Who Owns Presidential Documents...You (and me) or the Pres (and his heirs) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 11:24 AM

(removed graph of historians rating of Bush presidency after Ustwo had a hissy fit.)

Who owns presidential documents?

The Presidential Records Act addressed this issue by making all presidential documents the property of the National Archives and accessible to historians, media and the public after a period of 12 years from when that president leaves office. Access to the records can be denied after the end of the 12-year embargo only if a former or incumbent president claims an exemption based on a "constitutionally based" executive privilege or continuing national security concern.

In 2001, Bush issued an Executive Order that effectively extended the exemption by allowing the former or incumbent president to block the release of docs after the 12 year period for any reason.

The timing of the EO was interesting....just when 68,000 pages of Reagan records were due to be released (including Iran/Contra docs). It also gives the both the current and former Bush the means to block former Bush records (perhaps records dealing with Iraqgate/providing arms to Saddam through BCCI - only speculation on my part?).

Does the public have the right to presidential records?

Can future historians write an accurate and complete history of a president without access to sensitive and controversial documents that no longer pose a threat to national security?

Quote:

Let the presidential record show...
A Bush order keeps presidents' papers secret. Don't let that stand.

By now, many have forgotten the records-censoring executive order issued by President Bush in November of 2001. The order gutted the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and gave presidents the right to prevent the release of their presidential papers – forever.

This audacious act requires nothing less than a national conversation about the role of history in a representative democracy. For it mocks the very notion that the historical record of the presidency is Americans' shared property, the font of all meaningful historical examination of what went right and what went wrong and how we can do it better in the future....

....The 2001 executive order even allows a sitting president to block the release of a former president's records, even if that president doesn't object to the public disclosure of his personal papers.

To challenge action taken under the order, historians, journalists, and ordinary citizens must seek redress in court.

Historians, who know that our history begets our future, rose up in outrage. Congress responded, albeit slowly. The House passed legislation this year to nullify President Bush's order by the veto-proof margin of 333 to 93, with 104 Republicans breaking administration ranks.

That bill was also on its way to passage in the Senate when, on Sept. 24, Sen. Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky objected to floor consideration of the measure, automatically holding up a vote.

I called Senator Bunning's office the other day. Yes, a staffer told me, the senator has a hold on the bill. And no, he won't be saying why.

This act should gall those who care about the sanctity – and significance – of the nation's history.

If those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it, then what becomes of those who manipulate their history? And what does it say of the citizenry who allows the whitewashing?

...If Bush's executive order is not overturned by Congress, it will allow presidents, their heirs, and – for the first time – vice presidents and their heirs, to deny the American people access to the full historical record of their administrations. History will lose to propaganda, unless those who record it are freed to do their work.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1224/p09s01-coop.html

IMO, this EO is right up there as one of Bush's worst abuses of power...in order to control the "history" of his administration.

The_Jazz · 04-11-2008, 11:54 AM

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THE POLLSTERS WOULD HAVE THE BALLS TO TRY THAT KIND OF SURVEY BEFORE....

just kidding. I think Pan got into my head a little there.

Personally, I think that 12 years is too soon to release these kinds of records, if for no other reason that they can still impact careers. That said, "forever" is a very long time and doesn't seem appropriate either. Were it up to me, I would say 20 years is a nice round number, and would give that junior guy at the State Department a chance to run for Senate and then go down in a corruption scandal involving an underage prostitute, a golf cart battery, 7 1/2 gallons of jello and the latest issue of "Redbook".

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 12:11 PM

I think the case law on this issue suggests that Presidential records are in-fact public records with the former President given an opportunity to object to private and other records being made public unless compelled to do so by court order.

Personally I think executive privilege is harmed by the law and is a violation of separation of power provision in the Constitution. I know most experts disagree. I think the net affect is Presidential communications with his cabinet and staff are tainted with participants being mindful of potentially everything being said being made public record. I think this hinders frank discussion, and encourages "group think".

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 12:26 PM

I'd love to see the official documents that detail Reagan's actions during Iran/Contra. It's always nice to be justified.

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 12:42 PM

Two more thoughts:

1) Abuse of power - The President has the power to issue executive orders. Issuing one is not an abuse of power. I am not sure how Bush's 2001 EO is an abuse of power, I think it clarifies the original law.

2) Historians not being able to record history accurately w/o the records - On its face this point is pretty weak, but deserves a response. Kind of like saying Historians could not record the historic dominance of Alexander The Great because they did not have access to his messengers.

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 12:46 PM

Ace, we could know a hell of a lot more about Alexander the Great had there been more records that were accurate left behind. I think that's significant. Moreso, we know that Bush has been a secretive president, which means that if we don't act now while the information still exists it may very well be lost and future generations could make the same mistakes.

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ace, we could know a hell of a lot more about Alexander the Great had there been more records that were accurate left behind. I think that's significant. Moreso, we know that Bush has been a secretive president, which means that if we don't act now while the information still exists it may very well be lost and future generations could make the same mistakes.

Yes we could know a lot more, but do we need trivia? Many would love to know about his sexual activities, etc., I but think we know plenty about his military and political strategies which lead to his world dominance. I would argue the same about Reagan or any other President, focus on actions, inactions and results.

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 01:12 PM

ace....most Executive Orders are administrative.....it becomes an abuse of power when they change the intent of laws enacted by Congress and signed by former presidents.

And how can historians accurately "focus on actions, inactions and results" if documents pertinent to those actions, inactions and results are selectively withheld?

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 01:46 PM

Maybe we should allow the historians to decide what is trivia and what is important.

Ustwo · 04-11-2008, 01:54 PM

Well since you put up the graph I decided to read the site a bit.

4 years ago 81% of the same group called him a failure.

Lets see guy gets re-elected, and was a failure to a large majority of 'professional historians'.

So in other words, they didn't like him or his policies.

Ah well those who can't do.....

As for who owns the records, thats a bit of a tough one as there are many factors to consider. My thoughts are always to security on such matters and while I think from a long term prospective there should be a right to know, it needs to be long enough that security isn't compromised. For example, I don't know when it came to light we had a high level spy in the Soviet government during the Cuban missile crisis so we knew they would blink first so to speak, but odds are it wouldn't have been good for that to come out until said man was no longer in a position to be hurt.

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....most Executive Orders are administrative.....it becomes an abuse of power when they change the intent of laws enacted by Congress and signed by former presidents.

In the original law, to me, it did not seem clear under what circumstances a current President could deem an issue worthy being held in confidence due to for example national security. Also, it did not seem clear to me under what circumstance a former President could deem something personal and not public record. I think Bush's executive order gives the benefit of the doubt to the President and former President - with the issue still being subject to court order.

Quote:

And how can historians accurately "focus on actions, inactions and results" if documents pertinent to those actions, inactions and results are selectively withheld?

The reason I used Alexander The Great as an example is because I think historians have done a excellent job or reconstructing his political an military strategies and actions/inactions without extensive records of Alexander's, writings, messages, private meetings and conversations.

I have listened/read some of Johnson's phone conversations while he was President - I can't say they added any value to the historic record in my opinion. In Nixon's situation that is different, but he was under no obligation to record all of his conversations - and Presidents after him certainly would self edit what they say on tape. History in my opinion is best served when information his gathered in circumstances where the participants act as they normally would. We don't need staged history.

loquitur · 04-11-2008, 01:57 PM

I think the records belong to the govt, the same way that any employer owns records the employee created while acting on the employer's business.

