OnTheRocks Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 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. 49471[/snapback] if he has been keeping certain information secret how do you know he is doing it to protect himself? i mean if it is a secret and all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willyville Guy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 if he has been keeping certain information secret how do you know he is doing it to protect himself? i mean if it is a secret and all? 49962[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 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 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. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards. 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. 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) - Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military. - Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged. - Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings. - Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them - Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willyville Guy Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 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. Bush yielded on the Rice testimony after it was clear he had made his point in this regards. 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. 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) - Kerry is actively suppressing availability of a book he wrote in the early 70's critical of the military. - Kerry has not been open about the nature of his talks with the N. Vietnamese when the war was still being waged. - Kerry has not been forthright regarding his attendance at Senate committee meetings. - Kerry has not defined his positions on many of the critical issues by putting them in writing and submitting legislation to address them - Just prior to the 2000 election, the Democrats felt that transparancy included revealing a conviction that had been exponged. 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. 50055[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 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. 50094[/snapback] Sorry that won't do. We'll be celebrating the Bills victory on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 Sorry that won't do. We'll be celebrating the Bills victory on Monday. 50274[/snapback] I think he was talking about this coming Monday...not 2005... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I think he was talking about this coming Monday...not 2005... 50347[/snapback] I'll bet you a six pack of Zima, Bills win this Sunday. (That is if Zima comes in a six pack) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 30, 2004 Share Posted September 30, 2004 I'll bet you a six pack of Zima, Bills win this Sunday. (That is if Zima comes in a six pack) 50352[/snapback] I wouldn't know. Ask T-Bone. And if you want to bet Zima, you've already had too much to drink... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 I wouldn't know. Ask T-Bone. And if you want to bet Zima, you've already had too much to drink... 50353[/snapback] I tried that stuff. Man, that stevestojan will give you heartburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willyville Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Man, there's so much stevestojan that goes on you wouldn't believe. Certain folks can go on believing whatever they want. I've said many a time I'm not an intell guy, but I do operational planning based on intell. It doesn't take a stroke of genius to connect dots when you are handed objectives for an operations or conceptual contingency plan. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, I have to live in the real world. 48553[/snapback] You should know that the liberals do not live in the real world. Their real world is what the see and hear on TV from the liberal press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Bush is on live right now on CNN, talking about the Oil For Food corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts