the evidence to the contrary, this White House baldly announces to the American people that this entire process is nothing more essentially than routine maintenance.

Right. And George W. Bush never said he was "truly not that concerned" about Osama bin Laden. Just one of those "ex-agg-er-ations" in a world where words, they continue to hope in these last few days of the campaign, will speak louder than actions.

With the exception of a single AFP report filed on this on-going matter, and despite the story becoming amongst the most discussed in the entire blogosphere over the past week, we still continue to scratch our head and wonder how the Mainstream Media can file report after report about lesbians, wolfpacks, and goose-hunting while possible on-going violations of federal laws by a sitting administration go virtually unreported!

That is a courtesy granted, apparently, only to this administration. I'm sure Al Gore would have appreciated the same back in 2000 when literally hundreds, if not thousands, of reports were filed on a couple of campaign-related phone calls alleged to have been made from a White House telephone and "no controlling legal authority" became the buzz phrase of both the Rightwing and (supposedly) "Liberal" Media from then on through Election Day.

As ever, a different set of "media rules" seem to apply Democrat versus Republican administrations. Never fear. I'm sure the media will suddenly begin to "get it right" again during the Kerry Administration.

Bush/Cheney '04: These aren't the droids you're looking for...

UPDATE 10/25/04: The Washington Post finally picks up the story today! Twice!

UPDATE 10/29/04: BRAD BLOG SUCCESS! WH restores Audio/Video! Though much still missing...

Summarizing the latest polls, ABC This Week displayed it this way to a clearly concerned Ken Mehlman, chair of Bush/Cheney '04:

Those are simply horrible numbers for an incumbent, since undecideds late in the game have always traditionally broken for the challenger. (Emphasis on traditionally! Everything is whacky this year!)

More troubling for Mehlman though, were these numbers:

As I've been saying for sometime, unless there's a new shake-up (terrorist attack, huge Kerry foul-up, bin Laden capture, etc.) it's gonna be Kerry in a walk and the Senate goes Democrat.

(Kerry is pictured in the center on right there, Thursday in Minnesota, one of those "Battleground States" that the GOP likes to publically suggest --- emphasis on publically --- will go to Bush.)

Given, however, the concerted, organized and parrallel strategies of the Republicans right now to both keep folks from voting and at the same time spin the premise that Democrats are planning dirty voter tricks and legal challenges to the results (generally, when Republicans make a charge of anything, it means they themselves are actually doing it), there are reasons to stay very vigilant everywhere.

But supporting my suggestion that things are going well for the Dems, I'd point you to MyDD who's been doing terrific analysis of all the various polls out there. Here's what they have to say about actual voting data coming in from early voting in Iowa (one of the Battlegrounds that the conservative media is too frightened to admit will most likely go to Kerry):

Finally, see this WaPo piece about the real concerns of Bush/Cheney '04 as revealed by an insider who has access to their actual internal polling:

As usual, I predict the safety of the "conventional wisdom" --- which the Mainstream Media enjoys hiding behind --- will prove to be wrong in the end. So give credence to all those "Bush is leading" pronouncements at your own risk. The Mainstream Media has gotten it wrong in the last 3 elections. Why should they stop now?

The list of newspapers and magazines that endorsed Bush in 2000 but either refuse to endorse him again, or have chosen to endorse Kerry this year continues to grow. (Are there any that endorsed Gore in 2000 but are now endorsing Bush? Any?)

Here's one of the latest to have endorsed Bush in 2000, the conservative Detroit News refusing to endorse Bush again this year:

They had much more to say about the failures of Bush. And, as expected, they also have problems with John Kerry. But it's the Bush bashing that's notable here since this paper is conservative and had previously endorsed Bush in 2000.

They're droppin' like flies folks.

UPDATE: MyDD reports on newspaper endorsements as of this morning "Nationwide, Kerry has picked up 17 Bush papers from 2000, while losing only two Gore papers to Bush."

You're just a click away from a hot one-on-one chat with a few Weapons of Mass...Seduction!

Perhaps the single funniest video ad I've seen all season.

After you've watched the commercial, be sure to hit the "LISTEN ONLINE" link as well!

(Big props to Amir for the tip! He will rock you!)

Please go to the AFP's wire report on our White House Website Scrub story. Scroll to the bottom of their article where it asks "How do you rate this story?" and select "5" to "Rate this Story Highly" so it helps keep the story up at the top of various news searches!

