Presidents make history, they don't write it

Politics International Politics
1

[quote]Bush Makes History by Not Also Writing It
The Republican | Editorial

Tuesday 13 March 2007

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush was inside Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., to promote his education reform when he learned that America was under attack.

This was a day that changed the Bush presidency and the nation's history.

Scholars and archivists will one day travel to the Bush presidential library on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas to learn more about the nation's leaders and the decisions they made on that day.

The history textbooks and papers that they will write after visiting the Bush library might very well be incomplete.

[b]On Nov. 1, 2001, less than two months after the attacks, Bush issued an executive order that allows former presidents to keep some of their papers secret indefinitely[/b].

This executive order violates the Presidential Records Act of 1978, legislation that guarantees public access to papers 12 years after a president has left office.

[b]The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote today on a bipartisan bill to overturn the executive order[/b] so that Bush and future presidents will not be able to write their own political histories by releasing only those papers, e-mails and other communications that put them in the most favorable light.

[b]The executive order also allows former vice presidents to stop the release of their papers[/b], which means the Vice President Dick Cheney - perhaps the most powerful and secretive second-in-command in the nation's history - will be able to influence his own legacy as well.

This order should be overturned so that historians and scholars will get an honest portrait of the Bush administration and future administrations.

[b]Presidential records are the property of the federal government[/b]. Imagine if a president, in his final week in office, decided the bed in the Lincoln bedroom would look good in his own home and claimed it as his own. Once a president leaves his office, he cannot claim his presidential papers as his personal property.

Should it really matter if a former president wants to keep a lid on the embarrassing details of his administration?

Yes.

Presidents make history, they don't write it.[/quote]

truthout.org/docs_2006/031407N.shtml

Anyone know the outcome of this vote??

Of course there willl be secrets, but 12 years down the road, TFS. Release all the records, otherwise we’ll never know who we really are.

2

Here you go.

[quote=“GovTrack.us”]H.R. 1255: Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007

To amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records.

Status: Passed House (Bipartisan support.)
This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. [/quote]

3

OOOOOOOOOooooooo…another conspiracy…someone’s getting moist already!

4

:unamused:

Someone :help: TC.

5

TC, that’s BS and you know it.

I’m not calling anything a conspiracy. I’m a history buff, as you are, and I want access to ALL the information in a timely manner…just as you do.

If things are being done in the interests of our country, we have the right to know what those things are. I hate this secrecy nonsense. The best way to get people to STFU when rambling nonsense is to stuff their mouths full of the facts.

6

JDS -
Easy Lad. I agree with that concept for historical purposes. In the current political climate however, I do find myself thinking that keeping some documents under seal for a specified time period may be a wise thing to do.
Mis-interpretation, whether intentional or accidental, is now a valid concern. Look at how the wankers spinn and do agenda driven interpretation of articles posted here as a micro-example.
What should that time limit be? I don’t know. I tend to think it might be variable depending on the subject and area involved. National security and intel ops may have a different “open by” date than other areas.

By the way…I was not referring to you in my ‘moist’ comment.

7

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]JDS -
Easy Lad. I agree with that concept for historical purposes. In the current political climate however, I do find myself thinking that keeping some documents under seal for a specified time period may be a wise thing to do.
Mis-interpretation, whether intentional or accidental, is now a valid concern. Look at how the wankers spinn and do agenda driven interpretation of articles posted here as a micro-example.
What should that time limit be? I don’t know. I tend to think it might be variable depending on the subject and area involved. National security and intel ops may have a different “open by” date than other areas.

By the way…I was not referring to you in my ‘moist’ comment.[/quote]

Ha. I never thought you were.

Seriously though, the records would be sealed unitl 12 years after Bush’s exit. That surely can’t be considered “current” political climate.

