Willyville Guy

blzrul, thank you for your perspective.

Interesting e-mail posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog. It doesn't resolve all of my concerns about the president's processes, but it makes the war blunders seem a whole lot more digestable. Now if he would only take responsibility...

OK-- flew in from London on Monday and just dug myself out of the pile of paper that accumulated on my desk at work. Here’s my response to your post. I don't hold any of the examples you cited against the President because the Executive Branch, just like other branches, is afforded shelters from transparency and Bush's position was that he was standing up for the rights of the Executive Branch. This is exactly where I differ with the president. I do not believe “shelters from transparency” are appropriate at any level of government, with very few, very limited exceptions. Shelters from transparency breed deception and fraud. Exhibit A is the UN Oil-for-Food program. In my opinion, Bush has used the limited executive privilege not to protect future administrations, but to avoid immediate political embarrassment. To that end, he has adopted a broad view of the privilege, which is something I consider very dangerous and unhealthy for democracy. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards. I disagree. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony only after it was universally agreed upon that the privilege he was asserting, and the precedent that he cited, was entirely made up. The energy policy is pretty easy to figure out on your own -- if the tree huggers say they weren't at the table then obviously they weren't at the table. That's fairly transparent. Transparency does not mean refusing to disclose which parties participated in the vice president’s commission to determine the national energy policy, even where the likely parties and the inherent conflicts of interest are so blatant that even the tree huggers can figure it out. If you want to talk about failure to be transparent, then consider the following: - Kerry won't sign a release to make all of his military records available. (Bush has) His military records are irrelevant in my opinion; as are Bush’s. Nevertheless, I agree that he should release them. - Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military. Kerry burns books? That’s a new one on me. As I said earlier, the Vietnam issue is irrelevant to this election (I know he’s the one who made it an issue). I need more information to evaluate this assertion and how it could help us understand Kerry’s view of the executive privilege. - Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged. See above. - Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings. Ah, see, this is a matter of record and not transparency. Attendance at Senate committee meetings is publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. - Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them. While I agree with this criticism to some extent, this is not a process transparency issue. - Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged. Life in the political jungle-- but not a process transparency issue. How does this give you any sense that Kerry and the Dems will be better? If anything it shows me that they have no respect for transparency and fail to understand the appropriate use of it. It doesn’t. Frankly, I don’t know where Kerry stands on executive privilege. All I know is that I don’t like it, and that Bush invokes it an awful lot. As I said before, my gut instinct is that a Kerry administration won’t be as secretive as this administration, which by some accounts is among the most secretive in our nation’s history.

I'm responding from my handheld on my way to the airport-- I think we have different understandings of what transparency means. Let's pick this back up on Monday when I get back.

The Cheney energy policy committee issue and the Plamne investigation come to mind. Why not allow questions and answer them? The conditions regarding his 9/11-commission involvement (private, w/ Cheney and not under oath) also turned me off. This leaves me with a general sense that he often invokes some type of executive privilege (and if there’s none available he just makes one up) for purposes other than national security-- although it seems some think any news that may undermine the credibility of the president threatens national security.

Who said that?

I'll admit that my instinctive reading on these two is completely subjective. On balance, I think that the stonewalling that the Bush administration has engaged in is far more significant than the ketchup queen's tax returns.

I believe that transparency of process is good for government and the people. There are, of course, exceptions, such as the need to keep certain military and intelligence information secret for national security purposes. My issue with Bush's secrecy is that he uses it a lot to protect himself from political embarrassment rather than to protect national security. I believe this behavior has had far reaching negative effects on the crucial trust that must exist between the people and the government (and within the government). Take my examples from above, for instance, rather than the one you just made up to refute my position. And by the way, Michigan sucks.

Is what why he won't release Teresa's tax returns?

It's an instinctive read on his personality.

Thanks for passing this along, BiB. It seems to me that Rosett's primary charge against the UN here is not the in-fact corruption that existed within the Oil-for-Food framework, but rather the UN's insistence on privilege and secrecy that made the corruption possible, and an honest evaluation of the program by the public impossible. For example, Rosett testifies: The Bush administration is subject to almost identical criticism. From the secrecy of Cheney's energy policy commission, to the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission, including Rice's attempted invocation of a made-up privilege, to the refusal to answer questions regard the Plamne investigation, and so many others, a hallmark of this administration has been its liberal use of executive privilege to hide its processes. Disclosure is a critical element in combating corruption-- it’s like exposing a vampire to sunlight. Reading this testimony reinforces my belief that the UN is without identity or direction at this point in history, and it needs a lot of help. I believe that our own country needs a lot of help as well. John Kerry may not be perfect, but I get the sense that he'll at least play it above the board for the most part, and that goes a long way with me.

I thought Lockhart was solid. He denied any collusion, and then dug into McClellan and company for demanding answers to "unanswered questions" while continuing to stonewall the public on the TANG issue. What more do you want from the guy? CNN HEMMER: It's my understanding you talked to Bill Burkett just days before the CBS story aired. What was the content of your discussion, Joe? LOCKHART: Well, the content of the discussion was he had some strong feelings about the way the Kerry campaign had responded to the Swift Boat attack, the -- Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam and, you know, the smear campaign that was going on against him. He believed that we should have responded more forcefully. You know, I listened respectfully, I told him I thought it was good advice, and that was the end of the conversation. HEMMER: How long did that last, Joe? LOCKHART: Probably three or four minutes. HEMMER: And what details of the National Guard story came out during that three to four-minute discussion? LOCKHART: Not a single detail. There was never any discussion. He didn't tell me anything. I didn't ask him anything. He wanted to give us some advice. We get advice from a lot of quarters. You know, the interesting thing is, you know, you can always tell when people are worried by how whipped up they get. And the White House is real whipped up on this, and they're making -- throwing a bunch of charges up there that are, you know, pretty meaningless and without foundation. HEMMER: Let me get to the whole White House claim for a second here. LOCKHART: Sure. HEMMER: Did CBS work together with the Kerry campaign on this story? LOCKHART: No. Listen, CBS did their story. I think they've been very open about answering the questions. They called me and said this guy wants to talk to you. I was happy to talk to him. It's sort of the beginning and end of the story. HEMMER: Hey, Joe, how common is that? LOCKHART: Listen, Bill, you're a journalist. I think you probably know the answer to that. I'll let journalists talk about how common it is. HEMMER: But when the suggestion for a source comes your way, I mean, here we are 42 days away from a presidential campaign, many would think that's probably not that usual after all. How would you phrase it? LOCKHART: I wouldn't. I think that's a question for journalists. You're one. You can answer it. You know more -- more about how common that is than I do. HEMMER: What did Mary Mapes tell you, the producer for Dan Rather, when she called you? LOCKHART: She told me that there was a gentleman who had been helpful on a story that she was working on about the National Guard who wanted to talk to the campaign. He specifically asked to talk to me. And she gave me his phone number. HEMMER: And what did you hope to learn from him then, Joe? LOCKHART: I didn't have an expectation. You know, I talked to a lot of people. I got some advice. We get a lot of advice. Listen, you know, this isn't about this phone call. This is about a White House that's desperately spinning. You know, I looked this morning at the White House Web page and found out that Scott McClellan, the man who says we ought to have answers to these questions, has held two White House briefings in the last two months. Now, that is a White House that doesn't want to answer questions. I used to -- you know, listen, I went through some pretty tough times as the White House press secretary, and I got myself during impeachment, during scandal, and I stood up there every day and answered the questions because I think the public has a right to know what's going on with the president, what's going on around the world. This White House has had two White House briefings in the last two months. You know, it's a government job, but it pays pretty well. You know, that's a lot of money for one briefing a month. HEMMER: I know at the outset of your answer there you said this discussion has nothing to do with -- does it really rely so