May help other sources to pick up on it! This is very embarrassing to the White House! Let's help keep up the shame!

More on that AFP story and more later...STILL DEVELOPING...

Several great responses to Bush's lame wolf ad...

The Bush ad is lame, by the way, if only because the fear tactics he's using are all well and good and expected by now (and it's not particularly scary at that), but the "facts" they give about Kerry voting to "gut intelligence" have all been well debunked as nonsense months ago by FactCheck.org (See their article: "President claims 1995 Kerry plan would "gut" the intelligence services. It was a 1% cut, and key Republicans approved something similar.") Nonetheless, they they keep lying about them anyway. Never let a lie get in the way of a good old fashioned fear and smear, I guess.

As I mentioned, more on this whole "White House Website Scrub" story hopefully tomorrow, but in the meantime, here's a White House website video of a Martin Luther King portrait unveiling from January 21, 2002. They haven't removed it (yet) but lord knows they probably should have! Watch the first few incredible seconds of the video to see why.

But in case they take it down after we publish this item, here's the first few words from the transcript to listen out for:

Youch. Yes, he said that.

(Thanks to reader KB for this horrific find!)

Geez, AFP, I always give you guys credit when I report on your stories!

Anyway, glad they finally picked up on it and tossed it onto the AFP/Yahoo wires. Their report is filed here: "Iraq coalition vanishes from White House website"

(NOTE: That's two credits I've now given AFP in the same story! Oops, make that three!)

Oh, well, we're not looking for credit here, but we are glad that some of our work on the White House Website Scrub is finally breaking out of the Blogosphere (where the stories have been linked far and wide of late --- according to Technorati.com last night, one of our items had made it to #10 in all of Political Blogistan, and #6 with a bullet amongst the Liberal/Pinko Sector at the time someone had alerted me to it...But linked, so far, to none of the major Old School "News" Sites that I know of.)

Hey, CNN and MSNBC (won't even bother with Fox) it's your turn to start reporting now!

The specific information from the AFP (Oops...four) report filed today, on the disappearing "Coalition List" was originally reported here on 10/6/04 and then followed up on 10/17/04.

More to report on this whole story by the way. I've been doing a lot of research, and following up as many leads from you guys that I can. So, stay tuned. Thanks to all who have sent in stuff. Apologies for slow email replies, but I'm trying to get to them all.

More thanks though for spreading the information far and wide! We'll get those bastards, yet.

(Special props to reader "pamindurham" for catching the AFP story on the wire and letting us know! Oops...that's five!)

UPDATE 10/29/04: BRAD BLOG SUCCESS! WH restores Audio/Video! Though much still missing...

Just typed "poll" into Yahoo News. These are the first results I got back, both from headlines today:

"Reuters Poll: Bush Holds Two-Point Lead Over Kerry"
"President Bush holds a slim two-point lead on Democratic rival John Kerry in the stretch run of a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Friday."
Results reported in the story: Bush 47% - Kerry 45%

"AP Poll: Bush, Kerry in Tie Before Election"
"Many voters are dissatisfied with President Bush's job performance but uneasy about Democrat John Kerry's ability to protect the nation, according to an Associated Press poll that found the two presidential candidates locked in a tie."
Results reported in the story: Bush 46% - Kerry 49%

Yes. You read that correctly. There's your "Liberal" Media.

And as it turns out, a non-partisan study today shows us that Bush Supporters are so wildly disinformed even about their own candidate(!) that of course they'd believe there is a "Liberal" Media. You gotta click through this link to see what I mean!

And this is from the Washington Times of all places...

No word on whether the Army has cleared this policy with Newt Gingrinch yet.

(P.S. Please click the ad on the left for of our new sponsor, EnjoyTheDraft.com, for more drafty fun!)

Again, we attempt to appeal here to the intellectually honest conservatives out there (yes, there are a few left) who's company we enjoy on the BRAD BLOG from time to time.

In an article titled "Kerry's the One", American Conservative magazine's Scott McConnell endorses Kerry! Here's why:

Of course, I don't personally find endorsements to mean all that much, otherwise I'd link to Iran's endorsement of Bush or Jesse Ventura's endorsement of Kerry. Oh, wait...I just did! Hey, this saying one thing and doing another thing is kinda fun! I got your values right here, Mission Accomplished Boy!

Via Slate: