Writing History to Executive Order

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."

"...And I thought Bush didn't care...

LOL!

He wrote me saying how much he cared... Where DID I put that letter???

Apparently I'm on a list here to flag on some of those occasions when Bush does something inappropriate or questionable. (which are two words that I would use to describe this move)

As anyone who can read, and is blessed with a functioning memory, can tell you my attitude toward Bush is, has been and will likely continue to be, a mixed one. His chief 'selling points' to me during the election were:

1) He was one of only two, (2), [ that whole number >1 but <3] people who had a Popsicle’s chance in Hell of being elected President of the United States in the year of our Lord 2000.

And,

2) He was better than the other candidate who had a Popsicle’s chance in Hell of being elected.

Now, only a moron would sincerely argue the (grim) reality of point one. And point two is completely subjective, which is to say, a matter of opinion, and completely irresolvable as an objective matter, so there's a good chance that further discussion will be a waste of time.

But what the Hell... I'm up, I've got my coffee, it's a few hours yet before I have to get going... I'll give it a shot.

I often go with a gambling metaphor, despite the fact that I'm as pure as the driven snow, and would never dream of playing a game of chance...

But aviation has been so much a part of recent events... I'm going to use an aviation metaphor instead. Like all metaphors, it conveys a general sense of the larger idea only.

Sometimes you can't keep the plane from crashing, but you can provide control inputs intended to have it crash over there instead of right here.

Sometimes you do that because you believe that a crash in that clearing might be more survivable than a crash in these trees, sometimes you do that because it's just the natural, instinctive thing to do, to put off the crash as long as you can.

Voting for algore would have been nosing over and firewalling the throttle. (and maybe even laughing maniacally as the forest canopy rushed up to embrace you)

Voting for any of the 'unelectables' (some of whom would make measurably better Presidents than Bush, IMO) would be like releasing the controls and wandering back to the galley for a cup of coffee.

Voting for Bush was a gesture to buy a little time, to make that clearing over there, to crash when conditions might be more favorable (than I gauge them to be today) for the survival of the Republic.

Now, to those who would nose over intentionally and vote for algore (for any reason) I would simply say, "Go to Hell" or maybe, "F--- You". (depending on what kind of day I'm having)

For those who would vote for an unelectable candidate on noble principle, I would suggest purchasing the soundtrack to 'Man of LaMancha'. (trust me, you'll love it)

And for those who (like me) voted for Bush I would hope for some coordination in these moments, so that we might wince and exclaim: "Doh!" in unison.

"Have you been watching Congress lately?

Yes I have and I'm not a happy camper. The situation was different then. The democrats had all the power and wanted to dump Reagan early. They had people in the white house and circumvented the administrations attempts to accomplish anything that might get good press.

On the drug issue many of the congressional leadership were on the Noriega payroll. The drug money that came out of the contra operation was interdicted from drug runners in Honduras and Nicaragua. It was not earned by selling drugs on the street and it was done by the CIA. Some of the money was reportedly used for bribes and weopons purchases for a armed faction in Iran that was willing to go against the Ayatolla and retrieve our people who had been there for about a year at that point. Some mole in the white house blew the operation. The story became public and the friends that we had in Iran were killed. The admin. could not explain how the money was raised since it was done in violation of a law passed intentionally by congress to tie Reagans hands.

Reagan used the deniability routine since it was a CIA covert op and claimed he did not know about it. I believe he actually knew very little. He was not a hands on manager and relied on his people to tend to the details. He probably only knew that a op was underway. This is backed up by the fact that Nancy Reagan and others refuse to even talk to North to this day and blame him for the resulting investigation. The decision to go against congress however, was made by Reagan I believe.

There is not much more to know about it. The people who served in the operation were not military, they were mostly volunteers or mercenary types. Regular American citizens who took a leave of absense from work for a month or so and served. The goal was to destroy the huge drug operations in central america and hopfully remove Noriega from power.The hostage thing came up out of the blue and it was thought that it might work. It might have except for the leak. If it had, everyone would have been a hero. It ended up being a huge bugaboo.

BTW, Noriega was a similar situation to Saddam in Iraq. The U.S. set him up originally and he became a royal pain in the butt. Similar accusations of government complicity in both situations. They ended up to be huge mistakes made by U.S. policy makers. It's enough to make you sick. I wish that both matters would be sent to the ashcan of history.

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.