Can the First Lady Access All The Same Information That The President Has?

Hi,

I have been wondering something for some time now, just out of curiousity. And that is I wonder how much the First Lady is priviledged to know about the political goings on of her husband (any First Lady, I mean).

It seems as if any time a First Lady is in the news, it's always that she is working for some cause, usually completely unrelated to the more major things going on in the government. Is the First Lady just a "decoration" on the Presidnt's arm? And maybe a verification of his "Political Correctness"?

Or does she (in this case, the current one, Laura Bush) know exactly what all is going on in the current government, and the day to day dealings that her husband makes? Does she know the same as, or perhaps more so than the "elites" supposedly running the show in the background, ie: Chenney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc....?

I've tried several Google searches on the subject, and don't really come up with much more than how famous her chocolate chip cookies are (Laura Bush).

Does anyone know any more about the First Lady' political function?

[edit on 4/9/2005 by CyberKat]

[edit on 4/9/2005 by CyberKat]

Well, I couldn't find much of a factual nature, but this much I do know. The first lady does not have a security clearance. In 1995, the National Center for Public Policy Research was upset that Hillary Clinton had access to classified matrial without a clearance. I'm sure she gets some "inside info" from the President, but as far as anything classifed, no, the "elites" know more.

I think Laura Bush is less involved in the running of government than Hillary Clinton was. As in President Clinton's "Buy one, get one free" comment. Of course, that didn't work too well with the Health Care Committee.

Eaglewingz,

If you are correct, and I have no reason to believe that you're not, well I think tha'ts rather archiac(sp), quite demeaning to the First Ladies and a practice that very much needs to be modernized. I don't know if you feel the same way or not, but I know that things, marriage vows, etc... have changed over the decades, when women began realizing that they are an equal partner in a marriage/relationship.

I personally, could not even begin to fathom having a relationship/marriage with anyone with whom I couldn't share every aspect of my life, and vice-versa. To me, any other way, is no relationship at all!

Bush so advocated "family values". Well, I wonder why he doesn't start with his own family and marriage. I'm sure that there are a lot of "perks" that go with being First Lady, ie: money, prestige, living in the White House, servants, cooks, maids, etc... But how are her emotional needs being met, her self esteem, her self worth?

When I got to thinking about this, then finally posted a question and got your answer, which I believe must be true. Well, I dont' know if I feel sorry for those First Ladies, or mad at them for not standing up for themselves, and their rights as an equal partner in their marriage.

(Sorry if this came out as an assault against your reply. It was not directed at you, personally at all. I appreciated the fact that you gave me an answer. I was just venting some feelings about another facet of our society that p*sses me off.)

Thanks,
CyberKat

I completely disagree with your feminazi rose tinted smelly armpit view.

The First Lady has absolutely no need to know how where and when CIA operations are ongoing, for example. She would have a basic clearance, such as a Confidential or perhaps a Secret (simply because she would probably know the USSS evac plan).

She has absolutely no need to know what the latest secret diplomatic talks entail. No need. Modern woman and all that bollocks doesn't come into it.

I agree with DeltaNine, Hillary's ego notwithstanding, first ladies are not elected and don't hold any official U.S. government post. They have no reason to know any secret information beyond what's necessary for their safety.

For The President To Decide

Lots of interesting points made already, although I'm not sure how "feminazis" play into any of this.

Aside from the legalities, which are many and intriguing in themselves, there's the practical fact that the First Lady (and eventually, the First Gentleman) has direct personal access to the President.

Thus, on a very fundamental level, what information the First Spouse has access to is decided by the President, by virtue of saying something or not. By definition, whatever the President decides to tell the First Spouse is a "presidential decision".

I think the relative lack of statutory specificity on that point is deliberate, since even presidential couples should be allowed a reasonable degree of privacy in their relationship, even on matters that may pertain to national security.

Originally posted by DeltaNine
I completely disagree with your feminazi rose tinted smelly armpit view.

That little outburst there was not necessary. I simply voiced/wrote my opinion on the matter itself. I did in no way make a direct assault on another member for giving their opinion. You, also are entitled to an opinion, however, it can be given in a way that is not so rude.

Originally posted by Majic
For The President To Decide

Lots of interesting points made already, although I'm not sure how "feminazis" play into any of this.

Aside from the legalities, which are many and intriguing in themselves, there's the practical fact that the First Lady (and eventually, the First Gentleman) has direct personal access to the President.

**Off Thread**
Thank you for being reasonable, and cooling off what seemed to be a heated debate over an honest question. I've seen you do it before, you seem to have a knack for it.

Yes, the first lady has access to all the info, they don't call it classified information, they call it pillow talk.

Face it folks, Laura is smarter than dubya will ever be. He'll tell her anything she wants to know.

Love and light,

Wupy

Where Being Reasonable Doesn't Necessarily Come Naturally

Originally posted by CyberKat
Thank you for being reasonable, and cooling off what seemed to be a heated debate over an honest question. I've seen you do it before, you seem to have a knack for it.

I'm hoping to make a habit of it, because I can assure you that it doesn't come naturally to me.

I am pretty sure I can out-flame, out-offend, out-shout, out-cuss, out-rant and generally be more of an insufferable jerk than any of my fellow members (yes, even DeltaNine, whom I admire, but I used to be a Flamelord and Keeper of the Secret Flame on alt.flame, so in your face, buddy ), but at least I try not to do that on ATS (anymore, or as much, anyway).

Thanks for your support of a (sometimes marginally) recovering forum troll.

Peersonally, I think the very juicy stuff would be more restricted to the mistress of the POTUS, or in the case of Dubya, to his male escort Guckert/Gannon.

Actually, I can address your question since my spouse, my son, my father, AND my brother all have security clearances: The answer is NO.

While a spouse MIGHT hear something (if the security holder is smart, they'll do as my family does and simply not tell.) Spouses and children usually learn to Not Ask -- because knowing the information can put your loved one at risk of being killed or you being captured and used as a pawn (my dad was heavily involved in military intelligence in Germany after WWII and in Vietnam.

There are a few stupid ones who don't practice this... but even then the spouse doesn't actually have all the access to the details. And if it ever comes out that you have blabbed anything, your security-holding spouse can be stripped of their rank and pay and possibly charged under military (not civilian) laws.

That's a whole lot of rist and a whole lot of cost. It's not worth it to hear some boring mumble about advanced troop maneuver planning or aircraft development.

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, I can address your question since my spouse, my son, my father, AND my brother all have security clearances: The answer is NO.

While a spouse MIGHT hear something (if the security holder is smart, they'll do as my family does and simply not tell.) Spouses and children usually learn to Not Ask -- because knowing the information can put your loved one at risk of being killed or you being captured and used as a pawn (my dad was heavily involved in military intelligence in Germany after WWII and in Vietnam.

There are a few stupid ones who don't practice this... but even then the spouse doesn't actually have all the access to the details. And if it ever comes out that you have blabbed anything, your security-holding spouse can be stripped of their rank and pay and possibly charged under military (not civilian) laws.

That's a whole lot of rist and a whole lot of cost. It's not worth it to hear some boring mumble about advanced troop maneuver planning or aircraft development.

Bush's situation is different. I'd imagine that since he is the president he can share info with whom ever he wanted without worrying about being punished. Who would punish him?

He would be punished after his term, or during if it were serious enough.

You have to also keep in mind that the President is a temporary occupant of a very powerful office. Temporary.

The people manage and deal with most of the "Classified" stuff which is being discussed are hardly temporary.

Byrd hit the nail on the head here I believe.

Originally posted by CyberKatIf you are correct, and I have no reason to believe that you're not, well I think tha'ts rather archiac(sp), quite demeaning to the First Ladies and a practice that very much needs to be modernized

Does that go for the wives of everyone in the chain of command?

The first lady is just the president's wife. She's not an elected official and doesn't hold any sort of government office.

The first lady is most likely ahead of the majority of people, to a point, hearing about the odd millitary mission and aircraft projects a few weeks or a month or two before they become a press confrence or cnn news flash would be the most she could (or should) be able to get from being married to the president.... Its not right for the first lady to know the nuclear launch codes.

Originally posted by Djarums
You have to also keep in mind that the President is a temporary occupant of a very powerful office. Temporary.

The people manage and deal with most of the "Classified" stuff which is being discussed are hardly temporary.

Byrd hit the nail on the head here I believe.

There are plenty of temporary people in gov't that have access to all sorts of classified material. the NSA, sec of defense, DCI, sec of state, the vp, etc

what's to stop the president from giving his wife clearance?

Originally posted by CyberKat
...well I think tha'ts rather archiac(sp), quite demeaning to the First Ladies and a practice that very much needs to be modernized. I don't know if you feel the same way or not, but I know that things, marriage vows, etc... have changed over the decades, when women began realizing that they are an equal partner in a marriage/relationship.

We do not vote for the presidential couple. So, the first lady shouldn't be privy to everything OR have a security clearance. Spouses often share sensitive information, that is to be expected.
But, to have official access, no that should not happen.

Well, now I've gotten just about everyone here mad at me, over something that when thinking about it, I never should have even posted. I mean, like I'm going to be the First Lady some day? Highly unlikely. And I've never even come close go knowing one, nor do I ever expect to.

I'm really sorry that I even brought it up. Truly.

Please forgive me? Some of you?