Very well...
I always liked Mary Ann myself, though Tina was very pretty.
Posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:51 PM PST by Judge Parker
WASHINGTON -- With a stroke of the pen on Nov. 1, President Bush stabbed history in the back and blocked Americans' right to know how presidents (and vice presidents) have made decisions. Executive Order 13223 ended more than 30 years of increasing openness in government.
From now on, scholars, journalists and any other citizens will have to show a demonstrated, specific "need to know" in requesting documents from the Reagan, Clinton and two Bush presidencies — and all others to come. And if someone asks to see records never made public during a presidency but deposited in the National Archives by a former president, the requester will now have to receive the permission of both the former president and the current one.
My response was to send President Bush a couple of books on recent presidencies, along with a note saying they might become valuable artifacts because his order could prevent writers from doing similar research without approval from two presidents. I also attached a letter from his father to me explaining how important it is to document presidential decision-making.
Archival research is grinding work. It takes years of perseverance to follow the paper trail documenting how the nation goes to war or raises taxes, or how presidents choose their staffs. But the search becomes worthwhile when you see John F. Kennedy's initials on a memo talking of the possibility of a Berlin wall weeks before the Communists put it up, or when you find Richard Nixon asking Henry Kissinger, in a note, "Is it possible we were wrong from the start in Vietnam?"
There are rules upon rules about which presidential papers become available and when — and some of them defy all reason. For more than 25 years, an inscription by the Irish writer Brendan Behan to President Kennedy was withheld from researchers by the National Archives and Records Administration, apparently because it was written on a copy of Evergreen Review, a literary magazine considered racy in those days. But the complicated rules have been changing in the direction of more access since the Freedom of Information Act became law on July 4, 1966.
From 1981, when the Presidential Records Act went into effect, until Mr. Bush issued his order, a citizen could request to review some presidential papers five years after the end of a presidency, or ask for all but the most sensitive records after 12 years. Ronald Reagan's records were the first to become available under the 12-year rule — except that they did not become available, because the Bush administration chose to review the policy for the past nine months.
That review resulted in the recent order. The White House reassured me that you can still go to court if an administration denies you access to archived information. Right. If you have years and tens of thousands of dollars to spare to take your case to the federal courts.
The White House argues that premature disclosure of decision memos and the like could stifle dialogue among presidential advisers. But this has been true for years, and the republic has managed to survive. The administration's second reason — to make the process more "orderly" — is simply ludicrous. It is hard to see how double presidential oversight will speed things up, unless the idea is to just say no.
And I think that is the idea. There may be Reagan-era records that could be embarrassing to some men and women now back in power with the second Bush administration.
Perhaps even more pertinent, they may not want to spend their retirements, 12 years after George W. Bush leaves office, defending the wartime decisions they are making now.
Richard Reeves is author of "President Kennedy: Profile of Power" and "President Nixon: Alone in the White House."
I think sometimes the making of the sausage is a messy business and often misunderstood by casual observers. I do believe that the sausage making should be revealed at a time after the sausage makers have retired. I think this would satisfy the history buffs and protect the current and future civil servants who are already reluctant to serve largely because of risky potential legal expenses. I hope I have chosen the proper stance because I hate for Mr. Bill to get away with anything more than he allready has.
I don't think Bush did it just to be mean, but for the sanity of the people of this country, and as a leader, he was forced to.
Releasing info on 8 years of Clintonism could cause breakdowns, heart attack, massive protests, and general health and social problems all over the world.
The man had to do what the man had to do. What America already knows about Clinton has caused enough damage. Can you immagine if everyone knew everything ?????Clinton would be a man in hiding, with his friend and ally Bin.
As I have said before, I have often wondered what GW's motivation for running for president was. He seems to lack the killer ambition that most recent candidates have had. I continue to harbor the suspicion that something happened during the Reagan-Bush I years that has brought the Bush family protective instinct out in full. What that something is I don't quite know, but I strongly suspect it has something to do with BCCI.
Now I guess that I can expect the usual charges of tin-foil. To those who make such charges I say, go do some research on the subject and see if you can honestly say that all questions related to the subject have been adequately answered.
Something should be done about the secrecy of our huge, huge, Federal government.
Letting the Legislative branch intrude so dramatically into the Executive is not the answer. No way will the supreme Court uphold the PRA.
The beauty of an amendment is that it could apply to the Legislative Branch also, it is no accident that the Congress hasn't passed a law to expose their inner workings.
The only other Constitutional option I see is to have a standard for release so generous that a president would be impeached for fighting it and after Clinton, I don't much care for that option.
These days, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference!
In my opinion the affair stemmed from a honest effort to do the right thing regardless some stupid legislation designed by the democrat controlled house and senate of the time. I nearly went to work for Ollie back then but was turned down because I was raising kids and had a wife to support. I wanted to help Reagan in his endevor. In fact I recieved thanks for my many efforts. My guess is that some of the documents that would be released would be letters sent to the white house with my name on them.The investigation that resulted was sour grapes by enemies both domesic and foreign and nearly destroyed a lot of people whose only crime was patriotism.
This was also the reason for the policies that tied the hands of the CIA and FBI regarding paying $ to known drug dealers and other bad types which just recenty played a part in our lack of intelligence. The result was our inability to stop the terrorist atack on the U.S.
In this man's opinion the masses can wait just a little longer for the story that the Reagan administation has never really told because of the selfless acts by many who worked hard to make this world a better place to live and their families. The same people who tried to destroy the Reagan legacy are still around and I for one don't want to revisit this chapter of the dumbest things a congress can do.
CAP, I figure it's a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine." sort of deal. When the previous Bush administration left office, they wiped all their computers clean and Clinnton wouldn't even talk about it. "Two wings on the same bird of prey." Peace and love, George.
IT WAS 1987!
At a lecture the other day they played an old video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree. But what he said was stunning!! He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"
Ollie replied, "Yes I did sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't this just a little excessive?"
'No sir,' continued Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened sir."
'Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir.' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden sir." Ollie replied. At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.
"Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well sir, if it were up to me, I would recommend that an assassinteam be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."
The senator disagreed with this approach and that was all that was shown of the clip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.