Money Doesn't Talk, It Swears!

"I promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House." -- Governor George W. Bush, fall 2000

"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course." -- President George W. Bush, 7/30/2003

Why, then, will he not allow what he says to be recorded and broadcast to the nation so they may hold him personally responsible?

Secrecy is what bothers me the most about the current administration, and it has been their trademark since early 2001.

Elected officials are employed by the People of the United States. It is our job to make important personnel decisions, and we must do so on the best available evidence.

Suppose you were a foreman at a large factory. While you were in charge, an explosion occurred, starting a fire. The event caused significant damage to the factory, killed several people, and caused significant psychological, physical, and economic damage. You put a lot of effort into reassuring people and solving problems in the aftermath of the tragedy, and you became well known for it. The company set up an investigation into the events leading up to the explosion to understand why it happened and how to best prevent future tragedies. As part of this investigation, you (the foreman) were interviewed to find out what you knew about the situation and how you acted. You agree to the interview, but you insist it won't be recorded, that your assistant foreman and your lawyer be present, and that only a summary be available to the owner and HR manager for the company. In other words, exactly what you say in the meeting about one of the most important events during your tenure can only indirectly affect future decisions about firing or rehiring you.

Does this sound unreasonable to you? It certainly sounds unreasonable to me.

I'm perfectly okay with elected representatives who have different ideas than I have. I can respect a representative who presents the information he has and what he thinks should be done about it. The Bush administration, however, goes to great lengths to avoid presenting any information. The earliest case of this which received attention was Cheney's energy panel. He refused (all the way to the Supreme Court) to reveal who he talked to during the plan's development. It's not like talking to Chevron and Shell and Enron is a secret worthy of confidentiality on the grounds of national security. Even if he met with no environmental groups, he could spin things and people who aren't environmentalists would forget it by election time.

Things have gotten much worse during the war on terror. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the government has the power to detain anyone (including citizens) for an indefinite amount of time without charges or access to a lawyer, merely because they assert the suspect is involved in terrorism. The government states that they haven't brought charges because they haven't gathered sufficient evidence, which begs the question of why the suspect is locked up. Even Justice Scalia, no thorn in the side of the Bush administration, is skeptical: "I understand the commander-in-chief power to be a power over the military forces, when they're being used as military forces, the General Washington power, you know, to command the forces tactically," Scalia said. "It doesn't mean that he had the power to do whatever it takes to win the war. The `steel seizure' case demonstrates that well enough."

Team Bush doesn't stop at not saying things. They expend considerable effort to keep civil servants from saying things, too. If the administration wishes to dispute evidence about contraceptives, global warming, or labor statistics, I'm fine with that. But I think they should do so as an addendum or additional publication with the piece researched by professionals. By quietly removing information for political reasons, the Bush crowd proclaims its dislike of open dialog and scientific inquiry in favor of totalitarian control of knowledge for political purposes.

Bush has held 12 press conference so far in three and a half years. Yet "by this point in their respective presidencies, the president's father, George H.W. Bush, had held 75 solo news conferences, Jimmy Carter had held 55, Bill Clinton had convened 40, Richard Nixon had held 25 and Ronald Reagan had conducted 22." Nixon was no paragon of open information sharing, but he at least averaged more than one every three months.

The FAFSA application for financial aid has a question about drug convictions. If you do not answer that question, the government will deny your application. I propose that until President Bush is more forthcoming with information, we (his employers) deny him federal aid.

"You can't argue with zombies. Really, you can't! They just say AAAARRRGGGHHHHH." -- Keith Baker