:rainbow:

8

I don’t believe for a second that Bush wants to keep them sealed for a pecified time, as TC states. He wants them sealed “indefinitely,” which means “without limit of time.” He’s therefore absolutely trying to, perhaps not actually “rewrite” history, but certainly to “manipulate” it to suit his own purposes. Pretty damned shabby, if you ask me.
There’s no conspiracy here.

9

Except the part where he went tinkle in his pants after reading to the kiddies on 911. And where Tony Blair said, “It’s the fucking SCOTS!” when Bush called him.

The speed at which information/history moves is only going to get faster. 12 years is a century these days and will be, uh, longer in the future.

10

Perhaps TC feels that the provision of facts is itself part of a giant conspiracy? This administration has been remarkably fact-adverse. :idunno:

11

Yes, you’re right. It will, if Bush gets his way. It will be forever if this order doesn’t get overturned. What are the chances of that happening, by the way? I’m not very well informed about the workings of the senate, etc. Can the senate overturn an executive order? Is it likely to?

12

Yes, you’re right. It will, if Bush gets his way. It will be forever if this order doesn’t get overturned. What are the chances of that happening, by the way? I’m not very well informed about the workings of the senate, etc. Can the senate overturn an executive order? Is it likely to?[/quote]

Well, the President can sig an “Executive Order” which can then be overturned in the House, which it has…sprake jaboney. Now it goes to the Senate. If THEY overturn it, it’s gone.

13

[quote=“Jaboney”]Perhaps TC feels that the provision of facts is itself part of a giant conspiracy? This administration has been remarkably fact-adverse. :idunno:[/quote]And perhaps you should learn not to speak for others.

14

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Jaboney”]Perhaps TC feels that the provision of facts is itself part of a giant conspiracy? This administration has been remarkably fact-adverse. :idunno:[/quote]And perhaps you should learn not to speak for others.[/quote]Oh, ok. So, whose conspiracy were you referring to?
And, psst… I was wondering aloud and questioning (???), not speaking for you.

15

I’m totally up for the opening up info within a democracy – it helps historians judge people and if Bush’s intentions were honorable the record should reflect that from the whole of the fabric of his presidency, not through preselected portions.

I admit having struggled often with the hope that the Bush administration could do better than it has – in the wake of 9/11, I often hoped to see and hear Bush do good and do well in the effort to respond to the Islamic fundamentalists who attacked us. I was confident that our nation could win any “war of ideas” and that we could keep 5 steps ahead of the bastards who attacked us if only we unleashed the resources and smarts of our open society.

It’s no secret that I’ve been disappointed by what’s transpired since then, but even then I hold out a quiet wish that the Bush administration’s motives have been nowhere near so cynical as they’ve appeared to be. There’s a part in my mind that wishes an ideal president would struggle as Jesus in Gethsemane over how to fight this war well – Lincoln is one of the few who appears to have taken on so personal a load but there are others who did their best to use the best in their wars. There will be no way to really know how to assess this incredibly divisive presidency unless the full info is put out.

16

JDS -
I just came across an editorial column that expresses my thoughts rather well. I voted for Pres. Bush 2x’s…and to say that I am disappointed in his lack of moxie is a great understatement.

[quote]NO MORE MR. NICE PREZ

March 22, 2007 – President Bush tried to meet Congress halfway on that trumped-up federal prosecutor nonsense - and got his hand slapped away.

No surprise.

So why did he even bother?

On Tuesday, the president decided to let Congress look at executive-branch internal documents regarding personnel practice - an almost unheard of gesture.

All he asked was that lawmakers not issue subpoenas and create a media spectacle over the matter.

But less than 24 hours later, a House panel nonetheless authorized subpoenas for White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, ex-Counsel Harriet Miers and other key Bush aides.

So much for the nice-guy route.

If the subpoenas are actually issued, the White House needs to fight them tooth-and-nail - for the president surely holds the constitutional high ground.

It is now clear that the Democratic Congress intends to give Bush no peace for the remainder of his term.

