U.S. News: The Secrets of the Bush Administration

[MonstaThrilla]

A 9 page long, detailed expose written after 5 months of investigative journalism. Be prepared to throw something at your monitor.

"Democracies die behind closed doors."
--U.S. APPEALS COURT JUDGE DAMON J. KEITH

At 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, 2001, as a bone-chilling rain fell on Washington, George W. Bush took the oath of office as the nation's 43rd president. Later that afternoon, the business of governance officially began. Like other chief executives before him, Bush moved to unravel the efforts of his predecessor. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, directed federal agencies to freeze more than 300 pending regulations issued by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The regulations affected areas ranging from health and safety to the environment and industry. The delay, Card said, would "ensure that the president's appointees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations." The process, as it turned out, expressly precluded input from average citizens. Inviting such comments, agency officials concluded, would be "contrary to the public interest."

Ten months later, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Joseph McCormick found out just how hard it was to get information from the new administration. A resident of Floyd County, Va., in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, McCormick discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community. He wanted to help organize citizens by identifying residents through whose property the 30-inch pipeline would run. McCormick turned to Washington, seeking a project map from federal regulators. The answer? A pointed "no." Although such information was "previously public," officials of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told McCormick, disclosing the route of the new pipeline could provide a road map for terrorists. McCormick was nonplused. Once construction began, he says, the pipeline's location would be obvious to anyone. "I understand about security," the rangy, soft-spoken former business executive says. "But there certainly is a balance--it's about people's right to use the information of an open society to protect their rights."

For the past three years, the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis. Bush administration officials often cite the September 11 attacks as the reason for the enhanced secrecy. But as the Inauguration Day directive from Card indicates, the initiative to wall off records and information previously in the public domain began from Day 1. Steven Garfinkel, a retired government lawyer and expert on classified information, puts it this way: "I think they have an overreliance on the utility of secrecy. They don't seem to realize secrecy is a two-edge sword that cuts you as well as protects you." Even supporters of the administration, many of whom agree that security needed to be bolstered after the attacks, say Bush and his inner circle have been unusually assertive in their commitment to increased government secrecy. "Tightly controlling information, from the White House on down, has been the hallmark of this administration," says Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the Cato Institute.

8 pages of text follow.

I will post damning excerpts as I find them (haven't read all of it yet).

 

[Insane3D]

Pffffft. U.S. News??? That liberal rag??? :|








<---reading now...



Edit:

After reading that article, I was left feeling :disgust: and :|.

 

[sandorski]

wow

 

[Czar]

scary

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Baaahhhhhhhdddddd.

 

[dmcowen674]

"discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community"

Guess they never did run that Gas pipeline since we are out of Gas and prices shooting through the roof.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reminds me of the intro to the old television series, Outer Limits- "We will control..."

And it's all hogwash, of course- the 9/11 attackers didn't need a map or any kind of controlled information to find the WTC towers, or the Pentagon...

In the cited example, the maps showing the location of the pipeline were in the library, as they need to be, as soon as it was completed... If you look past the end of your nose, it's obvious that secrecy mostly serves to prevent public interference in the affairs of the govt and business...

 

[NesuD]

Bartlett says that some administration critics "such as environmentalists . . . want to use [secrecy] as a bogeyman." He adds: "For every series of examples you could find where you could make the claim of a `penchant for secrecy,' I could probably come up with several that demonstrate the transparency of our process."

The article looks like nothing more than an example of subjective partisanism to me.

 

[heartsurgeon]

lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

That's all well and good, but would you care to actually address the facts that are brought up in the article? Or is the whole thing just a big partisan fear mongering campaign coordinated directly by the DNC as part of their master plan to ruin America?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Bartlett says that some administration critics "such as environmentalists . . . want to use [secrecy] as a bogeyman." He adds: "For every series of examples you could find where you could make the claim of a `penchant for secrecy,' I could probably come up with several that demonstrate the transparency of our process."

