(np) (political) the Big O institutes a new Cointelpro?

[Michael Bailey]

Robert Mahnke wrote:
> Presumably you're trying to be cynical about Obama's recent initiative
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122902770.html),
> though I'm not sure why.  "Decently funding" the National Archive
> would not do much to change classification decisions made elsewhere.
>

no, not at all - I'm all for that.  He doesn't have to do that to fulfill any
Rahmian talking point strategy, and it's great
that he is!  Declassification center - great!  data.gov - great!

 I was drawing a parallel between Bush's folks hiring Mylroie,
(having already made my point that Mylroie is hardly
a typical conspiracy theorist, since her theories buttressed
the positions of America's then-power elite)...

...and a meaningful outreach toward anti-government conspiracy
theorists that Obama's group might make - encouraging them to
deal with actual documentation, inviting them in, inviting review and criticism.

I'm not altogether sure how much funding the National Archive gets,
but it's one area I'd like to see emphasized.  And I'm not sure exactly
how many secrecy orders Bush 43 propagated, but I'd like to see at
least some of them rescinded.  Particularly interesting would be the
Enron-led "Energy Summit" that kicked off Bush's first term.

I think that respecting true history would be a better way to increase
trust in government than introducing yet more murk and spinmeisters to
the
"current events interpretation" gridlock...