That said, because of the sensitivity of this stuff, I'd say 12 years is probably too short a time. It should be more like 30 years. Many historical courses of events haven't fully played out in 12 years, and disclosure of internal presidential documents could affect current events at that stage. It's unlikely that would be true after 30 years, except in unusual circumstances.

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe we should allow the historians to decide what is trivia and what is important.

Who are the historians? Where would you draw the line? Do we need to have record of bathroom visits? Do we need to know if a President had a sex with his wife/mistress/girlfriend? I think we, the public, should have input on what is important for recorded history. I like the idea of standards and I respect personal privacy.

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I think the records belong to the govt, the same way that any employer owns records the employee created while acting on the employer's business.

That said, because of the sensitivity of this stuff, I'd say 12 years is probably too short a time. It should be more like 30 years. Many historical courses of events haven't fully played out in 12 years, and disclosure of internal presidential documents could affect current events at that stage. It's unlikely that would be true after 30 years, except in unusual circumstances.

I think 12 years (3 presidential terms) is sufficient. given that the law (before Bush's EO) still allowed for further withholding if national security or "current events" might be compromised.

Should a former president whose legacy is under review be the one to make that determination?

I would prefer seeing someone like the National Archivist in consultation with national security officials (past and present).

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 02:08 PM

Historians = anyone interested in history. Leave the information available to anyone and everyone. If people are interested in getting information on the bathroom, there's certainly no harm in it. The real issue, though, is ensuring that truly important information is available... but important to me may not be important to you. As such, all information should be available.

aceventura3 · 04-11-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I think the records belong to the govt, the same way that any employer owns records the employee created while acting on the employer's business.

There are rules that govern Congress and others public office holders, local and state. There is a point when activity is on the record and public, rules governing what constitutes a meeting, and rules regulating notice, etc. These people have an opportunity to be off the record, and have personal and private thoughts, shouldn't the President have the same opportunity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Historians = anyone interested in history. Leave the information available to anyone and everyone. If people are interested in getting information on the bathroom, there's certainly no harm in it. The real issue, though, is ensuring that truly important information is available... but important to me may not be important to you. As such, all information should be available.

Like I wrote earlier:

Quote:

History in my opinion is best served when information his gathered in circumstances where the participants act as they normally would. We don't need staged history.

If I knew everything thing I did was being made public, my behavior would be "staged", wouldn't yours? Our best historic records are from sincere/honest sources. Hence I think history is better served if we give a President some feeling of privacy and then discovering that information. That kind of record (i.e.- Nixon) is priceless.

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 02:27 PM

ace.....Isnt the likely outcome to be "staged history" if a president can`withhold relevant documents for as long as he is alive (or beyond) that may reflect questionably on his PUBLIC policy decisions and actions?

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 02:31 PM

Forcing them to behave by recording their actions? Cry me a river.

host · 04-11-2008, 02:35 PM

12 years is fine, because exceptions can be made, page by page, instance by instance. What happened here is about overall intent, overall disdain for public accountability....deep seated, long standing:

11-29-2005
[quote]http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.

Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.

This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?

Research does wonders for a truly curious mind.........

Quote:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy <b>Richard Cheney</b>) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."

On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to <b>override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31;</b> on November 21, <b>the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote,</b> giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[i]

Footnotes

[i] Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.

One thing you are right about, ustwo, is that there is much that we cannot know for certain. Bush and Cheney have worked O.T., to insure that!

Quote:

http://hnn.us/comments/10377.html
24 March 2003)

<h3>1. REP. OSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REVOKE PRA EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).</h3>

This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."

In his floor statement introducing the bill
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/h032703.html) Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."

Quote:

http://www.smh-hq.org/gazette/volumes/142/ncc.html
BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER

On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." <b>The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.</b>

Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/wh032503.html). Because of copy deadlines, <b>the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials.</b> Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.

The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years -- but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." ........

Quote:

http://www.archivists.org/statements...in2.asp?prnt=y
Statement for the Record on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States

July 22, 2004

Although the Society of American Archivists (SAA) would have preferred a process in which we were permitted to testify at the hearing regarding the appointment of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States we thank the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to comment. The choice of a qualified nominee to become the Archivist of the United States is an important decision that ultimately benefits all Americans by ensuring that our history will be preserved and that our citizens will be able to hold their government accountable for its actions and decisions through the careful and impartial management of the records of government.

To that end, we express our intent to cooperate with Professor Weinstein and to work with him if he is appointed Archivist of the United States.

However, we also wish to convey again the strong reservations that the Society of American Archivists and thirty other archives, history, and library organizations have expressed about the manner in which this nomination was made. As noted in a Statement developed by SAA, the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (issued shortly after the April 8, 2004, announcement of Professor Weinstein’s nomination), Congress created the National Archives and Records Administration—and the position of Archivist of the United States—to be both independent and non-partisan. In the National Archives Act (Public Law 98-497), Congress intended that filling the position of Archivist of the United States should involve an open process, with consultation with appropriate professional organizations that could speak from knowledge and experience concerning the qualifications of nominees. Attached are copies of the “Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States”(including the names of the organizations that supported it), as well as “Joint Statement on Selection Criteria for the Archivist of the United States” and “Joint Statement on Questions to Ask the Nominee for Archivist of the United States.” We ask that these documents be entered into the permanent record of these hearings.

<b>It is our view that this nomination was undertaken outside both the letter and the spirit of the law.</b> We believe that the evidence is clear that the White House effectively removed John Carlin when it asked him for a letter of resignation in December 2003 after having already identified a replacement in the fall of that year. <b>It is within the power of the President to remove the Archivist, but if he takes this action, the law calls for him to provide Congress with an explanation of his reasons for doing so. To date, no such explanation has been provided.</b> We hope that the Committee will ask the White House to fulfill its obligation under the law rather than create another precedent that erodes the power and authority of the United States Congress.

We also hope that the Committee will begin working with interested professional associations to establish a more formal procedure that can be used for future nominations. Development in advance of a list of qualifications and other considerations would make the process smoother and ensure that the Archivist position does not become politicized.

Let us be clear: We do not believe that the manner in which the nomination has been handled reflects negatively on Professor Weinstein or his interest in this position. But we do believe that the failure to follow the process outlined in law threatens the tradition of independence and non-partisanship that enables the Archivist of the United States to fulfill his obligations effectively to the benefit of all Americans.

roachboy....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?

Didnt they airbrush Jack Abramoff out of WH photos?

No wait, they just destroyed any e-mail that pertained to Abramoff's WH visits. The photos were beyond their control.

host · 04-11-2008, 02:46 PM

12 years is fine, because exceptions can be made, page by page, instance by instance. What happened here is about overall intent, overall disdain for public accountability....deep seated, long standing:

11-29-2005

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.

Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.

From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.

This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?

Research does wonders for a truly curious mind.........

Quote:

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy <b>Richard Cheney</b>) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."

On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to <b>override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31;</b> on November 21, <b>the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote,</b> giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[i]

Footnotes

[i] Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.

