Closing the Books on History

Normally I'm not a champion of Kitty Kelley, although I will admit I read her last big book, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, as soon as it came out, and it just confirmed what I've felt based on news stories, magazine articles, personal perceptions, and some personal knowledge. But I read this editorial she wrote titled "Bush's Veil Over History" that was published in the NYT, and I fully agree with it. I know I've discussed this in the past, but I again want to say I strongly believe as a former historian-in-training, an armchair history buff, and a citizen of this country that it is incumbent on our gummint to be as open and honest as possible in all the ways there are. This not only keeps the people of this country informed and aware of what is happening today in this nation and the world, but keeps the gummint honest (yes, I know those two words together are somewhat of a paradox!). It's also important to keep Presidential and gummint papers open for scholars, researchers, and the general public so that we can not only understand today's world, but see where we come from, and make sense of the past so we can improve upon it. Casting shadows on the actions of past administrations is not only detrimental to our lives today, but shuts the door on a fuller examination by the ultimate judge: history.

I really don't see how defensible this decision is: personally, I think it's a shameless move by Smirk to protect Scowl and Daddy's other buddies who are now in the White House, as well as protect Daddy himself (after all, it was Reagan's papers that were going to be released next, with everything from the internal history of the end of the Cold War to Iran-contra-- oh, wait, did I say Iran-contra? Yep, Daddy was involved in that, despite any protestations to the contrary. I find it hard to believe a sitting vice-president of recent vintage was "left out of the loop.").

I hope for all our sakes that the AHA lawsuit (PDF link) prevails. We shall see...