Behind Closed Doors- Safire skewers Bush

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON — When George W. Bush was running for president, he was inspiring on the subject of privacy. But it was not your privacy or mine he was talking about. He has gone all out to keep his administration's energy-legislation deliberations from public scrutiny.

Cast your mind back to the White House task force, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, that came up with the stalled Bush oil policy. Democrats complained that it met frequently with Enron and other energy executives but blew off environmental lobbyists. Bush and Cheney, sensitive to charges of being too close to the oil industry, clammed up.
snip>

This week the justices, who apparently have nothing better to do next year, agreed to hear the Cheney appeal. The administration's eagerness to slam the door in the snoopy public's face will now be argued before the high court during political primaries and probably decided in July, right before the issue-hungry Democratic political convention.
snip>

The principle of the thing is wrong. Of course the president's cabinet and staff should be able to offer reasonable confidentiality to outsiders in return for candid advice. But when it comes to domestic legislation and not sensitive national-security affairs, the names and the advice of outside consultants and lobbyists should be discoverable according to law.

http://nytimes.com/2003/12/17/opinion/17SAFI.html

[ClintonTyree]

1. The Bush friendly SCOTUS.............

won't do anything to stand in the way of their selected pResident's re-election bid, rest assured. Another sweep under the rug for the "transparency" pResident.

[Manix]

2. A good example where extreme hubris blinds oneself to good

political judgement, otherwise there is something really
damaging in the files.

[0007]

3. Like Ken Lay, and perhaps Halliburton folks at Cheney's meeting.

But no decision by the Supreme Court until July is outrageous to say the least. I would have liked to seen the SC kick it back to the lower court in our favor.

[LWolf]

4. This is significant.

When conservative republican-supporting columnists start publicly calling Bush to account, we know. More and more republicans are getting it. What a conflict; vote for the "enemy" party, or allow this administration to continue it's assault on freedom. Some of them will be with us next November.

A few more snips:

Are Republicans out of their collective mind? Why the hots to hide? A decade ago, Hillary Clinton tried to pull the same kind of wool over the people's eyes about her health care task force, but the D.C. appeals court ruled that her consultants were "de facto members" of the official group and stripped away the secrecy.

Remember how we raised the roof about all those phony executive privilege claims as Clinton lawyers tried to jam a cone of silence on top of Secret Service agents? Remember how we fought for the right of Paula Jones to subject the high and mighty to discovery? What is sauce for the Clintons is sauce for the Bushies.

And:

The principle of the thing is wrong. Of course the president's cabinet and staff should be able to offer reasonable confidentiality to outsiders in return for candid advice. But when it comes to domestic legislation and not sensitive national-security affairs, the names and the advice of outside consultants and lobbyists should be discoverable according to law.

How's this for a practical principle: don't use a sledgehammer to swat a gnat. The Supreme Court, courageously and at some cost, did its bit for the Bush administration's electoral legitimacy. It should not now be called upon at re-election time to erect a high barrier to finding out who is advising whom about the public's business behind closed doors.

Beyond this case, even when it comes to federal officials, the argument that only secrecy ensures candor is specious. Presidents record and blab; speechwriters remember and tell all; most advisers want their "private" advice to become known. When, in a memoir, I protected a colleague by not mentioning his unpopular advice in an Oval Office meeting, he objected furiously to having been left out of history.

If "freedom" is the word Bush and Cheney want as the hallmark of their administration, they should begin with freedom of information.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. I found this a surprising turn too.... KICK