One thing you are right about, ustwo, is that there is much that we cannot know for certain. Bush and Cheney have worked O.T., to insure that!

Quote:

http://hnn.us/comments/10377.html
24 March 2003)

<h3>1. REP. OSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REVOKE PRA EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).</h3>

This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."

In his floor statement introducing the bill
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/h032703.html) Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."

Quote:

http://www.smh-hq.org/gazette/volumes/142/ncc.html
BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER

On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." <b>The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.</b>

Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/wh032503.html). Because of copy deadlines, <b>the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials.</b> Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.

The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years -- but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." ........

Quote:

http://www.archivists.org/statements...in2.asp?prnt=y
Statement for the Record on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States

July 22, 2004

Although the Society of American Archivists (SAA) would have preferred a process in which we were permitted to testify at the hearing regarding the appointment of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States we thank the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to comment. The choice of a qualified nominee to become the Archivist of the United States is an important decision that ultimately benefits all Americans by ensuring that our history will be preserved and that our citizens will be able to hold their government accountable for its actions and decisions through the careful and impartial management of the records of government.

To that end, we express our intent to cooperate with Professor Weinstein and to work with him if he is appointed Archivist of the United States.

However, we also wish to convey again the strong reservations that the Society of American Archivists and thirty other archives, history, and library organizations have expressed about the manner in which this nomination was made. As noted in a Statement developed by SAA, the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (issued shortly after the April 8, 2004, announcement of Professor Weinstein’s nomination), Congress created the National Archives and Records Administration—and the position of Archivist of the United States—to be both independent and non-partisan. In the National Archives Act (Public Law 98-497), Congress intended that filling the position of Archivist of the United States should involve an open process, with consultation with appropriate professional organizations that could speak from knowledge and experience concerning the qualifications of nominees. Attached are copies of the “Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States”(including the names of the organizations that supported it), as well as “Joint Statement on Selection Criteria for the Archivist of the United States” and “Joint Statement on Questions to Ask the Nominee for Archivist of the United States.” We ask that these documents be entered into the permanent record of these hearings.

<b>It is our view that this nomination was undertaken outside both the letter and the spirit of the law.</b> We believe that the evidence is clear that the White House effectively removed John Carlin when it asked him for a letter of resignation in December 2003 after having already identified a replacement in the fall of that year. <b>It is within the power of the President to remove the Archivist, but if he takes this action, the law calls for him to provide Congress with an explanation of his reasons for doing so. To date, no such explanation has been provided.</b> We hope that the Committee will ask the White House to fulfill its obligation under the law rather than create another precedent that erodes the power and authority of the United States Congress.

We also hope that the Committee will begin working with interested professional associations to establish a more formal procedure that can be used for future nominations. Development in advance of a list of qualifications and other considerations would make the process smoother and ensure that the Archivist position does not become politicized.

Let us be clear: We do not believe that the manner in which the nomination has been handled reflects negatively on Professor Weinstein or his interest in this position. But we do believe that the failure to follow the process outlined in law threatens the tradition of independence and non-partisanship that enables the Archivist of the United States to fulfill his obligations effectively to the benefit of all Americans.

roachboy....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?

and when you come on here to defend a president and an administration that have shown only contempt and disregard for the law, what does doing that speak about you?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012102070.html
White House Has No Comprehensive E-Mail Archive
System Used by Clinton Was Scrapped

By Elizabeth Williamson and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 22, 2008; A03

For years, the Bush administration has relied on an inadequate archiving system for storing the millions of e-mails sent through White House servers, despite court orders and statutes requiring the preservation of such records, according to documents and technical experts.

President Bush's White House early on scrapped a custom archiving system that the Clinton administration had adopted under a federal court order. From 2001 to 2003, the Bush White House also recorded over computer backup tapes that provided a last line of defense for preserving e-mails, even though a similar practice landed the Clinton administration in legal trouble.

As a result, several years' worth of electronic communication may have been lost, potentially including e-mails documenting administration actions in the run-up to the Iraq war.

White House officials said last week that they have "no reason to believe" that any e-mails were deliberately destroyed or are missing. But over the past year, they have acknowledged problems with archiving, saving and finding e-mails dating from early in the administration until at least 2005.

The administration's e-mail policies have been repeatedly challenged by lawmakers and open-government groups, in congressional hearings and in court. Two groups, the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, have accused the White House in lawsuits of violating the Federal Records Act because of what they say is its failure to preserve millions of e-mails, a charge the White House rejects.

The White House's record-keeping problems have thrown new attention on a gap in statutory language covering the retention of presidential records.

"If it is a presidential record, then it does need to be retained. It doesn't matter what the format is -- e-mails can be records," said Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives and Records Administration. But the agency has no power to intervene if an administration is not preserving presidential records, inadvertently or not, Cooper said.

The law governing nonpresidential federal records is stronger. The National Archives can demand an explanation from any federal agency that it suspects is mishandling records, and it can request a Justice Department probe. Private parties can sue to force compliance with federal records laws, but not the presidential-records statute.

Controversy surrounding the Bush administration's policies intensified on Thursday, when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released details of a briefing by White House special counsel Emmet T. Flood, in which he disclosed that a 2005 White House study had identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more component offices.

In the presidential offices, for example, not a single e-mail was archived on Dec. 17, 20 or 21 in 2003 -- the week after the capture of Saddam Hussein. According to the study summary that the committee released, e-mails were not archived for Vice President Cheney's office on four days in early October 2003, coinciding with the start of a Justice Department probe into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, which later led to criminal charges against Cheney's chief of staff.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), has scheduled a Feb. 15 hearing to inquire about the gaps.

The current e-mail controversy carries echoes from a scandal that rocked the Clinton administration a decade ago, when GOP-led congressional probes found that hundreds of thousands of White House e-mails had been lost, primarily involving the office of then-Vice President Al Gore.

A 2001 audit by the Government Accountability Office said that part of the trouble was due to problems created while maintaining and updating a custom archiving system known as the Automated Records Management System (ARMS). The system was put in place in 1994, after a federal court ruled that the White House must preserve e-mails under the Federal Records Act.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022602312.html
GOP Halts Effort to Retrieve White House E-Mails

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; A02

After promising last year to search its computers for tens of thousands of e-mails sent by White House officials, the Republican National Committee has informed a House committee that it no longer plans to retrieve the communications by restoring computer backup tapes, the panel's chairman said yesterday.

The move increases the likelihood that an untold number of RNC e-mails dealing with official White House business during the first term of the Bush administration -- including many sent or received by former presidential adviser Karl Rove -- will never be recovered, said House Democrats and public records advocates.

The RNC had previously told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it was attempting to restore e-mails from 2001 to 2003, when the RNC had a policy of purging all e-mails, including those to and from White House officials, after 30 days. But Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) disclosed during a hearing yesterday that the RNC has now said it "has no intention of trying to restore the missing White House e-mails."

"The result is a potentially enormous gap in the historical record," Waxman said, including the buildup to the Iraq war.

Spokesman Danny Diaz said in a statement that the RNC "is fully compliant with the spirit and letter of the law." He declined further comment.

Administration officials have acknowledged that Rove and many other White House officials routinely used RNC accounts for government business, despite rules requiring that they conduct such business through official communications channels. The RNC deleted all e-mails until 2004, when it exempted White House officials from its e-mail purging policy.

