So who's part of the 29%? (1 Viewer)

[RazorOye]

so, DD, you think there's a possibility that W. will be vindicated by what the future bears out?

Hypothetically speaking, what sort of de-classified material will be released, do you think, that will 'correct' current opinion of him? Seems that he has a huge number of screw ups and the released information - down the line - will have to cover a wide gamut of issues and decisions to repair all the damage he's done to his image.

All of the references you make are pretty singular. FDR not wanting his physical disabilities made known - I don't see a huge problem with that, even if he had to break a few arms to do it. Athletes do that these days all the time and we see the footage, so maybe we are more desensitized to it.

The only thing I see on your list as comparable to the point you're making is LBJ's role in Vietnam, but that seems to work against your argument - what came to light years later made LBJ look criminal.

If I had to guess, I would expect that in the future, any released "classified" information would do more to impugn Bush and hurt his image even more.

How often has declassified information improved a past President's image?

In ever example you cited, the later-released image hurt the President's image more than it helped. So even those examples cited in his defense really don't do much to convince me that he'll be exonerated in the future.

Can you cite me examples of released information that improved the image of a President universally perceived as poor, and not the other way around?

Time may indeed work in his favor, but I think the only way it will is the further we get from his tenure, the more we'll forget.

 

[DadsDream]

I cannot and will not speculate on what information may or may not be released that could change public opinion because I simply don't have a chrystal ball that can see that far ahead.

RazorOye, here's one prime example of something we didn't know for 30 years.

We did not know at the time that the Politburo had, against Khruschev's wishes, authorized the Soviet ground commander to use six tactical nukes if the U.S. landed troops in Cuba.

We had detected missiles and launch sites for intermediate range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. We had not detected and did not know that the Soviet ground commander had small, battlefield nukes at his disposal.

Had Kennedy followed the recommendations of his highest commanders and actually attacked Cuba, our troops would have been hit with Soviet nukes and WWIII would have begun.

Khruschev communicated that info directly to Kennedy, warning that he had no control, that the Politburo had issued the nukes and the orders and it was out of his hands.

That information was not made public until the 1990s, when Soviet archives became available, forcing the U.S. government to declassify to confirm or deny the information.

The revelations make JFK look like a genius and silences the critics who say we should have attacked. It also explains the Bay of Pigs fiasco and reveals why JFK withheld U.S. forces, even though he had promised them to the CIA-trained Cuban ex-patriot forces.

 

[DadsDream]

See the bald guy in the middle? That's Winston Churchill walking through the ruins of Coventry, Britain.

According to conspiracy theorists, he knew two full days before the attack that the Germans were going to bomb the city and didn't issue an evacuation order. The Ultra Secret, the cracking of the Germans' Enigma cypher machine code, had to be kept.

The Ultra Secret from the 1940s was not revealed until the late 1980s.

The Churchill Center and various scholars disagree about Coventry. They say Churchill had some intel, but it was random and non-specific and only after Coventry had been hit did the pieces all fall into place. Sound familiar?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107

 

[RazorOye]

But in the example you cite was because Kennedy had a singular resolve against the wishes of those in his cabinet.

It seems just the opposite with Bush on his entry into war - he listened to all the wrong people, those whose views seemed to coincide with his personal wishes.

Even if something came out that showed his motives in the Middle East were, in retrospect, acceptable or even admirable, there are a lot of other issues that he has managed to foul up and take the blame for, wrongly or not.

Which is why I find it so hard to believe that the future will vindicate him - so much information would have to be de-classified on many different things for him to be remembered as a competent, effective leader.

I think his current opinion as a bad President is justified and we have plenty of reason to. And I think the burden of evidence to convince perpetuity and posterity that he is otherwise is entirely too great.

 

[DadsDream]

No, the example I cite proves that Kennedy was privy to info that the American public did not have and would not have for 40 years and that his critics, especially those who condemn him for screwing up the Bay of Pigs, were totally wrong.

 

[champ76]

We did not know at the time that the Politburo had, against Khruschev's wishes, authorized the Soviet ground commander to use six tactical nukes if the U.S. landed troops in Cuba.

We had detected missiles and launch sites for intermediate range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. We had not detected and did not know that the Soviet ground commander had small, battlefield nukes at his disposal.

Had Kennedy followed the recommendations of his highest commanders and actually attacked Cuba, our troops would have been hit with Soviet nukes and WWIII would have begun.

Khruschev communicated that info directly to Kennedy, warning that he had no control, that the Politburo had issued the nukes and the orders and it was out of his hands.

That information was not made public until the 1990s, when Soviet archives became available, forcing the U.S. government to declassify to confirm or deny the information.

The revelations make JFK look like a genius and silences the critics who say we should have attacked. It also explains the Bay of Pigs fiasco and reveals why JFK withheld U.S. forces, even though he had promised them to the CIA-trained Cuban ex-patriot forces.

Fascinating. Do you have any sources/ links to more on this? I wonder if this is in our school's history books or if there is no room because of all the politically correct information that must now be included.