The article looks like nothing more than an example of subjective partisanism to me.

"Partisanism" is not a word

And the article is far from subjective, subjective implies the author is making stuff up and making statements not based on facts or examples, yet the article is chock full of actual examples.

One Republican lawmaker, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, became so frustrated with the White House's refusal to cooperate in an investigation that he exclaimed, during a hearing: "This is not a monarchy!"

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Or is the whole thing just a big partisan fear mongering campaign coordinated directly by the DNC as part of their master plan to ruin America?

Yes, it is a "left-wing" conspiracy, much like the "right-wing" conspiracy that wrongfully accused the last President of having sexual relations with an intern. This is very similar, but of course, that depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community"

Guess they never did run that Gas pipeline since we are out of Gas and prices shooting through the roof.

Dave I hope you don't think supply and demand are the only determinants of energy pricing. Enron, Reliant Energy and buddies managed to rape the West for over $100 bil by manipulating the market process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which is charged with making the markets orderly and legal stood aside at the direction of the Bush Administration and let the modern day robber barons have their way.

Sure make me happy to know that I get to pay an extra 30% on my electric bill for the next 8 years.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

Guess Bush's abuse of cocaine and alcohol during his formative years didn't hurt him any though huh?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

Guess Bush's abuse of cocaine and alcohol during his formative years didn't hurt him any though huh?

Bush will just say as Reagan did: "I don't remember"!

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

Guess Bush's abuse of cocaine and alcohol during his formative years didn't hurt him any though huh?

Bush will just say as Reagan did: "I don't remember"!

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Or is the whole thing just a big partisan fear mongering campaign coordinated directly by the DNC as part of their master plan to ruin America?

Yes, it is a "left-wing" conspiracy, much like the "right-wing" conspiracy that wrongfully accused the last President of having sexual relations with an intern. This is very similar, but of course, that depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Well John 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also that sexual relation only hurt 2 people and one of them isnt you. But the things brought up in that article above hurts 99.999% of the people in america and I am reasonably sure you are one of them.

Instead of whinning about the the last president why dont you tackle the things at hand and "try" to refute some of the examples brought up in the article.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lots of paranoid ideation among liberals these days...

Dean..rumor that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened
Albright..would surprise me to learn Bush already has Osama bin Laden in custody..to be announced just before the election
McDermott..Saddam's capture was staged for effect at this time.
Kennedy..the Iraq war "made up in Texas"

sounds like to much substance abuse during those formative years is catching up with these folks now..

Did you take inaccount that Alqueda was in texas 1 month before 9/11 ?

They were meeting with oil companies discussing a pipeline deal.

But the deal did not go thru.

Kind of makes you wonder whats really going on. Since bush is an oil man and his oil company was bailed out of debt by other oil companies.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Or is the whole thing just a big partisan fear mongering campaign coordinated directly by the DNC as part of their master plan to ruin America?

Yes, it is a "left-wing" conspiracy, much like the "right-wing" conspiracy that wrongfully accused the last President of having sexual relations with an intern. This is very similar, but of course, that depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Well John 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also that sexual relation only hurt 2 people and one of them isnt you. But the things brought up in that article above hurts 99.999% of the people in america and I am reasonably sure you are one of them.

Instead of whinning about the the last president why dont you tackle the things at hand and "try" to refute some of the examples brought up in the article.

NO the issue about Clinton never was the cigar... If he had just toed the line and said "no comment", or "none of your bidness", it would have been slightly scandalous, but no more than any other carousing politician. It was the brazen public lying about it, even under oath, that followed. So it wasn't simply "that sexual relation only hurt 2 people" or a BJ or whatever all the Clinton Apologists (ooh see how creative I am in making that one up?) like to tag it as. It was the attempted and failed cover up.