much on a conversation you had on Saturday night? It was the 8th of September, was it, if memory serves? LOCKHART: It was the Saturday -- that sounds right. HEMMER: So it was the Saturday before, and the story aired on the following Wednesday, which is four days later. But the issue is, regarding this phone call, whether or not there was collaboration ultimately between the campaign and the network. What can you say about those who raised that possibility today? LOCKHART: I can say two things. One, is the campaign had nothing to do with these documents, nothing to do with this story. And two, you have to question the motives of those people who are raising these questions. The White House is raising questions about this because they don't want to answer questions. I mean, the guy has held two briefings in two months. These guys don't want to answer questions about the National Guard story. They even don't want to answer questions about what's going on in Iraq, what's going on in the economy. And I think it's time for them to step up and stop posing questions and start answering them, because that's what -- that's what the public wants. HEMMER: I apologize for interjecting again. But you knew Bill Burkett has a long history of a fight with the National Guard. And also for several years he's had his own fight with George Bush. LOCKHART: Bill, what do you base that on? HEMMER: The reports that we're getting. It's just that I interviewed him -- I interviewed him six months ago and he told... LOCKHART: Bill, you just said what I knew. How do you know that? HEMMER: I know it because I talked to him six months ago, in fact, on this program. And he raised the issue... LOCKHART: No, no, no, Bill. HEMMER: He raised the issue. Let's be clear. LOCKHART: Let's be clear. HEMMER: Some very important stuff here. He raised the issue that some files were seen by him and others in a garbage can 30 years ago about George Bush's National Guard service. LOCKHART: Right. HEMMER: And now -- and to you, you say what? LOCKHART: I say, Bill, how do you know what I knew? You're basing this on what maybe some other people were telling you. I didn't know who the guy was. I talked to him on the phone for three or four minutes. That's the beginning and the end of the story. HEMMER: So let's be clear. You did not know about the history about Bill Burkett before you talked to him Saturday night? LOCKHART: I did not. I did not. HEMMER: What has Senator Kerry said about all this, Joe? LOCKHART: He hasn't said -- he hasn't said anything. He's focused on the issues that, you know, Americans are worried about. Not what the news media in Washington is worried about. HEMMER: So you have not talked to him about this matter? LOCKHART: I have not. I have not. HEMMER: Do you plan on it? LOCKHART: No, I don't -- you know, I talk to him all the time. But I don't have any intention of using a lot of the valuable time we have left in this campaign to talk about this. HEMMER: Valuable time, indeed. In fact, six weeks from today, 42 days and counting. Is this the distraction again for the Kerry campaign? LOCKHART: No, I don't think so. Listen, you all will have to decide what's news here. The quagmire that this president has created in Iraq, a miserable economy, the worst in 72 years, and a White House that won't answer questions. I mean, the fact that we've gone two months with two White House briefings should say everything to the American public. And if you think this is the news, that's fine. Well, you know, you go ahead and cover that. But I've been open. You know, I talked to reporters yesterday. I talked to them, you know, well into the night about the details of this phone call. And, you know, I'll be happy to talk. You know, I'll be glad to give up this chair to Mr. Bartlett or Mr. McClellan to start answering some questions for a change. HEMMER: Joe Lockhart, Kerry adviser down in D.C. Thanks for coming on and talking with us today, Joe. LOCKHART: Thanks, Bill.

If by watchable you mean entertaining. I think it will be ridiculous-- Dr. Evil debating Austin Powers.

Who said anything about the U.S. attacking itself, or even offered any theory about what "really" happended? Your point about the planes hitting the towers is a good one, but don't come after me for posting something that I thought may be of interest to people on this board. As I was watching this video all I could think of was the countless images that I've seen of the planes hitting the towers, but really none of the plane that hit the Pentagon. It may all be pure crap for all I know....but I don't know, so I put it out there to see what other people think. Thanks for your thoughts.

Good stuff from all-- thanks.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this certainly creates more questions than it answers.

I drafted Vick, and then grabbed Green as an insurance policy against the risk of Vick struggling in a new system/getting injured again. I felt good about it at the time, but right now I'm the one struggling with whom to start on week 1. I'm partially inclined to start Green and take a wait-and-see approach with Vick. However, I'll have a tough time benching a guy like Vick who could easily blow up. Any thoughts?