 

[RazorOye]

which helped us avoid a war... not embroil us in another one

and he stood up to his cabinet members - his access to privy knowledge notwithstanding

I still don't see how Bush taking us to war in Iraq under those pretenses is akin to Kennedy avoiding WWIII

 

[RazorOye]

Fascinating. Do you have any sources/ links to more on this? I wonder if this is in our school's history books or if there is no room because of all the politically correct information that must now be included.

there's a lot of stuff not in American history books and they are still highly "politically incorrect" and make no references to everything from the violence Columbus was responsible for to Vietnam to aspects of slavery to the War of 1812

The books are not as politically correct as you might think

 

[champ76]

But in the example you cite was because Kennedy had a singular resolve against the wishes of those in his cabinet.

It seems just the opposite with Bush on his entry into war - he listened to all the wrong people, those whose views seemed to coincide with his personal wishes.

Even if something came out that showed his motives in the Middle East were, in retrospect, acceptable or even admirable, there are a lot of other issues that he has managed to foul up and take the blame for, wrongly or not.

Which is why I find it so hard to believe that the future will vindicate him - so much information would have to be de-classified on many different things for him to be remembered as a competent, effective leader.

I think his current opinion as a bad President is justified and we have plenty of reason to. And I think the burden of evidence to convince perpetuity and posterity that he is otherwise is entirely too great.

If history reveals Bush to be correct on Iraq, all else will be forgiven/ forgotten. It is the defining moment of his presidency. If Iraq turns into a bigger can of worms than we had to start, history won't be kind, and examples of other blunders(political and actual) will be used to bolster the argument.

 

[RebSaint]

I wonder if this is in our school's history books or if there is no room because of all the politically correct information that must now be included.

You assume that information is only included in history books to be "politically correct"--which is largely a misnomer. History books are changed when new, ground-breaking information comes out. And most survey texts and secondary texts don't go into such detail regarding the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis, etc.

 

[champ76]

there's a lot of stuff not in American history books and they are still highly "politically incorrect" and make no references to everything from the violence Columbus was responsible for to Vietnam to aspects of slavery to the War of 1812

The books are not as politically correct as you might think

I'll leave it to the historians on the board, but I'm pretty sure slavery is well covered now as is Vietnam. The War of 1812, probably not so much; and the "violence Columbus was responsible for," I'll plead total ignorance to.

 

[RazorOye]

I'll leave it to the historians on the board, but I'm pretty sure slavery is well covered now as is Vietnam. The War of 1812, probably not so much; and the "violence Columbus was responsible for," I'll plead total ignorance to.

no it is not - I've been responsible for teaching history by the textbook and the textbook has been found wanting.

I've been on curriculum panels and revisionist curriculum panels and review boards for textbooks in addition to teaching history and literature.

I'm not sure when the last time was you picked up a mainstream American history textbook, but we just adopted new ones 3 years ago - and all of the sections I mentioned above, as well as scores of others, leave a great deal unsaid

 

[DadsDream]

which helped us avoid a war... not embroil us in another one

and he stood up to his cabinet members - his access to privy knowledge notwithstanding

I still don't see how Bush taking us to war in Iraq under those pretenses is akin to Kennedy avoiding WWIII

Because the American public and Kennedy's advisors wouldn't know what Kennedy knew until 40 years after the fact.

Last time I checked up on this story, the U.S. still would not confirm or deny that Khruschev had warned Kennedy about the battlefield nukes and that it was a Politburo decision. But, enough former Soviet officials have confirmed it to make it the most likely answer to the question of why Kennedy was so dead-set against a U.S. ground assault.

What will we know in 40 years? Who knows?

Champ, here's a few background references about Khruschev and the Soviet tactical nukes.

http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/frauke.grosshennig/Perspectives.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/press4.htm
http://math.info/cmc/?feed=rss2

 

[RebSaint]

I'll leave it to the historians on the board, but I'm pretty sure slavery is well covered now as is Vietnam. The War of 1812, probably not so much; and the "violence Columbus was responsible for," I'll plead total ignorance to.

Most survey texts cover the War of 1812 about as much as Vietnam. Slavery is given more space because its importance to American history in the 19th century. It is naive to think that history is completely objective to political, social, and cultural biases but most historians attempt to be as fair regarding the record as possible.

A friend of mine who I went to school with is a die-hard Republican and a Reagan scholar. I spoke to some students of his regarding his lecture on Reagan and they thought he was a liberal Democrat.

And regarding Bush--you do have a point; who knows how historians will view his presidency because there's a lot we don't know. His administration could be a lot better than we're giving him credit; a lot will be contingent on Iraq. Then again, his admin. could be a lot worse after more information comes available to both scholars and the general public.

 

[RazorOye]

Because the American public and Kennedy's advisors wouldn't know what Kennedy knew until 40 years after the fact.

alright - I see it now.

Perhaps history will tell a different tale, indeed.

Do you have any idea, DD, of the amount of information that was made available to the media around the time of the decision or shortly after?

The reason I ask is that it seems there is a ton of information that implicates Bush through testimony, media, etc.... Does the media today know more than they did 40+ years ago, do you think?

Also, why did Kennedy not release this information to exonerate himself? And why do you think that Bush would keep such information, if it existed, to himself? His reputation and political party are reeling because of the decisions - what would keep him from releasing the information as soon as he could? Is there a moratorium put on such a release or something?

I remember when they were going to release all of the Kennedy assassination files - there seemed to be a lot of media buzz.

I just wonder why it takes so long for these to come out.