Back to the article, so far it seems to follow a pattern of anecdote followed by general sweeping statement intended to support the anecdote. Haven't read the whole thing yet.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: alchemize

NO the issue about Clinton never was the cigar... If he had just toed the line and said "no comment", or "none of your bidness", it would have been slightly scandalous, but no more than any other carousing politician. It was the brazen public lying about it, even under oath, that followed. So it wasn't simply "that sexual relation only hurt 2 people" or a BJ or whatever all the Clinton Apologists (ooh see how creative I am in making that one up?) like to tag it as. It was the attempted and failed cover up.

Good point and nice usage of "Clinton Apologists." The ol' "we like him, so we don't care if he lied under oath, since only 2 people were hurt" is the major plank in the CA's platform.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

That has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of journalism I've ever read. A "Policy of Secrecy" based on supposition and anecdotal evidence? Who authorized that thing? Has any President laid out the entirety of the government like a book for public viewing? The fact that these writers chose this President to make an example of is journalism gone wrong.

I'm surprised they didn't mention how nefarious Bush was by being "secretive" about his trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving. Quite obviously he should have announced it because that's what any good President would do.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Or is the whole thing just a big partisan fear mongering campaign coordinated directly by the DNC as part of their master plan to ruin America?

Yes, it is a "left-wing" conspiracy, much like the "right-wing" conspiracy that wrongfully accused the last President of having sexual relations with an intern. This is very similar, but of course, that depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

Well John 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Also that sexual relation only hurt 2 people and one of them isnt you. But the things brought up in that article above hurts 99.999% of the people in america and I am reasonably sure you are one of them.

Instead of whinning about the the last president why dont you tackle the things at hand and "try" to refute some of the examples brought up in the article.

NO the issue about Clinton never was the cigar... If he had just toed the line and said "no comment", or "none of your bidness", it would have been slightly scandalous, but no more than any other carousing politician. It was the brazen public lying about it, even under oath, that followed. So it wasn't simply "that sexual relation only hurt 2 people" or a BJ or whatever all the Clinton Apologists (ooh see how creative I am in making that one up?) like to tag it as. It was the attempted and failed cover up.

Back to the article, so far it seems to follow a pattern of anecdote followed by general sweeping statement intended to support the anecdote. Haven't read the whole thing yet.

Well ok then.

If we can get Clinton on trial for what he does in his spare time, I say we get bush on trial and ask him what evidence he had that saddam had wmd ? the white house, bush included said many times SH has wmd.

where is the outrage there ? People have died and billions have been spent.

 

[kandarp]

i am waiting for the first Bush apologist to pull the "after 9/11 we need stricter controls on information otherwise it could fall into the terrorists hands" argument....and then the hilarity will ensue

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community"

Guess they never did run that Gas pipeline since we are out of Gas and prices shooting through the roof.

Dave I hope you don't think supply and demand are the only determinants of energy pricing. Enron, Reliant Energy and buddies managed to rape the West for over $100 bil by manipulating the market process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which is charged with making the markets orderly and legal stood aside at the direction of the Bush Administration and let the modern day robber barons have their way.

Sure make me happy to know that I get to pay an extra 30% on my electric bill for the next 8 years.

Not me, your fellow AT Economy experts claim it is strictly supply & demand. Just look in the Oil thread. They swear by that up and down, over and over.

Enron and Opec et all are a figment of our imagination, never happened.

 

[alchemize]

Well ok then.

If we can get Clinton on trial for what he does in his spare time, I say we get bush on trial and ask him what evidence he had that saddam had wmd ? the white house, bush included said many times SH has wmd.

where is the outrage there ? People have died and billions have been spent.

On trial? What would the charge be? "Improperly evaluating intelligence assessments"? "Illegally performing a war" as everyone likes to call that? "Overreacting"? I guess I missed the relevant statutes on that.

I guess if the congress wants to fire up the articles of impeachment, they can go for it.

And of course, if we put Bush on trial, then we'd also have to try Clinton for any of his military actions that were intelligence failures (Aspirin Factory). Might as well put Carter on trial for improperly planning a hostage rescue as well.