About 80 White House aides used RNC accounts for official government business, committee staff members said. Rove, for example, sent or received 140,000 e-mails on RNC servers from 2002 to 2007, and more than half involved official ".gov" accounts, the panel has said.

The RNC dispute is part of a broader debate over whether the Bush administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records -- including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions -- for history and in case of future legal demands.

The committee is investigating allegations that vast stores of official Bush administration e-mails have also gone missing from the White House, which scrapped a Clinton-era archiving system and has struggled with data retention problems.

A former White House technology manager told the committee in statements released yesterday that the Bush administration's e-mail system "was primitive and the risk that data would be lost was high."

Steven McDevitt, who left the White House in 2006, said he supervised an internal study that found hundreds of days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices from January 2003 to August 2005. The study stated a range when tallying the total number of days in which an office had no recorded e-mails, from 473 -- which had been previously reported -- to more than 1,000, McDevitt said.

McDevitt also said security was so lax that e-mail could be modified by anyone on the computer network until the middle of 2005.

Administration officials defended their efforts to fix the problems, and said they are still working to locate and identify e-mails reported as missing. "We are very energized about getting to the bottom of this," said Theresa Payton, chief information officer at the Office of Administration.

At the hearing, Payton and GOP lawmakers attacked the 2005 White House study overseen by McDevitt, calling it flawed and unreliable. McDevitt said the 250-page study involved numerous senior technology officials as well as outside contractors.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the committee's ranking Republican, said in a statement that the missing e-mail allegations are "based on a discredited internal report conveniently leaked to the media." He also said that yesterday's hearing was "less about preserving records and more about resurrecting the spurious claim that the White House 'lost millions of official e-mails.' "

Davis also said, based on a briefing by Payton, that the actual number of days with missing e-mails was 202. "A substantial portion of the so-called 'missing' e-mails appear not to be missing at all, just filed in the wrong digital drawer," Davis said. No other committee member followed up on that allegation during the hearing.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Read the comments to the article....two hundred fucking forty seven of them http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._Comments.html

Ustwo · 04-11-2008, 02:55 PM

I dunno.

I feel historically empowered hearing LBJ talk about his bunghole.

Compelling and rich history.

host · 04-11-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well since you put up the graph I decided to read the site a bit.

4 years ago 81% of the same group called him a failure.

Lets see guy gets re-elected, and was a failure to a large majority of 'professional historians'.

So in other words, they didn't like him or his policies.

Ah well those who can't do.....

ustwo, you can keep your "manly man" "war criminal", TORTURER, "decider", all to yourself....you can have him!

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPoli...4635175&page=1

....As first reported by ABC News on Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news. ......

....In his interview with ABC News, Bush said the ABC report about the Principals' involvement was not so "startling."...

....In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.

"We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it," Bush said. "And, no, I didn't have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew." .....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0080319-5.html

......Q Let me go back to the Americans. Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So?

Q So -- you don't care what the American people think? ........

What can you be thinking, Ustwo...still holding out for their favorable place in history....they are the worst ever...there is no chance, give it up!

reconmike · 04-11-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ustwo, you can keep your "manly man" "war criminal", TORTURER, "decider", all to yourself....you can have him!

What can you be thinking, Ustwo...still holding out for their favorable place in history....they are the worst ever...there is no chance, give it up!

Please Host, Jimma Carter WAS the worst ever, look at how bad he fucked up this country, not to mention our standing in the world.

But hey he did pardon all those draft dodging felons.

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 03:33 PM

Carter was a god-king compared to Bush.

reconmike · 04-11-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Carter was a god-king compared to Bush.

Right 20% interest rates, gas lines for miles, Iranians taking our embassy with no response, all you know about Carter is what you have read, this country was in shambles under his leadership, if thats what you want to call it.

Willravel · 04-11-2008, 03:41 PM

Adjusting for inflation gas is more expensive now, the Fed is falling apart trying to fix the horrible mess that was inevitable with our economy that was exacerbated by some of the dumbest policy in history regarding fiscal responsibility, Iraq is experiencing an all-out civil war as a direct result of a war of aggression that had no planning, we're actually torturing people, TORTURING... I mean how blind can one be? Carter was a fantastic president when compared to Bush.

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

....all you know about Carter is what you have read....

Shouldnt "what we read" (and what historians have access to) include all relevant presidential documents (like all of Carter's publicly available background docs on the Camp David peace accord, docs that lead to the first national energy policy or a foreign policy docs that promoted human rights, etc)....rather than only the docs a president wants to provide?

That is the question that should be addressed.

Should Bush be able to withhold documents from the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies to protect their legacies? Should he be able to withhold docs from his own presidency if it prevent us from "reading the truth"?

Ustwo · 04-11-2008, 03:53 PM

I was reading the comments on the site about the poll, I found this one to be pretty good.

I would really like to see who these "historians" are. Bush is the worst president ever? Not by a long shot. This "poll" has no merit whatsoever. Did the “pollster” even control for political ideology? There are so many factual mistakes in these comments that I question if all of the respondents were actually historians, including the author. It’s almost as if their knowledge of history only extends to the latest MSNBC news cycle. The tax cuts were not just for the “rich” (whatever that means). They actually applied to everyone who pays taxes. Furthermore, tax revenues actually increased as result of the tax cuts, as they did for the Reagan, Kennedy, and Mellon tax cuts. The deficits were due to record spending on both sides of the aisle. One respondent calls the Iraq war disastrous. Really? Compared to Vietnam? How about Korea, where in less than three years over 30,000 of Americans died? How about the War of 1812, during which our capital was burned to the ground and all of New England very nearly seceded? And Bush trampled on the Bill of Rights? How, exactly? By rounding up hundreds of thousands of Americans and putting them in concentration camps like FDR? Oh, that’s right, I forgot, wiretaps of terrorists phone calls (perfectly legal under FISA and employed by every president since Carter). LOL. Are these guys even historians? It is way, way to early to judge the Bush presidency. Everyone said the same thing about Reagan, and now he’s ranked in the “near great” category. Same with Harry Truman who left office with a lower approval rating than Bush’s. If democracy hold in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush, like every other wartime president with the exception of Nixon, will be in the top 20. BTW, If I had a kid studying history at Millsaps College, I would ask for my tuition money back.

Yea suck it libs, seriously dc if you wanted a real discussion you don't start it with that steaming pile of crap and then pretend it doesn't really matter.

dc_dux · 04-11-2008, 03:57 PM

UStwo....I removed the poll from the OP just for you. I hope you will show me the same courtesy in the future by not posting bogus sites like Junk Science and the American Center for Voting Rights

Now....Should Bush be able to withhold documents from the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies to protect their legacies? Should he be able to withhold docs from his own presidency if it prevent us from "reading the full and unvarnished truth" of his WH polices, actions and decisions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea suck it libs, seriously dc if you wanted a real discussion you don't start it with that steaming pile of crap and then pretend it doesn't really matter.

BTW, many of your posts are steaming piles of crap....most recently:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I dunno.

I feel historically empowered hearing LBJ talk about his bunghole.

Compelling and rich history.

In this case, literally.

Ustwo · 04-11-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

UStwo....I removed the poll from the OP just for you. I hope you will show me the same courtesy in the future by not posting bogus sites like Junk Science and the American Center for Voting Rights

Now....Should Bush be able to withhold documents from the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies to protect their legacies? Should he be able to withhold docs from his own presidency if it prevent us from "reading the full and unvarnished truth" of his WH polices, actions and decisions?

BTW, many of your posts are steaming piles of crap....most recently:

In this case, literally.

You cooked the meal, I sent it back to the kitchen, deal with it.

Edit: And since you didn't get the joke....

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Historians = anyone interested in history. Leave the information available to anyone and everyone. If people are interested in getting information on the bathroom, there's certainly no harm in it. The real issue, though, is ensuring that truly important information is available... but important to me may not be important to you. As such, all information should be available.

LBJ: But, uh when I gain a little weight they cut me under there. So, leave me , you never do have much of margin there. See if you can't leave me an inch from where the zipper (burps) ends, round, under my, back to my bunghole, so I can let it out there if I need to.

http://americanradioworks.publicradi...bj_haggar.html

Its better if you listen to the audio.

host · 04-11-2008, 04:34 PM

Ustwo, I'm not coming off as a snarky POS in my posts, because I sincerely attempt to provide REAL content in my posts....substance...kinda like what dc_dux tries to do. What do you try to do here....incessantly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You cooked the meal, I sent it back to the kitchen, deal with it.....

Not to worry, dc_dux....watching these loyal Americans attempt to defend and obfuscate the indefensible and the unavoidable, is what it is, a spectacle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Please Host, Jimma Carter WAS the worst ever, look at how bad he fucked up this country, not to mention our standing in the world.

But hey he did pardon all those draft dodging felons.

Torture, war crimes, deliberate violation of the Geneva conventions....the senate signed those Geneva treaties to protect your fellow Marines....deliberate destruction of white house records....years of internal communications among the entire executive branch.

You post about what Carter did to our "standing in the world"....when did you ever show any concern for our standing in the world? What do you think world opinion is of the Bush administration, of the American people for permitting their continued ability to stink up the place? The rest of the world is voting on US standing:
The US dollar: Against the Euro....last 24 months:
<img src="http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/2y?usdeur=x">

Dollar since Bush TOOK office:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/US/M

The US Military:

Quote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...PXDiAD8VUMQDG2
Army Under Stress From Long Wars

By PAULINE JELINEK – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. soldiers are committing suicide at record levels, young officers are abandoning their military careers, and the heavy use of forces in Iraq has made it harder for the military to fight conflicts that could arise elsewhere.

<h3>Unprecedented strains on the nation's all-volunteer military are threatening the health and readiness of the troops.</h3>

While the spotlight Wednesday was on congressional hearings with the U.S. ambassador and commanding general for Iraq, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody was in another hearing room explaining how troops and their families are being taxed by long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prospect of future years of conflict in the global war on terror.

"That marathon has become an enduring relay and our soldiers continue to run — and at the double time," Cody said. "Does this exhaust the body and mind of those in the race, and those who are ever present on the sidelines, cheering their every step? Yes. Has it broken the will of the soldier? No."

And it's not just the people that are facing strains.

Military depots have been working in high gear to repair or rebuild hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment — from radios to vehicles to weapons — that are being overused and worn out in harsh battlefield conditions. The Defense Department has asked for $46.5 billion in this year's war budget to repair and replace equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have been forced to take equipment from non-deployed units and from pre-positioned stocks to meet needs of those in combat — meaning troops at home can't train on the equipment.

National Guard units have only an average of 61 percent of the equipment needed to be ready for disasters or attacks on the U.S., Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton lamented at Wednesday's hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

Cody and his Marine counterpart, Gen. Robert Magnus, told the committee they're not sure their forces could handle a new conflict if one came along.

The Pentagon and Congress have worked in recent years to increase funding, bolster support programs for families, improve care for soldiers and Marines and increase the size of both forces to reduce the strain. Cody said the U.S. must continue the investment, continue to support its armed forces and have an "open and honest discussion" about the size of military that is needed for today's demands.

An annual Pentagon report this year found there was a significant risk that the U.S. military could not quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world. The classified risk assessment concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, are to blame.

The review grades the armed services' ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy — which would include fighting the current wars as well any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.

Similarly, a 400-page January report by the independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves found the force isn't ready for a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack on this country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job.

Strain on individuals has been repeatedly documented.

It contributes to the difficulty in getting other Americans to join the volunteer military. The Army struggles to find enough recruits each year and to keep career soldiers.

Thousands more troops each year struggle with mental health problems because of the combat they've seen. The lengthening of duty tours to 15 months from 12 a year ago also has been blamed for problems as has the fact that soldiers are being sent back for two, three or more times.

President Bush will announce on Thursday that the length of tours will go back to 12 months for Army units heading to war after Aug. 1, defense officials said Wednesday.

Some 27 percent of soldiers on their third or fourth combat tours suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems, according to an Army survey released last month. That compared with 12 percent among those on their first tour.

In Afghanistan a range of mental health problems increased, and 11.4 percent of those surveyed reported suffering from depression.

Medical professionals themselves are burning out and said in the survey that they need more help to treat the troops. The report also recommended longer home time between deployments and more focused suicide-prevention training. It said civilian psychologists and other behavioral health professionals should be sent to the warfront to augment the uniformed corps.

Though separate data reported on divorce rates appeared to be holding steady last year, soldiers say they are having more problem with their marriages due to the long and repeated separations.

As many as 121 troops committed suicide in 2007, an increase of some 20 percent over 2006, according to preliminary figures released in January.

If all are confirmed that would be more than double the 52 reported in 2001, before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted the Bush administration to launch the war in Afghanistan.

More of what you stand up for, reconmike...a toast to these wonderful, all suffering leaders....hip, hip, hooray !!!

Quote:

ABC News: 4000 Dead in Iraq; VP: They Volunteered
<h3>"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said.</h3> "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, ...
abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4513250

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...070510-12.html

QUESTION: You are portrayed by your opponents and some in the media as this sinister figure, as this cold-blooded warmonger who doesn’t care about the number of body bags going back. I know you read the casualty reports every day. I know you and Mrs. Cheney visit wounded troops privately. And I saw you in Iraq with troops in Iraq. But how do you feel about the cost of this war in blood and treasure four years later? And I guess the question most Americans have is how much is enough.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously, any casualty is to be regretted. Nobody likes to be in the position where they have to make those kinds of decisions. <h3>Obviously, the President bears the major part of the burden....</h3>

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501330.html
No One Suffers More Than the President'

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, April 25, 2007; 1:00 PM

<h3>First Lady Laura Bush said this morning that "no one suffers more" than the president</h3> and she do when watching television footage of the carnage in Iraq -- potentially opening her up to charges that the first family is too removed from the anguish of American troops and their families.

The first lady was on NBC's Today show mostly to talk about the president's malaria initiative, but at one point Ann Curry showed some video from Iraq and asked Bush, in a hushed, solicitous tone: "You know the American people are suffering, watching --"

The first lady replied: "Oh, I know that, very much. And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this. And certainly the commander in chief who has asked our military to go into harm's way --"

Curry: "What do you think the American public need to know about your husband --"

Laura Bush: "Well, I hope they do know the burden of worry that's on his shoulders every single day, for our troops. And I think they do. I mean I think if they don't, they're not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are."...

Compare what a REAL president said about the deaths of the American soldiers his orders sent into battle:

Quote:

....But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. ...

shackie · 04-11-2008, 11:37 PM

We the citizens of the United States need to take back our government. The whole idea of a democratically elected President and congress was to give the people a voice, yet ever four years or two years for congressional elections our collective voices are silent. In 1996, according to the Federal Election Commitee, a little over 49% of citizen eligible to vote actually voted. There can not be change in this country if we continue electing people with the same ideology as the last previous idiot we put into office, or worse yet if we fail to take time away from daily resposibilities to perform our most important resposibiltiy as a citizen and go vote. You may not have voted for George Bush, but did you go to your neighbors or friends and talk about voting for your candidate. Did you pass out bumper stickers or information about the candidate you wanted to win. Don't feel bad, I didn't either. During this election season, forget about the mainstream media. Read the blogs, go directly to all of the candidates websites, do your own research on the candidates. The national news outlets are only going to mention the candidates that will get them the most viewers. Hillary and Barack initally, in my opinion, got more exposure than the other candidates, not because of their ideas or visions of the future, but because Hillary is a woman and extremely popular and Barack is black and extremely popular. It made for good television. They both say exactly the same thing that every other Democratic candidate has been saying since the beginning of the year last year....We need to leave Iraq and fix the mess the Idiot currently in charge has created. I really don't care if your republican, democrat, or a member of tSocialist Party USA(yes it's really a political party), if your not getting out and organizing support for your candidate, your not doing enough to make sure "We The People" and not the news media or corporate America still control the government of this once great nation.

“When citizens fear government, we call it tyranny When government fears citizens, we call it freedom”
~Unknown~
Thanks for letting me vent. Sorry if I rambled too long. Its my first post too a blog and I kinda got carried away.

roachboy · 04-12-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

On its face this point is pretty weak, but deserves a response. Kind of like saying Historians could not record the historic dominance of Alexander The Great because they did not have access to his messengers.

this seems the central problem or dividing line: conservative "history" is more a saint's life of the Powerful, a list of Glorious Deeds of the Great Man than anything even analytic (why did this happen?) not to mention critical (what were they thinking?)

conservatives seem to want amateur history. amateur history that affirms what they already believe. reagan was a great man--a claim by and for amateurs; jimmy carter was the worst president in history: a claim by and for amateurs: people are unfair to george w bush: a claim by and for the dissociative.

===

but i dont think that's what's at stake in the eo.
many offices and many other countries seal archival materials for a certain period---for example when i was doing diss-research in paris, i tried to access the archives of the political surveillance arm of the city police for information about surveillance of the left in the context of the algerian war--those records are sealed for 50 years.

so on this one, i dont really know....i doubt seriously that any president has made their papers available too quickly, and most have delayed with less problematic a record than cowboy george and the mayberry machiavellians.

host · 04-12-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this seems the central problem or dividing line: conservative "history" is more a saint's life of the Powerful, a list of Glorious Deeds of the Great Man than anything even analytic (why did this happen?) not to mention critical (what were they thinking?)

conservatives seem to want amateur history. amateur history that affirms what they already believe. reagan was a great man--a claim by and for amateurs; jimmy carter was the worst president in history: a claim by and for amateurs: people are unfair to george w bush: a claim by and for the dissociative.

===

The response to the poll question as to whether it is the primary job of the US press to uncover the secrets of the powerful,

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...81#post2410981

was uncannily along the same lines as it is to the question here. It seems that a defense of the privileges of both wealth and power, go hand in hand. I thought that defenders of wealth did so because they aspired to be wealthy, and did not want their future wealth taxed. The defense of the powerful I do not understand as well. All of it seems to be about a belief in minimal or no accountability.... except of course, for the two million plus prisoners already in US jails.

Corporate polluters, wall street manipulators, republican politicians = "hands off"....from the press and government regulators. Where does a world view like that, come from? It seems the opposite of the American values held so dear.

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....Isnt the likely outcome to be "staged history" if a president can`withhold relevant documents for as long as he is alive (or beyond) that may reflect questionably on his PUBLIC policy decisions and actions?

No.

Seems what you really want is something "history" doesn't require. For example: I married my wife. The historic record is our marriage, children, the public records of our actions, etc. In my opinion having documentation of meetings or discussion I had with my best friend before making my decision to enter into marriage with my wife is not relevant for historic purposes. If I knew that my discussions with my best friend were going to be made public, I would carefully craft my comments to make sure the record reflected what I wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Forcing them to behave by recording their actions? Cry me a river.

Sometimes honesty is best served by being anonymous or the the thought of being anonymous. History is best served with honesty.

I would rather have Nixon on tape thinking the tapes would never be made public than Nixon on tape when he knows the tapes would be made public. Wouldn't you?

roachboy · 04-13-2008, 08:00 AM

i don't think you understand what history is, ace--not in the sense of history=stuff that happened in the past, but more history as what historians make, what they do.

to stick with your analogy---a social historian, say, might look at the official document trail your marriage generated as elements within larger patterns that would be interesting or shaped by a bigger project or problem--this stuff is usually material for making inferences about type of activity done by folk who left no documentary traces behind. another type of project might be involve interviewing you about the reasons for your marriage. yet another--depending of course on who you are--might be set up so that the transcripts of your discussions leading up to the marriage are crucial.

it all depends on the type of history being done, what the project is.
there are many types of history, many types of projects.
what distinguishes one from the other is really type of data used and type of inferences made.

but the basic problem is that you are not george w bush and the analogy is basically flawed that would equate your decision to get married and what bush may have discussed or done while in office.

aceventura3 · 04-13-2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Should Bush be able to withhold documents from the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies to protect their legacies? Should he be able to withhold docs from his own presidency if it prevent us from "reading the truth"?

The "truth"??? Oh, I get it. Why don't you folks just cut to the chase. Impeach Bush if you think he lied, abused power, and committed crimes. With subpoena power you can get access to what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think you understand what history is, ace--not in the sense of history=stuff that happened in the past, but more history as what historians make, what they do.

You are correct I don't understand history as you define it - I don't even understand your definition.

Quote:

to stick with your analogy---a social historian, say, might look at the official document trail your marriage generated as elements within larger patterns that would be interesting or shaped by a bigger project or problem--this stuff is usually material for making inferences about type of activity done by folk who left no documentary traces behind. another type of project might be involve interviewing you about the reasons for your marriage. yet another--depending of course on who you are--might be set up so that the transcripts of your discussions leading up to the marriage are crucial.

Using Alex Haley's book "Roots" as an example. In his book he had documented history. The rest he made up, so if you call him a historian and his book history - we clearly disagree about what history is. In my view history is what really happened. Trying to document the feelings, motivations, stories behind the "history", and other abstract issues involving human decisions is an exercise in fiction. Even if you have, for example, "love letters", all you really have are words on paper. When you have a marriage, you have something of historic note. If you have a "love child" you have something of historic note.

In the context of the Bush Administration for example, we have the war in Iraq. Having documents of meetings indicating that Bush may have had second thoughts is not really material to the historic record in my opinion because the real point of interest is the fact he lead us to war.

