Replies

In the article it is noted that they believe President Bush is hiding something and, "historians need to look at documents that will shed light on the inner workings of the Bush Administration, and accused Mr. Bush of making that process more difficult in an exectutive order issued in November, 2001."

Yet they were completely comfortable with a candidate who sealed and hid every documented record on himself. Even the most routine documents.

Ron Howard has dropped off of my list of tolerable people. He left my list of respected people years ago. No conclusion that he asserts can be reached by the use of logic.

Defending one person’s illicit activities by presenting another person’s illicit activities is no defense at all. It is possible that, yes, Bush has made fact finding difficult and his administration may have participated in illegal activities, but it is also possible that Obama’s people participated in some shady dealings as well. Neither discounts the other. Misdeeds should be judged on their own demerits. Obviously politicians do not exist in a vacuum, but it’s ok to criticize the president; some would say it’s the responsibility of the citizens to do so.
What worries me, however, is that a dramatization of actual events will overshadow the events themselves.
I saw the play Frost/Nixon and loved it. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the movie which stars the two Broadway leads. But I’ve also made it a point to purchase the DVD of the Frost Nixon Watergate Interviews so that I can see where liberties were taken for dramatic effect in the adaptation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GZ6Q1K?ie=UTF8&tag=liberatienter-20

I encourage you all to do the same, rather than turning the discussion into a “my guy right or wrong” shouting match.

Bush is still in office. After he leaves office -and after thorough investigation- history will judge his legacy. By examining the past we gain insight for the present and recent past. The future is always only speculation.