Posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:51 PM PST by Judge Parker
Some refer to it as creeping fascism.
Absolutely. What happened to "of the people by the people and for the people?"
The hard part is to do it in a Constitutional way!
Good vote, at least you didn't waste your vote supporting $billions more for the socialist Education Departmen, supporting the Bush/Clinton immigration policies, supporting Communist Vietnman and China, supporting the Islamic terrorists and drug-runners in Kosovo, etc. etc. etc.
First, what do you think Bush would want to hide about the war on terrorism - twelve years after he has left office? Sources and methods are protected indefinitely as things stood before Bush decided to make America a more secret country. [I agree with keeping sources and methods classified. I don't agree with keeping classified great mistakes, cowardly mistakes, outright treachery, blatant criminality, etc. But I guess the point can be debated.]
Can you name anything which has been released from any Presidential Library which caused great harm to our country?[I and close friends have done considerable research in a couple of Presidential Libraries. The secrecy was already stifling. Much WWII information will not be made public while anyone alive still lives. I don't like that kind of America, but I guess you and most Americans do.]
I believe he is afraid of many things from the Reagan years, things his father had a big hand in. But, as long as America remains ignorant of great mistakes and crimes, I guess it's ok, it's the kind of people we are.
Good point. If he didn't, he's a scum sucker.
It may be that in Reagan's day, the various agencies, like the CIA, were more hamstrung by regulation and oversight and less apt to behave as they had earlier, so more was done through the White House. This will result in a skewed view of the Reagan administration when the White House documents eventually do come out.
I'm not a big fan of either Bush, but I can't get worked up very much about this. Reeves mentions nothing that Clinton has done that might come out if the archives are opened. In other words, he's angling for a specific audience here, and most of us aren't in it. That doesn't mean his points are invalid, but it does turn me off.
The whining about how archival research is such hard work also strikes an ugly note. Reeves has been milking his Kennedy books for years, cannibalizing them for material, and using them as a crutch. It might do him some good to get back out in the real world.
In other words, he may have a valid point, but I don't think he proves it or wins my support. You could say this is how we lose our liberties, but I don't think so. I think we wait to see if someone else can make a better, less partisan, more balanced and considered case for Reeves' point than he himself does.
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.