Quote:

but the basic problem is that you are not george w bush and the analogy is basically flawed that would equate your decision to get married and what bush may have discussed or done while in office.

All analogies are flawed. So what. If an analogy was exactly in the context of reality it would not be an analogy. An analogy is used to amplify a point. If you don't get the point, I understand the failing of the analogy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this seems the central problem or dividing line: conservative "history" is more a saint's life of the Powerful, a list of Glorious Deeds of the Great Man than anything even analytic (why did this happen?) not to mention critical (what were they thinking?)

Now there is "conservative" and "liberal" history?

I am conservative - What Monica did or didn't do to Bill Clinton in my opinion was not worth of historic record. Do you?

Quote:

conservatives seem to want amateur history. amateur history that affirms what they already believe. reagan was a great man--a claim by and for amateurs; jimmy carter was the worst president in history: a claim by and for amateurs: people are unfair to george w bush: a claim by and for the dissociative.

I think LBJ was a better President than Kennedy. I think Nixon was the most dishonest politician in modern times. I think FDR was the greatest President of the 20th century. Do these thoughts fit your preconceived notions?

roachboy · 04-13-2008, 08:28 AM

well, ace, i'm not sure i see the point of continuing this, but i'll see what happens.

1. history is what narratives about what happened say it is.
in principle, history is everything that has happened, but if you think about even the most ordinary aspects of your experience every day, most of what happens drops away. you can't hold onto it--try to describe the process of making a sentence that you type here if you want an example. describe what goes through your mind as you write a sentence. all that is happening, but all that falls away. so there's no hope of capturing everything that happens.

so history as a genre is not that--it is a type of text taken up with narratives that construct and link elements--maybe events, maybe other things--into a type of pattern.

2. your notion of history via the example of "roots" is kinda absurd. historians make shit up all the time--but that doesn't mean that therefore the histories they write are any more or less "history" for that--it depends on the type of argument, the nature of the materials used as evidence and the logic that links them. it's a type of conceptual art.

if you want to hold up the standard of "what actually happened" and you take that idea "what actually happened" at all seriously, then there is no written history, just types of fiction. i have no particular problem with that, but i doubt seriously that my reasons for this have the slightest to do with yours.

3. as for documentation of the bush-process of selling the fake case for the iraq war--you wouldn't be interested because you're politically inclined not to be, and methodologically inclined not to look at that sort of documentation. so your history--the one you'd write--wouldn't use them. almost any other historian doing the same project would use those documents, were they available. your history would soon become an example of politically motivated fiction claiming to be history because its arguments, types of evidence and logic that connected these into patterns, wouldn't stand up. if you don;t believe me, try doing it. it'd be fun.

4. on the last point about your analogy--well, ace, this one i dont care about.
fact is that you aren't cowboy george and so are not president and so are not past a certain point used to having what you say recorded for posterity or whatever and so you would react differently to the idea of being recorded.

this is so obvious that it is not worth arguing about.

dc_dux · 04-13-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The "truth"??? Oh, I get it. Why don't you folks just cut to the chase. Impeach Bush if you think he lied, abused power, and committed crimes. With subpoena power you can get access to what you want.

ace...this is not about impeachment or subpoenas. It is about access to presidential documents after they leave office.

I agree with rb....you dont understand history or the value that uncensored presidential policy documents bring to a more complete understanding of a president's policy decisions and actions, and thus a more complete history of that president's term of office.

As the National Archivist noted in recent testimony, the 1978 PRA provided a "careful balance between the public's right to know, with its vast implications to historians and other academic interests and the rights of privacy and confidentiality of certain sensitive records generated by the President and his staff during the course of his White House activities."

Bush's EO was a blatant attempt to overturn a law enacted by Congress and signed by Carter 30 years ago, and subsequently accepted by Reagan, George HW Bush and Clinton as a reasonable way to ensure that balance.

04-11-2008, 11:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THE POLLSTERS WOULD HAVE THE BALLS TO TRY THAT KIND OF SURVEY BEFORE.... just kidding. I think Pan got into my head a little there. Personally, I think that 12 years is too soon to release these kinds of records, if for no other reason that they can still impact careers. That said, "forever" is a very long time and doesn't seem appropriate either. Were it up to me, I would say 20 years is a nice round number, and would give that junior guy at the State Department a chance to run for Senate and then go down in a corruption scandal involving an underage prostitute, a golf cart battery, 7 1/2 gallons of jello and the latest issue of "Redbook". __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-11-2008, 12:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think the case law on this issue suggests that Presidential records are in-fact public records with the former President given an opportunity to object to private and other records being made public unless compelled to do so by court order. Personally I think executive privilege is harmed by the law and is a violation of separation of power provision in the Constitution. I know most experts disagree. I think the net affect is Presidential communications with his cabinet and staff are tainted with participants being mindful of potentially everything being said being made public record. I think this hinders frank discussion, and encourages "group think". __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers." Last edited by aceventura3; 04-11-2008 at 12:54 PM..

04-11-2008, 12:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Two more thoughts: 1) Abuse of power - The President has the power to issue executive orders. Issuing one is not an abuse of power. I am not sure how Bush's 2001 EO is an abuse of power, I think it clarifies the original law. 2) Historians not being able to record history accurately w/o the records - On its face this point is pretty weak, but deserves a response. Kind of like saying Historians could not record the historic dominance of Alexander The Great because they did not have access to his messengers. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

04-11-2008, 01:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....most Executive Orders are administrative.....it becomes an abuse of power when they change the intent of laws enacted by Congress and signed by former presidents. And how can historians accurately "focus on actions, inactions and results" if documents pertinent to those actions, inactions and results are selectively withheld? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-11-2008, 01:54 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well since you put up the graph I decided to read the site a bit. 4 years ago 81% of the same group called him a failure. Lets see guy gets re-elected, and was a failure to a large majority of 'professional historians'. So in other words, they didn't like him or his policies. Ah well those who can't do..... As for who owns the records, thats a bit of a tough one as there are many factors to consider. My thoughts are always to security on such matters and while I think from a long term prospective there should be a right to know, it needs to be long enough that security isn't compromised. For example, I don't know when it came to light we had a high level spy in the Soviet government during the Cuban missile crisis so we knew they would blink first so to speak, but odds are it wouldn't have been good for that to come out until said man was no longer in a position to be hurt. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-11-2008, 12:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'd love to see the official documents that detail Reagan's actions during Iran/Contra. It's always nice to be justified.

04-11-2008, 12:46 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ace, we could know a hell of a lot more about Alexander the Great had there been more records that were accurate left behind. I think that's significant. Moreso, we know that Bush has been a secretive president, which means that if we don't act now while the information still exists it may very well be lost and future generations could make the same mistakes.

04-11-2008, 01:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Maybe we should allow the historians to decide what is trivia and what is important.

04-11-2008, 01:57 PM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I think the records belong to the govt, the same way that any employer owns records the employee created while acting on the employer's business. That said, because of the sensitivity of this stuff, I'd say 12 years is probably too short a time. It should be more like 30 years. Many historical courses of events haven't fully played out in 12 years, and disclosure of internal presidential documents could affect current events at that stage. It's unlikely that would be true after 30 years, except in unusual circumstances.

