Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ah. so this is a straight political question for you--as i suppose it is for me.
but i see politics as entirely intertwined with history and how it is done, and i think that it is politically important (and not just for reasons of debunking, but for a host of reasons that i alluded to earlier) that these documents be available
---while it seems that for you this is not really about history or historians or the historical record or any of that--it's about supporting the bush administration.
which is fine, i suppose: but there's no real discussion in it.
i mean, it's obvious that neither of us is going to budge.
|
Did you think the Star Report was worthy of publication?
Do you think President Clinton should disclose his Presidential Library donor list?
Does history require the publication of the First lady's schedule on the days the President had meetings with a certain intern?
I say no to all of the above, and none of it is about Bush or past Republican Presidents.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....I'm guessing that this post didn't do it:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=95
This is a serious question...I think you see the effort I put into this to be a sign that it is a serious question.
Since the contents in the post I linked to, have not influenced you to be too embarassed to post:
Is there ANY information that you can think of, that I could post, that would influence you to be too embarassed?
...i.e., How could you possibly post:
Is it because of his tight rein on spending?....His penchant for clearly and constantly telling the truth to us? His canny decision making on who presents an imminent threat to our national security, and then who to preemptively attack and occupy? What? |
Host on this issue I would defer to the judgment of any Commander in Chief. If the leader of our military the person most responsible for national security wants to keep a document confidential - I would support him or her.
Why do you folks keep wanting to make this a Bush or partisan issue? Why don't you trust that I believe what I write?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace.....take Bush out of the equation if you possibly can and think President X
Is this really the approach to presidential documents you think best balances the public interest and the interest of President X in the future?
Pres X speaking:
"We should not be required by law to share source documents (including your top priority docs - written factual information, i.e. dates, times, people in attendance at meetings, recorded minutes of meetings, etc. ..and legal documents, rulings, findings of fact, etc.) with historians (and the public) 12 years in the future for fear that those historians may have a dangerous or political agenda.
Trust us to tell future historians (and the people) all that they need to know about our administration so that they may write about our actions and policies based on our version of the truth.....why would we lie to you?"
I just dont get it. |
O.k., I don't have anything else to help clarify my position. I have made many points, used several examples, and gave clear and specific reasons for my views. Unless another, someone on the sidelines who has been reading this thread, can tell me what I missed or how I am wrong in my view of the situation, I am going to assume it is you and not me.