With its usual ironic poignancy, The Onion pokes fun at the CIA’s penchant for secrecy.  At the same time, however, their November 30, 2005 article rasies some very real concerns for historians.

“Why did it go on for this long, and this far?” said Goss in a press conference called shortly after the report’s release. “I’m as frustrated as anyone. You can’t read a single thing that’s been highlighted. Had I been there to advise [former CIA director] Allen Dulles, I would have suggested the traditional yellow color—or pink

Goss added: “There was probably some really, really important information in these documents.”

When asked by a reporter if the black ink was meant to intentionally obscure, Goss countered, “Good God, why?”

Goss lamented the fact that the public will probably never know the particulars of such historic events as the Cold War, the civil-rights movement, or the growth of the international drug trade.

“I’m sure the CIA played major roles in all these things,” Goss said. “But now we’ll never know for sure.”

Indeed, we may never know for sure.  With the “highlighting” of such documents, historians must rely on the principles involved, ideally the ones responsible for producing the information.  Unfortunately, those individuals are usually less than forthcoming with “highlighted” items.  There is hope, however. If we’re lucky, some of those privy to the redacted information keep personal diaries.

If nothing else, It’s funny because it’s true.  I do love The Onion.  Today’s headline reads, “Badly Injured Man Not Done Partying Yet.”  Hilarious.

This Metafilter post links to a number of decent url’s, both print and video, pertaining to the start of the American Revolutionary War.

I came across a US News & World Report Blog article this evening, and its title caught my attention:  “The First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush.”  Strangely, what struck me had nothing to do with my wholehearted concurrence with the title’s assessment; rather, I immediately pondered whether or not historians can really make that judgement just yet.

Posted 11 April 2008, Kenneth T. Walsh wrote:

President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can’t be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush’s presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush’s presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, “tax breaks for the rich,” and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it’s too early to assess how his policies will turn out.

Again, I must tell you that I have no problem with the results of above mentioned survey.  Indeed, one of the Bush Administration’s most devious actions, infesting the Justice Department with political hacks, should be tacked on to the above listed reasons for Bush’s ratings.  The chance that history will “vindicate” Bush are exteemly small.

That being said, there are too many variables involved in the historical assessement of George W. Bush’s presidency. Most would say that his historical verdict is dependant upon the outcome in Iraq, which is something we won’t know for some time.  Other issues, in the not-so-distant-future, will also need to be resolved.

Consider the Huffington Post article, “Obama Would “Immediately Review” Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House.”  Of course, this depends upon the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election in November.  However, an intense investigation into the treatment of detainees or pre-war intelligence manipulation, just to name a couple of issues, may well turn out to be criminal offenses.  Then again, it may turn out that such lapses were due to managerial ineptitude.  Only time will tell.

Of course, there are many other issues that need to be resolved before the Bush administration can be properly judged by historians.  Most contemporary assessments are damning, indeed; however, they can only serve to inform future historical treatments of George W. Bush. However it turns out, I look forward to reading it.  Until then, survey administrators may ask their questions and contemplate their results; but, should they ask how history will judge Bush, the answer they receive, from historians anyway, should be:  Yet to be determined.

If you’re interested in a pro’s assessment of this issue, be sure to check out Robert S. McElvaine’s post on HNN.

Over the years, The Masters has provided a sure sign of Spring, almost as significant as the increasing warmth of the weather.  The annual PGA Major Tournament, always hosted by the Augusta National Golf Club, provides golf fans (myself included) with one of professional golf’s most beautiful spectacles with many of the game’s most recognizable holes.  As of late, however, The Masters has had an air of predictability about it.

Of course, I am referring to Tiger Woods, and the likelihood that he will win his fifth Green Jacket in 12 Masters Tournaments.  Tiger’s Masters Record is formidable; and at present, his peers seldom display that their skills can, with any consistency, challenge the man.  This sad reality is reflected in the wagering odds for the 2008 Masters:  Tiger at even money with Phil Mickelson, 10/1, a distant second in the betting line.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining.  First of all, I enjoy watching Woods do his thing.  I can only dream of duplicating what he is capable of doing with a golf ball.  In addition, I find it extremely exciting to watch Tiger compete against another living legend at Augusta:  Jack Nicklaus.  Yes, I am aware he won’t be playing, but he, and his Masters Record of six victories, represents final hurdle for Woods to attain undisputed status as the Master’s best ever.

For now the Golden Bear stands alone atop the Augusta National mountain.  If Tiger’s Masters performances have been formidable, Nicklaus’ record is simply stunning; if for no other reason than the length of its time span.  Jack Nicklaus played his first Masters in 1959 (missed cut); got his first Green Jacket in 1963, and 23 years later he won his sixth.

Nicklaus’ final win in 1986 was magnificent.  If you have about ten minutes to spare, I recommend that you view this:  highlights of Nicklaus’ dramatic come from behind final back 9 (albeit, in some of the worst pants I’ve ever seen).  If you don’t have that kind of time to spare, this clip is of Jack Nicklaus’ tee shot on Augusta’s Par 3, 16^th, will give you a taste of the excitement at that final round in 1986. 

Will Tiger catch the Golden Bear?  Of course he will.  It is really just a question of when.  Perhaps, if we’re lucky, Tiger will set the stage to capture the record at Augusta in the near future.  Jack went 11 years between his 5^th and 6^th Green Jackets, but it is doubtful that it will take Woods that long.  But, when he does, wouldn’t it be a sight if Tiger sported Jack’s plaid pants from 1986?  I won’t hold my breath.  For now, we should all enjoy the warming weather, indoors watching The Masters on TV.