04-11-2008, 02:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Historians = anyone interested in history. Leave the information available to anyone and everyone. If people are interested in getting information on the bathroom, there's certainly no harm in it. The real issue, though, is ensuring that truly important information is available... but important to me may not be important to you. As such, all information should be available.

04-11-2008, 02:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.....Isnt the likely outcome to be "staged history" if a president can`withhold relevant documents for as long as he is alive (or beyond) that may reflect questionably on his PUBLIC policy decisions and actions? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-11-2008, 02:31 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Forcing them to behave by recording their actions? Cry me a river.

04-11-2008, 02:55 PM	#22 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I dunno. I feel historically empowered hearing LBJ talk about his bunghole. Compelling and rich history. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-11-2008, 03:33 PM	#25 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Carter was a god-king compared to Bush.

04-11-2008, 03:41 PM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Adjusting for inflation gas is more expensive now, the Fed is falling apart trying to fix the horrible mess that was inevitable with our economy that was exacerbated by some of the dumbest policy in history regarding fiscal responsibility, Iraq is experiencing an all-out civil war as a direct result of a war of aggression that had no planning, we're actually torturing people, TORTURING... I mean how blind can one be? Carter was a fantastic president when compared to Bush.

04-11-2008, 03:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I was reading the comments on the site about the poll, I found this one to be pretty good. I would really like to see who these "historians" are. Bush is the worst president ever? Not by a long shot. This "poll" has no merit whatsoever. Did the “pollster” even control for political ideology? There are so many factual mistakes in these comments that I question if all of the respondents were actually historians, including the author. It’s almost as if their knowledge of history only extends to the latest MSNBC news cycle. The tax cuts were not just for the “rich” (whatever that means). They actually applied to everyone who pays taxes. Furthermore, tax revenues actually increased as result of the tax cuts, as they did for the Reagan, Kennedy, and Mellon tax cuts. The deficits were due to record spending on both sides of the aisle. One respondent calls the Iraq war disastrous. Really? Compared to Vietnam? How about Korea, where in less than three years over 30,000 of Americans died? How about the War of 1812, during which our capital was burned to the ground and all of New England very nearly seceded? And Bush trampled on the Bill of Rights? How, exactly? By rounding up hundreds of thousands of Americans and putting them in concentration camps like FDR? Oh, that’s right, I forgot, wiretaps of terrorists phone calls (perfectly legal under FISA and employed by every president since Carter). LOL. Are these guys even historians? It is way, way to early to judge the Bush presidency. Everyone said the same thing about Reagan, and now he’s ranked in the “near great” category. Same with Harry Truman who left office with a lower approval rating than Bush’s. If democracy hold in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush, like every other wartime president with the exception of Nixon, will be in the top 20. BTW, If I had a kid studying history at Millsaps College, I would ask for my tuition money back. Yea suck it libs, seriously dc if you wanted a real discussion you don't start it with that steaming pile of crap and then pretend it doesn't really matter. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-11-2008, 11:37 PM	#33 (permalink)
shackie Upright	We the citizens of the United States need to take back our government. The whole idea of a democratically elected President and congress was to give the people a voice, yet ever four years or two years for congressional elections our collective voices are silent. In 1996, according to the Federal Election Commitee, a little over 49% of citizen eligible to vote actually voted. There can not be change in this country if we continue electing people with the same ideology as the last previous idiot we put into office, or worse yet if we fail to take time away from daily resposibilities to perform our most important resposibiltiy as a citizen and go vote. You may not have voted for George Bush, but did you go to your neighbors or friends and talk about voting for your candidate. Did you pass out bumper stickers or information about the candidate you wanted to win. Don't feel bad, I didn't either. During this election season, forget about the mainstream media. Read the blogs, go directly to all of the candidates websites, do your own research on the candidates. The national news outlets are only going to mention the candidates that will get them the most viewers. Hillary and Barack initally, in my opinion, got more exposure than the other candidates, not because of their ideas or visions of the future, but because Hillary is a woman and extremely popular and Barack is black and extremely popular. It made for good television. They both say exactly the same thing that every other Democratic candidate has been saying since the beginning of the year last year....We need to leave Iraq and fix the mess the Idiot currently in charge has created. I really don't care if your republican, democrat, or a member of tSocialist Party USA(yes it's really a political party), if your not getting out and organizing support for your candidate, your not doing enough to make sure "We The People" and not the news media or corporate America still control the government of this once great nation. “When citizens fear government, we call it tyranny When government fears citizens, we call it freedom” ~Unknown~ Thanks for letting me vent. Sorry if I rambled too long. Its my first post too a blog and I kinda got carried away.

04-13-2008, 08:00 AM	#37 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i don't think you understand what history is, ace--not in the sense of history=stuff that happened in the past, but more history as what historians make, what they do. to stick with your analogy---a social historian, say, might look at the official document trail your marriage generated as elements within larger patterns that would be interesting or shaped by a bigger project or problem--this stuff is usually material for making inferences about type of activity done by folk who left no documentary traces behind. another type of project might be involve interviewing you about the reasons for your marriage. yet another--depending of course on who you are--might be set up so that the transcripts of your discussions leading up to the marriage are crucial. it all depends on the type of history being done, what the project is. there are many types of history, many types of projects. what distinguishes one from the other is really type of data used and type of inferences made. but the basic problem is that you are not george w bush and the analogy is basically flawed that would equate your decision to get married and what bush may have discussed or done while in office. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-13-2008, 08:28 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, ace, i'm not sure i see the point of continuing this, but i'll see what happens. 1. history is what narratives about what happened say it is. in principle, history is everything that has happened, but if you think about even the most ordinary aspects of your experience every day, most of what happens drops away. you can't hold onto it--try to describe the process of making a sentence that you type here if you want an example. describe what goes through your mind as you write a sentence. all that is happening, but all that falls away. so there's no hope of capturing everything that happens. so history as a genre is not that--it is a type of text taken up with narratives that construct and link elements--maybe events, maybe other things--into a type of pattern. 2. your notion of history via the example of "roots" is kinda absurd. historians make shit up all the time--but that doesn't mean that therefore the histories they write are any more or less "history" for that--it depends on the type of argument, the nature of the materials used as evidence and the logic that links them. it's a type of conceptual art. if you want to hold up the standard of "what actually happened" and you take that idea "what actually happened" at all seriously, then there is no written history, just types of fiction. i have no particular problem with that, but i doubt seriously that my reasons for this have the slightest to do with yours. 3. as for documentation of the bush-process of selling the fake case for the iraq war--you wouldn't be interested because you're politically inclined not to be, and methodologically inclined not to look at that sort of documentation. so your history--the one you'd write--wouldn't use them. almost any other historian doing the same project would use those documents, were they available. your history would soon become an example of politically motivated fiction claiming to be history because its arguments, types of evidence and logic that connected these into patterns, wouldn't stand up. if you don;t believe me, try doing it. it'd be fun. 4. on the last point about your analogy--well, ace, this one i dont care about. fact is that you aren't cowboy george and so are not president and so are not past a certain point used to having what you say recorded for posterity or whatever and so you would react differently to the idea of being recorded. this is so obvious that it is not worth arguing about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite