Why wouldn't a president's aide give good advice just because he is on record?

[Atman]

I don't get it. Seriously. What the hell difference does it make? Isn't it kinda like religion? You don't lie, cheat, steal, adulter because if you do you'll go to hell when you die, right? Isn't that what the righties say guide people in making good decisions, good choices? Why is this concept divorced from the Bush's aides situation? Perhaps if they knew they DID have to answer for their crappy advice, they might not be so inclined to proffer crappy advice. This whole notion of "not being able to get candid advice" really frosts my mini wheats. It's just another excuse to LIE to the people.

.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. because the advice contains illegal, immoral or unethical recs.

and Tony Snowjob knows that extremely well.

[madokie]

2. in an honest situation it is no problem but with this illegal cabal

Well lets just say that is a problem of epic proportions there though

[rock]

3. Indeed, you are right

"not being able to get candid advice" is the argument of an unethical person, not mentioning any (bush) names.

[bryant69]

4. There are legitimate concerns here though

I don't know exactly what this is referring to; but you don't have to be dishonest to be uncomfortable saying some things publicly. Particularly if you have a job or a public position outside of advising the White House (which, frankly, we can assume that most advisors of the President will have).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Atman]

5. No one is talking about releasing daily transcripts

But these people are doing the public's business, making decisions in our name. They should always have to accept the fact that some day they may have to be held accountable for their actions. That's "all" the law asks of we mere citizens, isn't it?

.

[bryant69]

6. So how would this work?

If this is in reference to Rove and Miers testifying than obviously they should have to testify under oath; they were involved in a potential breaking of the law and Congress has every right to look into it. It's a little different as well because both were Government employees when they gave their "advice." We were paying their salaries; so we have the right to question what they were doing.

I guess I was thinking more about the CEO of Exxon or the Head of Greenpeace being called in and asked for advice.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Atman]

7. I'm still not sure why it makes a difference.

What "advice" shouldn't the public be aware of? It is advice which will impact us, and public policy. If Exxon advised the president to kill all the spotted owls so the oil industry could access an oil field in the national forest, why should that be protected?

.

[bryant69]

9. Well if they are going to give that advice, presumably Exxon should just stay home

Which is what they would do if they had to place such a statement on the record. Would you see value in the President seeking the advice or opinion of Exxon (or any oil company) off the record?

Bryant

[Atman]

11. Actually, Bryant, I don't

Once again, they are negotiating/seeking advice on behalf of the public, not themselves as private entities (or corporate interests, as Dick "Dick" Cheney sees it). If Exxon thinks it's own advice is so terrible it wouldn't want to go on record, then please, by all means, stay home!

.

[bryant69]

12. Well there it is; I am a capatalist so don't have knee jerk reaction to corporations giving

advice.

Consider the Sierra Club; the guy is brought in and asked about the best way to curb in eco-terrorists. If his comments are public he knows that his membership will read them and that could affect the advice he would give (presuming he likes being the head of the Sierra Club).

Bryant

[Atman]

13. Again, I'm not advocating putting them in a weekly newsletter

I don't have a problem with them being archived, like the presidential e-mails. I just don't believe they should have a de facto protection from ever being examined.

.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. "Candid advice" my butt! Snow said Bush wasn't involved

in the matter. So, did he delegate these decisions to his Chief Political Aide and Legal Counsel, or did they just go ahead on their own because they know him so well?

[Toots]

10. This excuse has served them well for six years now.

Cheney was able to hide his Energy Meetings with this excuse and it has been steadily ongoing..They smirk to each other over how easy it has been to buffalo the Democrats with it....The Democrats are still not over their tremendous hammering in 1994. They are still even today running scared from that election...