No House resolution honoring SEAL's bin Laden mission

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I'll leave that to historians of the future who rely on resolutions printed in the Congressional Record to get a sense of what happened in the past.

Speaking as a historian, I'd really like to applaud this sentiment.

Much of what we know of past governments comes from that kind of document, and debates in the House.

I don't see how it is a waste of time. It would take very little time to actually draw up. The only thing that would make it a waste of time wuold be to unnecessarily treat as a matter of controversy and waste a bunch of time discussing it and overanalysing it.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Yeah, I've got to agree with monster here (although that's probably because we both come from countries with a similar political system).

Over here, the PM would simply stand up in parliament and make a speech about how everything went down and who deserves a pat on the back then sit down again. It'd be recorded in the hansard notes (a record of every word said in parliament) and that'd be it aside from normal military proceedures (whatever they might be).

It is also entirely possible that a motion of thanks would be moved, seconded and then voted on with a show of hands. That might not happen in PMQ, but maybe in a cross party committee, which would then be reorded.

It happens in councils too, across the land. Like if there's been a major fire and the firecrews have really stepped to, there might be a thanks motion moved. It's agreed ahead of time by the party leaders and then voted on. It takes a few minutes.

But also, if as Fair&Balanced suggests, this is something that has been a practice since the Revolution, then it seems reasonable to do it now. If there is a precedent for it then to not do it is as much of a statement as doing it would be.

[monster]

har. fair point (to the "speaking as a historian" post). As I said in my last post (maybe less eloquently) -I do agree that debating it for the political sake of it is a bigger waste of time. And I still contend that in this day and age there will be plenty of record or what happened without this -I can see how that wan't always the case -the masses used to be illiterate, never mind having unfettered acccess to the internet- but I get why some people want it done and it's no biggie to me if it gets ratified.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by monster

As a citizen of an old, old country.....
official records mean fuckshit. History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time.

Historians do. They also draw on other evidence, but that official record is invaluable. Not just because of what it says, but because of what can be inferred from it. I regularly consult the parliamentary record fro the period I study. I look at eveything from house debates to committee minutes. What's said and done in the House can tell historians a great deal. Not least because it is a public record of the political preoccupations of the day. When I was researching attitudes to desertion in the 18th century, my research took me all over the place, from the personal letters and memoirs of soldiers, through the debates on military finance, to the in-letters of the Secretary at War.

If the business of Congress is not routinely recorded in the way parliamentary business, without a special effort to do so, then speaking as a historian, I'd really rather they took the time to do so.



[eta] sorry, hadn't seen your previous post

But to answer it: one source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources *smiles*. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.

[footfootfoot]

Do the SEALs need a pat on the back or are they ok with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'?

[classicman]

Merc "It draws attention to the unit, the missions, and the people. And they do not want or need that. Now every reporter out to get a stringer on the front page will be out head hunting these people.

Valid point - I don't like thinking about this, however its already happening & this isn't going to change that.

Merc What should have happened is for the government to state what happened in the mission, never mentioned any details about anything, never told anyone what they did with the body, never told anyone they took pictures, and never told anyone what units were involved."

Again, I agree. I think those days are gone though. Gotta deal with what is.

F&B "Its for the historical record as it has always been for 200+ years and does not ruin any careers."

Monster " I sorta feel like it's already there in the history books"
" History is passed on by word of mouth and writings of the people. No-one puts any store in records written by the ruling party of the time."

True, but the passing of info via word of mouth is not all that accurate and the writings of people is biased by those who did the writing and the info the had at the time. "whisper down the lane" sorta.

From what I understand this is a "no brainer." We've spent more time discussing it than they would have if they just did it.

The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.

Dana One source is not necessarily more or less useful than another. They each bring certain benefits and also bear certain dangers. The best kind of evidence for a historian is a multiplicity of sources. Preferably of such variety as to allow a glimpse into many aspects of the subject. That includes popular response and official record.

Well said - The differing perspectives is also a big plus. Varied accounts from varied sources all add to get a clearer picture of the event as possible.

[monster]

So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)

---

and Jill, sorry, I had not seen all the other shit going on and apologise if I made anything worse. I was truly just interested in it because you started the thread about it. I try to stay away from the politics threads for exactly this reason but you seemed like a rational person to discuss stuff with. I am ignorant about American politics -and a lot of Brit politics these days too- but I don't find it helpful to be told so and then given political labels when I question, so I stay away. yup chicken. I didn't mean to pile on in any way shape or form, and I am sorry for giving that impression.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

F&B.... I have read all (or at least most) of your posts to date and have generally, internally said "oh yeah!' But I cannot understand why this is such a big deal. It's never going to be forgotten. Why does it need this seal of approval? Or is the issue more that people are refusing the seal of approval just to show the size of their balls? (which sucks, i get that)

It is the size of the balls thing.

This was a no-brainer and a standard practice. The Senate, which is much more coliegial than the House, passed it in a heartbeat. The House Republicans are playing politics with it.

Classicman had it right:

Originally Posted by classicman

...

The R's don't want to sign onto this for political reasons. Its a really tough pill to swallow for them. They've been painting Obama as weak since before the last election and were certainly planning to use that issue in the next election (not like they have a chance anyway). All this time he has been plotting, planning and working on this. They look like fools right now. They've lost another plank in an already weak campaign. If anyone here is playing politics with this issue, its the R's.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

So my friend and I were talking about this while we were walking this morning and she asked: if this needs to be part of congressional record for the sake of history, what about all the stuff that got recorded and was later shown to be wrong outside of congress -how does that get corrected in the history books? The example she gave was the recent statement along the lines of 90% of Planned Parenthood's money being used to fund abortions... (I realise I don't have the exact wording, but you kbnow the one I mean)

The Congressional Record presents the unedited words and actions of members of Congress, not necessarily the truth or the facts.

A future historian studying American attitudes about abortion in 2011 will get the facts about Planned Parenthood from other reliable sources and will get a perspective on how the issue was demigogued and PP was falsly vilified by conservative members of Congress from speeches and votes recorded in the Congressional Record.

As an aside and totlly unrelated:

Here is the Congressional Record (Globe) from 1838 where a Southern Congressman introduced several resolutions stating that the Federal Government should stay the fuck out of the issue of slavery in the southern states.

http://books.google.com/books?id=AD0...page&q&f=false

You cant find these kind of source documents anywhere else.

[monster]

So why don't we want history to be truth and facts?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

So why don't we want history to be truth and facts?

In your Planned Parenthood example, the Congressional Record will show the unedited truth about how conservatives in Congress lied about the issue, relying solely on their own words and actions. It is not the purpose of the CR to correct the lies.

The facts about Planned Parenthood are available from other reliable sources.

[monster]

But the killing if Bin Laden is not?

Or does it just need to be there is some format to prompt historians to look at the other resources?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by monster

But the killing if Bin Laden is not?

Or does it just need to be there is some format to prompt historians to look at the other resources?

The Congressional Record is not intended to be a record of the details of national events, but simply how Congress responded to those events, in the form of resolutions, speeches, etc.

I suspect the national security archives will have details on the entire operation when it become declassified 50 or 100 years from now.

As Dana noted, historians rely on a variety of documents and sources.

As one of those sources, the Record is unique in offering the unedited words and actions of Congress.

[DanaC]

It is just as important to a research historian to be able to get at the lies that were told as well as the facts. It is just as useful to know the rumours and the bluster as it is to know the votes and the results.

Not all history is about setting down the facts. Some of it is an attempt to get a grip on what people were thinking, talking about, preoccupied with and playing politics around. Political shennanigans tell us a great deal about the mentality of the time we're looking at.

[monster]

@ F&B


Hmmm. I'mm'a contemplate it some more.

thanks, I appreciate your opinion.

eta: and Dana's too. And most participants.