No peace on the war.

No peace domestically.

No peace whatsoever.

Bush needn’t play along - not for a minute. And he shouldn’t.

He’s been offering olive branches left and right, and failing to defend what he believes is right.

He’d fallen down on this even before the latest flap over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ handling of the ouster of eight federal prosecutors - a case where there’s never been a shred of evidence of a scandal.

Bush has full discretion to remove federal prosecutors for any reason. Indeed, his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys with his own picks - as he had every right to do.

The president also has the right to keep internal White House discussions private. That frees aides to be fully candid with him. Bush’s offer to let Congress peek in on parts of those discussions was already a huge - and absolutely unwarranted - gesture toward political détente.

In other cases, he has agreed to bipartisan panels (like the 9/11 Commission) and a special prosecutor (in the probe of the Valerie Plame leak) that have only emboldened his enemies.

(Plame prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, for example, could not substantiate any crime in the commission of that leak, but nonetheless found an administration aide - Scooter Libby - to prosecute for “lying” about the non-crime.)

In making his offer Tuesday, Bush did show a modicum of resolve: “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,” he said. “It will be regrettable if they [Congress] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials.”

And he stood by his embattled AG, Gonzales, whose scalp the Dems covet.

Good for Dubya.

Now he needs to show more moxie.

Why not go to war with Congress?

Sure, Bush’s approval rating is just 35 percent in the latest Gallup poll. But Congress’ rating is even worse - 28 percent. Why shouldn’t Bush move to take advantage of that?

Even though the hostile, anti-Bush press is sure to go to town on him for doing so.

Indeed, he has little choice.

The press is already in full attack-dog mode, and long has been. That’s going to get worse, no matter what.

Apart from the survival of his own administration, Bush has a duty to fight to preserve the prerogatives of the executive as an institution for future presidents - Republican or Democrat.

He also has a duty to fellow GOPers, particularly those seeking federal offices in '08, to show that Republicans aren’t partisan pushovers - and actually lead well.

But - most of all - he has an obligation to stand up and do the job he was elected to do as he sees fit.

He owes it to Americans to do the best job he can.

It’s long past time for Bush to step up.

There’s a war on, Mr. President - not just with terrorists, but Democrats, too.

Fight it that way.
NY Post[/quote]

17

TC, I understand that (mostly) Democrats are looking at everything Bush does crosseyed. The air of distrust in the Capital is choking the system. And now it is more of a He said/They said thing going and the spectacle of what NEW scandal is out today (each and everyday) that it is becoming mind numbing.

That said, Bush, IN THIS CASE, needs to explain why he wanted to have the option of permanently sealing documents…or would future presidents have the option? Did they already have it? And if so, what has been sealed before?

I mean this is what Ike did with the Area 51 UFO documents right?

18

That piece of trash reads like a declaration of war with Bush as a misguided hero who has yet to realize his true enemies are the Democrats. Idiotic, partisan hackery.

19

Ask.
Believe
Recieve.

Well here’s one case where "The Secret " doesn’t work. :wink:

20

TC – If you and some NYPost opinion writer are disappointed that Bush hasn’t yet declared war on the Democrats, I can’t help but wonder what the heck you’ve been smoking. Rove-style, gloves-off partisan hackery from the Bush administration or even in the years of a GOP majority in both houses hasn’t found anything or anybody that they won’t hit below the belt to score a shallow political point. When one considers that some of the fired prosecutors (apparently Republicans of a previous era’s mindset and gentility) were fired for not being willing to toe this new aggressive line to use their office to persecute Democrats, it is silly to say that “now” Bush ought to get really medieval on the Dems for investigating this bunch of malarkey.

Aside from which, the current requests for documents relevant to the prosecutor firings have nothing to do with this thread topic. If you want to talk about Republican historical legacy this is the place … there are numerous threads more appropriate for you to perpetuate present-day Republican hysteria. :wink: