Dear George, Love Jack.
Layton's open letter to the President.
Dear President Bush,
Official visits can provide opportunities for greater understanding of common concerns and diversity of thought. It is these exchanges that make such visits potentially beneficial and productive, particularly if elected representatives and citizens hear each other's point of view.
On your first official visit to Canada, it is unfortunate arrangements do not include an address to Parliament, and include only meetings with party leaders who more closely share your views. Sadly, my requests to meet with you were denied.
During Mexican President Vicente Fox's recent visit, he met with leaders of all parties in our minority Parliament. We enjoyed civilized, respectful dialogue. It is unfortunate such a dialogue will not occur now, resulting in you receiving a skewed view of Canada's values and concerns.
I share those concerns, and believe it crucial you be aware of them. Ideally, I hope your administration heeds the world's concerns and rejoins multilateral efforts on common problems. I continue to hope this is possible, but in the event it is not, hope Canada will respectfully disagree with those policies that are at odds with our values, while maintaining the valuable friendship between our countries.
Your visit to Halifax is emblematic of that friendship. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, Canadians mourned with our American friends and opened their homes to passengers diverted by the tragedy. Friends, however, sometimes agree and sometimes do not, as the rich history of Canada-U.S. relations indicates.
Unfortunately, arrangements mean you will be shielded from much of Canadians' angst. I had hoped our dialogue would provide a clearer understanding of those concerns. Such a meeting will not occur, and so I am obliged to present many concerns to you in writing instead.
I was proud to be part of the peace movement that helped convince former Prime Minister Chrétien to keep Canada out of the war on Iraq. More than 100,000 people have since died, and yet despite the correctness of global opposition to the invasion, your administration shows few signs of working with the world on meaningful efforts to make us all safer.
Were a dialogue scheduled with you, I would have outlined a few.
First, we must collectively fight the looming catastrophe of climate change and the underlying dependence on oil. Unless we move swiftly towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, growing demand and dwindling supply of fossil fuels will increase conflict - and exacerbate the human tragedy and upheaval climate change creates.
This is an imminent threat, and on environmental policy your administration and ours must change course. Canada, it should be noted, is in no position to lecture on this issue since our record on climate-changing pollution is actually worse than your own.
We can work together for sustainability and economic growth. My party supports working with American states, including Gov. Schwarzenegger’s California, to create larger markets for more fuel efficient and green cars. The technology is available today for us to create a cleaner tomorrow, and I hope you and Prime Minister Martin abandon your opposition to these good ideas so our countries may work together on them.
Second, new generations of nuclear and space weapons make our world unsafe. This month, Russia announced new nuclear weapons in response to missile defence; China is inevitably next. Weapons of mass destruction are dangerous in anyone's hands, and the world would be safer if your administration abandoned new nuclear weapon development and Star Wars, which leading scientists say will never work.
Your administration sends the wrong message by abandoning arms control treaties while demanding other countries adhere to them. I also believe with the growing scourge of global poverty, nations with resources should invest in alleviating that poverty and encouraging sustainable development. We should not spend a trillion dollars on Star Wars when we could invest in fighting the poverty and desperation that provides fertile ground for terrorists.
Here, you need to be aware Mr. Martin does not speak for Canadians. His support for missile defence runs counter to our tradition of multilateral peacekeeping, and it is incompatible with Canadian values for us to join a weapons system that could only be pursued if arms control treaties were abandoned.
I urge you to outline to Mr. Martin the full scope of missile defence, which your administration's documents and officials clearly say weaponizes space. For two years, he has incredibly refused to look at the facts, and your meeting with him provides a crucial opportunity for his voluntary ignorance to end.
Lastly, it is important Congress moves to embrace fairness for Canada's softwood and beef industries. The tariffs and border closures do not reflect fair trade principles or science, and harm economies on both sides of our border.
Had we met, I would have underlined America’s dependence on Canadian energy exports and noted it is incongruous to welcome oil while refusing lumber and beef. For this reason, as a last resort, I support the linkage of these exports since fairness must apply across the board.
In closing, I am disappointed we could not enjoy a respectful exchange of views. In my trips to Washington to meet with members of Congress, I have met many Americans who, like me, are concerned about the direction of your administration.
Most Canadians are concerned, too. I fully respect the right of American citizens to elect a president who shares their values, but would have welcomed the opportunity to explain why Canadian values must guide our choices.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP
Leader of the NDP
|
Layton's open letter to the President.
Dear President Bush,
Official visits can provide opportunities for greater understanding of common concerns and diversity of thought. It is these exchanges that make such visits potentially beneficial and productive, particularly if elected representatives and citizens hear each other's point of view.
On your first official visit to Canada, it is unfortunate arrangements do not include an address to Parliament, and include only meetings with party leaders who more closely share your views. Sadly, my requests to meet with you were denied.
During Mexican President Vicente Fox's recent visit, he met with leaders of all parties in our minority Parliament. We enjoyed civilized, respectful dialogue. It is unfortunate such a dialogue will not occur now, resulting in you receiving a skewed view of Canada's values and concerns.
I share those concerns, and believe it crucial you be aware of them. Ideally, I hope your administration heeds the world's concerns and rejoins multilateral efforts on common problems. I continue to hope this is possible, but in the event it is not, hope Canada will respectfully disagree with those policies that are at odds with our values, while maintaining the valuable friendship between our countries.
Your visit to Halifax is emblematic of that friendship. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, Canadians mourned with our American friends and opened their homes to passengers diverted by the tragedy. Friends, however, sometimes agree and sometimes do not, as the rich history of Canada-U.S. relations indicates.
Unfortunately, arrangements mean you will be shielded from much of Canadians' angst. I had hoped our dialogue would provide a clearer understanding of those concerns. Such a meeting will not occur, and so I am obliged to present many concerns to you in writing instead.
I was proud to be part of the peace movement that helped convince former Prime Minister Chrétien to keep Canada out of the war on Iraq. More than 100,000 people have since died, and yet despite the correctness of global opposition to the invasion, your administration shows few signs of working with the world on meaningful efforts to make us all safer.
Were a dialogue scheduled with you, I would have outlined a few.
First, we must collectively fight the looming catastrophe of climate change and the underlying dependence on oil. Unless we move swiftly towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, growing demand and dwindling supply of fossil fuels will increase conflict - and exacerbate the human tragedy and upheaval climate change creates.
This is an imminent threat, and on environmental policy your administration and ours must change course. Canada, it should be noted, is in no position to lecture on this issue since our record on climate-changing pollution is actually worse than your own.
We can work together for sustainability and economic growth. My party supports working with American states, including Gov. Schwarzenegger’s California, to create larger markets for more fuel efficient and green cars. The technology is available today for us to create a cleaner tomorrow, and I hope you and Prime Minister Martin abandon your opposition to these good ideas so our countries may work together on them.
Second, new generations of nuclear and space weapons make our world unsafe. This month, Russia announced new nuclear weapons in response to missile defence; China is inevitably next. Weapons of mass destruction are dangerous in anyone's hands, and the world would be safer if your administration abandoned new nuclear weapon development and Star Wars, which leading scientists say will never work.
Your administration sends the wrong message by abandoning arms control treaties while demanding other countries adhere to them. I also believe with the growing scourge of global poverty, nations with resources should invest in alleviating that poverty and encouraging sustainable development. We should not spend a trillion dollars on Star Wars when we could invest in fighting the poverty and desperation that provides fertile ground for terrorists.
Here, you need to be aware Mr. Martin does not speak for Canadians. His support for missile defence runs counter to our tradition of multilateral peacekeeping, and it is incompatible with Canadian values for us to join a weapons system that could only be pursued if arms control treaties were abandoned.
I urge you to outline to Mr. Martin the full scope of missile defence, which your administration's documents and officials clearly say weaponizes space. For two years, he has incredibly refused to look at the facts, and your meeting with him provides a crucial opportunity for his voluntary ignorance to end.
Lastly, it is important Congress moves to embrace fairness for Canada's softwood and beef industries. The tariffs and border closures do not reflect fair trade principles or science, and harm economies on both sides of our border.
Had we met, I would have underlined America’s dependence on Canadian energy exports and noted it is incongruous to welcome oil while refusing lumber and beef. For this reason, as a last resort, I support the linkage of these exports since fairness must apply across the board.
In closing, I am disappointed we could not enjoy a respectful exchange of views. In my trips to Washington to meet with members of Congress, I have met many Americans who, like me, are concerned about the direction of your administration.
Most Canadians are concerned, too. I fully respect the right of American citizens to elect a president who shares their values, but would have welcomed the opportunity to explain why Canadian values must guide our choices.
Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP
Leader of the NDP
WHAT?!!
You know that day when you realize that you are days and weeks behind where you need to be if you're going to actually *pass* all of your classes, and make it through the semester?
Whoa, so today, according to my calculations, it would seem that I'm a good month behind where I'd like to be.
How does that happen.
Oh. Wait. Right.
Running the damn gauntlet. Again.
|
You know that day when you realize that you are days and weeks behind where you need to be if you're going to actually *pass* all of your classes, and make it through the semester?
Whoa, so today, according to my calculations, it would seem that I'm a good month behind where I'd like to be.
How does that happen.
Oh. Wait. Right.
Running the damn gauntlet. Again.
My Greatest Canadian
It should come as no surprise that my pick for "the greatest" is Pierre Trudeau.
Once I saw him...
On a July evening, around 7:30. I had just finished another long day at the Montreal Jazz Festival, field producing the nightly segment for the CBC. I was headed home, having been granted a rare night off in anticipation of the following day's hecticness. The convertible top down, and the sun still high over Mount Royal, I cruised north along Peel to the corner of Pine Avenue. There I turned left, only to be stopped at the next stop light, at the base of Redpath Crescent.
And on the sidewalk, waiting for the cross signal, was a smallish, old man in a purple sweatsuit. A sweatband covering his forehead, he stood with his hands on his waist. Then he crossed the street, right in front of my car. He looked up at me, and me at him. And it was him.
I smiled. He smiled. And he continued, slowly, toward the mountain.
|
It should come as no surprise that my pick for "the greatest" is Pierre Trudeau.
Once I saw him...
On a July evening, around 7:30. I had just finished another long day at the Montreal Jazz Festival, field producing the nightly segment for the CBC. I was headed home, having been granted a rare night off in anticipation of the following day's hecticness. The convertible top down, and the sun still high over Mount Royal, I cruised north along Peel to the corner of Pine Avenue. There I turned left, only to be stopped at the next stop light, at the base of Redpath Crescent.
And on the sidewalk, waiting for the cross signal, was a smallish, old man in a purple sweatsuit. A sweatband covering his forehead, he stood with his hands on his waist. Then he crossed the street, right in front of my car. He looked up at me, and me at him. And it was him.
I smiled. He smiled. And he continued, slowly, toward the mountain.
Quote of the week:
"...I thought I was a nice guy, I was enjoying my forced retirement."
- The Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, responding to Mike Duffy on Question Period, on his confusion as to why everyone's coming after him.
|
"...I thought I was a nice guy, I was enjoying my forced retirement."
- The Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, responding to Mike Duffy on Question Period, on his confusion as to why everyone's coming after him.
The Replacement
Condi or James Baker?
Vote now.
|
Condi or James Baker?
Vote now.
Any given Sunday night...
Studying for a Tuesday exam. Here's what's spinning on the MP3 playlist this evening as I read:
(In no particular order.)
(No, I don't know why anyone would care.)
(Very male, brooding, singer/songwriter heavy this evening. Hmm.)
(What can we interpret from this playlist?)
David Gray, "This Year's Love"
Joseph Arthur, "In the Sun"
Coldplay, "Amsterdam"
Damien Rice, "Cold Water"
Norah Jones, "The Nearness of You"
Jamie Cullum, "Blame it on my Youth"
Lenny Kravitz, "Heaven Help"
The Shins, "New Slang"
Travis, "Why does it Always Rain on me?"
Simon & Garfunkel, "April, come she will"
Damien Rice, "Cannonball"
Jeff Buckley, "Hallelujah"
Rufus Wainwright, "Vicious World"
Hawksley Workman, "Autumn's Here"
Coldplay, "The Scientist"
Nick Drake, "One of these things First"
John Mayer, "Comfortable"
Dave Matthews Band, "#40"
Keane, "Bedshaped"
Lucinda Williams, "Right on Time"
Portishead, "Roads"
Ron Sexsmith, "Snowbird"
|
Studying for a Tuesday exam. Here's what's spinning on the MP3 playlist this evening as I read:
(In no particular order.)
(No, I don't know why anyone would care.)
(Very male, brooding, singer/songwriter heavy this evening. Hmm.)
(What can we interpret from this playlist?)
David Gray, "This Year's Love"
Joseph Arthur, "In the Sun"
Coldplay, "Amsterdam"
Damien Rice, "Cold Water"
Norah Jones, "The Nearness of You"
Jamie Cullum, "Blame it on my Youth"
Lenny Kravitz, "Heaven Help"
The Shins, "New Slang"
Travis, "Why does it Always Rain on me?"
Simon & Garfunkel, "April, come she will"
Damien Rice, "Cannonball"
Jeff Buckley, "Hallelujah"
Rufus Wainwright, "Vicious World"
Hawksley Workman, "Autumn's Here"
Coldplay, "The Scientist"
Nick Drake, "One of these things First"
John Mayer, "Comfortable"
Dave Matthews Band, "#40"
Keane, "Bedshaped"
Lucinda Williams, "Right on Time"
Portishead, "Roads"
Ron Sexsmith, "Snowbird"
Ashcroft and After
... I think the ed. board at The Nation nails Ashcroft's legacy in an editorial posted this morning. An excerpt:
"Ashcroft, in the end, can't properly be called a conservative at all; rather, he used his job to expand executive branch authority, the power of police agencies to monitor citizens without judicial oversight and the intrusion of government into private lives. Ashcroft treated criticism and dissent as treason, ethnicity as grounds for suspicion and Congressional and judicial oversight as inconvenient obstacles. No wonder that finally even a conservative attack dog like Congressman Bob Barr soured on Ashcroft justice; no wonder that even the Rehnquist Supreme Court slapped down the Administration's Guantánamo detention policies, declaring that even a state of war is not 'a blank check.' "
|
... I think the ed. board at The Nation nails Ashcroft's legacy in an editorial posted this morning. An excerpt:
"Ashcroft, in the end, can't properly be called a conservative at all; rather, he used his job to expand executive branch authority, the power of police agencies to monitor citizens without judicial oversight and the intrusion of government into private lives. Ashcroft treated criticism and dissent as treason, ethnicity as grounds for suspicion and Congressional and judicial oversight as inconvenient obstacles. No wonder that finally even a conservative attack dog like Congressman Bob Barr soured on Ashcroft justice; no wonder that even the Rehnquist Supreme Court slapped down the Administration's Guantánamo detention policies, declaring that even a state of war is not 'a blank check.' "
Imagine: Security Concerns as a Valid Argument for Cancelling a Potentially Controversial On-Campus Event
In this morning's Justice, the student weekly of Brandeis University (Waltham, MA),
Joshua Adland writes:
A reformed Palestinian terrorist who was scheduled to speak here on Nov. 1 was unable to deliver his lecture after administrators voiced concerns about event security, according to the leaders of Zionists for Historical Veracity (ZaHaV).
ZaHaV, a campus group who sponsored the event, was reportedly forced to postpone the visit of Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization because University administrators said logistical security concerns had not yet been addressed. ZaHaV President Elana Lichtenstein '05 said that her group had been planning for this speaker to come for over six weeks, and that all logistical elements were in place. She said that up until the "one-stop" meeting with administrators a week before the event, she even assumed all aspects of security were in place.
"I was stunned upon being asked if I thought the speaker's message would be offensive because clearly that had nothing to do with security," said Lichtenstein.
Lichtenstein said that in discussions with administrators, not only security concerns were discussed, but the actual message of the speaker was also in question.
According to Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer, who worked with ZaHaV in scheduling the event, the university had heard about death threats against Shoebat at other speaking engagements in the past, and they wanted to be sure adequate measures had been taken at Brandeis to protect him.
ZaHaV Secretary Jonathan Cohen '06 said that when the event was cancelled the Monday prior, ZaHaV leaders were surprised to learn that money was not the only obstacle preventing Shoebat from speaking.Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan told the Justice that every event at Brandeis requires different security concerns, and that some events take longer to prepare for than others. Callahan said that at the time the speaker was supposed to come, all necessary concerns had not been addressed.Lichtenstein said that Callahan had been supplied with much information about Shoebat including his Web site, history, and past speaking engagements, but that a week before the event, he still had not been in touch with Shoebat's agent.
Sawyer said that Callahan was unable to reach Shoebat's agent.
Lichtenstein said she is concerned that the school seems to be weighing value of Shoebat's message according to subjective considerations."Who are they concerned about keeping this message from-and why?" Lichtenstein said.
Sawyer said that initial concerns that Shoebat's message was racist prompted him to find a student who had seen Shoebat speak. He said that student assured him the message was not racist."We have to know what we are getting into," Sawyer said. "We have to know what the possibilities are, and what the probabilities are."When asked if he would ever prevent a controversial speaker from coming to Brandeis, Sawyer said he would not."I might have lobbied hard to have people think through the benefit of having such a person on campus," Sawyer said.
Sawyer also said that it is important to him to encourage a balanced array of speakers on campus, and that any one message that is "anti-someone" should not be permitted without hearing other perspectives.
According to his Web site, Shoebat used to be an active member of the P.L.O. and incited many acts of violence against Israel before being imprisoned by the Israeli government. Later in his life, Shoebat said that in an effort to convert his wife to Islam, he spent time studying Jewish holy books. As a result, he said learned everything he knew about the Jews was wrong, and he set out on a mission to be an advocate for Israel and the Jewish people and to work against the hate that he said had once possessed him.
Sawyer cited an incident 15 years ago when Rabbi Meir Kahane, who is considered very controversial because of his ideas to relocate the Palestinians outside of Israel, spoke at Brandeis. According to Sawyer, he was assassinated five days later in New York City by a stalker."It could have easily been here," Sawyer said. "Ed Callahan and this University aren't going to take any chances."
Cohen agreed that taking a death threat seriously was important, but he said that it would have been better if the University had dealt with such issues earlier in the process, instead of waiting until the last minute. Cohen said that he felt the administration knew what it needed to do for this event and didn't work hard enough to make it happen."I am not bitter," Cohen said when asked about his reaction to the cancellation. "I am upset that we worked through the rules to make this happen and it still didn't work out."
According to club leaders of ZaHaV, who sponsored the event, it is now unlikely that Shoebat, who spoke at Harvard Monday, will speak at Brandeis until next semester.
|
In this morning's Justice, the student weekly of Brandeis University (Waltham, MA),
Joshua Adland writes:
A reformed Palestinian terrorist who was scheduled to speak here on Nov. 1 was unable to deliver his lecture after administrators voiced concerns about event security, according to the leaders of Zionists for Historical Veracity (ZaHaV).
ZaHaV, a campus group who sponsored the event, was reportedly forced to postpone the visit of Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization because University administrators said logistical security concerns had not yet been addressed. ZaHaV President Elana Lichtenstein '05 said that her group had been planning for this speaker to come for over six weeks, and that all logistical elements were in place. She said that up until the "one-stop" meeting with administrators a week before the event, she even assumed all aspects of security were in place.
"I was stunned upon being asked if I thought the speaker's message would be offensive because clearly that had nothing to do with security," said Lichtenstein.
Lichtenstein said that in discussions with administrators, not only security concerns were discussed, but the actual message of the speaker was also in question.
According to Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer, who worked with ZaHaV in scheduling the event, the university had heard about death threats against Shoebat at other speaking engagements in the past, and they wanted to be sure adequate measures had been taken at Brandeis to protect him.
ZaHaV Secretary Jonathan Cohen '06 said that when the event was cancelled the Monday prior, ZaHaV leaders were surprised to learn that money was not the only obstacle preventing Shoebat from speaking.Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan told the Justice that every event at Brandeis requires different security concerns, and that some events take longer to prepare for than others. Callahan said that at the time the speaker was supposed to come, all necessary concerns had not been addressed.Lichtenstein said that Callahan had been supplied with much information about Shoebat including his Web site, history, and past speaking engagements, but that a week before the event, he still had not been in touch with Shoebat's agent.
Sawyer said that Callahan was unable to reach Shoebat's agent.
Lichtenstein said she is concerned that the school seems to be weighing value of Shoebat's message according to subjective considerations."Who are they concerned about keeping this message from-and why?" Lichtenstein said.
Sawyer said that initial concerns that Shoebat's message was racist prompted him to find a student who had seen Shoebat speak. He said that student assured him the message was not racist."We have to know what we are getting into," Sawyer said. "We have to know what the possibilities are, and what the probabilities are."When asked if he would ever prevent a controversial speaker from coming to Brandeis, Sawyer said he would not."I might have lobbied hard to have people think through the benefit of having such a person on campus," Sawyer said.
Sawyer also said that it is important to him to encourage a balanced array of speakers on campus, and that any one message that is "anti-someone" should not be permitted without hearing other perspectives.
According to his Web site, Shoebat used to be an active member of the P.L.O. and incited many acts of violence against Israel before being imprisoned by the Israeli government. Later in his life, Shoebat said that in an effort to convert his wife to Islam, he spent time studying Jewish holy books. As a result, he said learned everything he knew about the Jews was wrong, and he set out on a mission to be an advocate for Israel and the Jewish people and to work against the hate that he said had once possessed him.
Sawyer cited an incident 15 years ago when Rabbi Meir Kahane, who is considered very controversial because of his ideas to relocate the Palestinians outside of Israel, spoke at Brandeis. According to Sawyer, he was assassinated five days later in New York City by a stalker."It could have easily been here," Sawyer said. "Ed Callahan and this University aren't going to take any chances."
Cohen agreed that taking a death threat seriously was important, but he said that it would have been better if the University had dealt with such issues earlier in the process, instead of waiting until the last minute. Cohen said that he felt the administration knew what it needed to do for this event and didn't work hard enough to make it happen."I am not bitter," Cohen said when asked about his reaction to the cancellation. "I am upset that we worked through the rules to make this happen and it still didn't work out."
According to club leaders of ZaHaV, who sponsored the event, it is now unlikely that Shoebat, who spoke at Harvard Monday, will speak at Brandeis until next semester.
M.I.A.
Some (okay, 2 of you) have remarked on my conspicuous absence since black Tuesday. Truth is, the blogging moratorium is a result of not having much nice to say. So, consider my silence an audible one.
Otherwise, the bleakest of months is upon us, and that nagging irritation I entertain - also known as law school - is occupying much of my mental capacity. Sad.
Dear readers, kindly forgive the dearth of ramblings, and know that I will try to be more consistent in the coming hours.
~M~
|
Some (okay, 2 of you) have remarked on my conspicuous absence since black Tuesday. Truth is, the blogging moratorium is a result of not having much nice to say. So, consider my silence an audible one.
Otherwise, the bleakest of months is upon us, and that nagging irritation I entertain - also known as law school - is occupying much of my mental capacity. Sad.
Dear readers, kindly forgive the dearth of ramblings, and know that I will try to be more consistent in the coming hours.
~M~
Editorial Observer: Psst. President Bush Is Hard at Work Expanding Government Secrecy
November 1, 2004
By DOROTHY SAMUELS
It is only inevitable, I suppose, that some big issuesnever make it onto the agenda of a presidential campaign,and other lesser issues, or total nonissues, somehow emergeinstead. Electoral politics, as Americans are regularlybeing reminded these final hard-fought days before theelection, is a brutal, messy business, not an antisepticpolitical science exercise. That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed overSenator John Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of themore worrisome domestic policy developments of the pastfour years - namely the Bush administration's drasticexpansion of needless government secrecy.
President Bush's antipathy to open government continues togarner only a trivial level of attention compared with thepressing matters that seem to be engaging the country atthe moment, including, in no particular order, the Red Sox,Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulgevisible under the back of Mr. Bush's suit jacket at thefirst debate. But the implications for a second term are ominous. Beyond undermining the constitutional system of checks andbalances, undue secrecy is a proven formula for faultyWhite House decision-making and debilitating scandal. Ifformer President Richard Nixon, the nation's last chiefexecutive with a chronic imperial disdain for what Justice Louis Brandeis famously called the disinfecting power ofsunlight, were alive today, I like to think he'd be advising Mr. Bush to choose another role model.
As detailed in a telling new Congressional report, Mr.Bush's secrecy obsession - by now a widely recognizedhallmark of his presidency - is truly out of hand. The 90-page report, matter-of-factly titled "Secrecy in theBush Administration," was released with little fanfare inSeptember by Representative Henry Waxman of California, theranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, and one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's steady descent into greater and greater secrecy.
The objective was to catalog the myriad ways that President Bush and his appointees have undermined existing laws intended to advance public access to information, while taking an expansive view of laws that authorize thegovernment to operate in secrecy, or to withhold certain information. Some of the instances the report cites are better known than others.
Among the more notorious, of course, are theadministration's ongoing refusal to disclose contactsbetween Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and energy company executives, or to explain the involvement ofMr. Cheney's office in the awarding of huge sole-sourcecontracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction; thepost-9/11 rush to embrace shameful, unconstitutionalpractices like secret detentions and trials; and theresistance and delay in turning over key documents soughtby the Sept. 11 commission. The report lists many other troubling examples as well. Mr.Bush and his appointees have routinely impeded Congress's constitutionally prescribed oversight role by denyingreasonable requests from senior members of Congressional committees for basic information.
They forced a court fight over access to the Commerce Department's corrected censuscounts, for instance, withheld material relating to theprison abuses at Abu Ghraib and stonewalled attempts to collect information on meetings and phone conversationsbetween Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and executives of firms in which he owned stock. The administration hasalso taken to treating as top secret documents previouslyavailable under the Freedom of Information Act - going sofar as to reverse the landmark act's presumption in favor of disclosure and to encourage agencies to withhold abroad, hazily defined universe of "sensitive but unclassified" information.
Under a phony banner of national security, Mr. Bush has reversed reasonable steps by the Clinton administration to narrow the government's capacity to classify documents. Aside from being extremely expensive, the predictably steeprecent increase in decisions to classify information runs starkly counter to recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission geared to strengthening oversight of theintelligence agencies. Not one for self-criticism - or any kind of criticism, forthat matter - President Bush says he's content to leave itto historians to assess his presidential legacy. What hefails to mention is that he has seriously impeded thathistorical review by issuing a 2001 executive orderrepealing the presumption of public access to presidentialpapers embedded in the 1978 Presidential Records Act. On a superficial level, the hush-hush treatment of this issue on the fall campaign trail might seem perversely fitting.
But Mr. Bush's unilateral rollback of laws andpractices designed to promote government accountabilitysurely rates further scrutiny by voters.
We've learned over the last four years that what we don't know can hurt us.
|
November 1, 2004
By DOROTHY SAMUELS
It is only inevitable, I suppose, that some big issuesnever make it onto the agenda of a presidential campaign,and other lesser issues, or total nonissues, somehow emergeinstead. Electoral politics, as Americans are regularlybeing reminded these final hard-fought days before theelection, is a brutal, messy business, not an antisepticpolitical science exercise. That said, I hereby confess to feeling disappointed overSenator John Kerry's failure to home in hard on one of themore worrisome domestic policy developments of the pastfour years - namely the Bush administration's drasticexpansion of needless government secrecy.
President Bush's antipathy to open government continues togarner only a trivial level of attention compared with thepressing matters that seem to be engaging the country atthe moment, including, in no particular order, the Red Sox,Iraq, terrorism, taxes and the mysterious iPod-size bulgevisible under the back of Mr. Bush's suit jacket at thefirst debate. But the implications for a second term are ominous. Beyond undermining the constitutional system of checks andbalances, undue secrecy is a proven formula for faultyWhite House decision-making and debilitating scandal. Ifformer President Richard Nixon, the nation's last chiefexecutive with a chronic imperial disdain for what Justice Louis Brandeis famously called the disinfecting power ofsunlight, were alive today, I like to think he'd be advising Mr. Bush to choose another role model.
As detailed in a telling new Congressional report, Mr.Bush's secrecy obsession - by now a widely recognizedhallmark of his presidency - is truly out of hand. The 90-page report, matter-of-factly titled "Secrecy in theBush Administration," was released with little fanfare inSeptember by Representative Henry Waxman of California, theranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, and one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's steady descent into greater and greater secrecy.
The objective was to catalog the myriad ways that President Bush and his appointees have undermined existing laws intended to advance public access to information, while taking an expansive view of laws that authorize thegovernment to operate in secrecy, or to withhold certain information. Some of the instances the report cites are better known than others.
Among the more notorious, of course, are theadministration's ongoing refusal to disclose contactsbetween Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force and energy company executives, or to explain the involvement ofMr. Cheney's office in the awarding of huge sole-sourcecontracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction; thepost-9/11 rush to embrace shameful, unconstitutionalpractices like secret detentions and trials; and theresistance and delay in turning over key documents soughtby the Sept. 11 commission. The report lists many other troubling examples as well. Mr.Bush and his appointees have routinely impeded Congress's constitutionally prescribed oversight role by denyingreasonable requests from senior members of Congressional committees for basic information.
They forced a court fight over access to the Commerce Department's corrected censuscounts, for instance, withheld material relating to theprison abuses at Abu Ghraib and stonewalled attempts to collect information on meetings and phone conversationsbetween Karl Rove, the presidential adviser, and executives of firms in which he owned stock. The administration hasalso taken to treating as top secret documents previouslyavailable under the Freedom of Information Act - going sofar as to reverse the landmark act's presumption in favor of disclosure and to encourage agencies to withhold abroad, hazily defined universe of "sensitive but unclassified" information.
Under a phony banner of national security, Mr. Bush has reversed reasonable steps by the Clinton administration to narrow the government's capacity to classify documents. Aside from being extremely expensive, the predictably steeprecent increase in decisions to classify information runs starkly counter to recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission geared to strengthening oversight of theintelligence agencies. Not one for self-criticism - or any kind of criticism, forthat matter - President Bush says he's content to leave itto historians to assess his presidential legacy. What hefails to mention is that he has seriously impeded thathistorical review by issuing a 2001 executive orderrepealing the presumption of public access to presidentialpapers embedded in the 1978 Presidential Records Act. On a superficial level, the hush-hush treatment of this issue on the fall campaign trail might seem perversely fitting.
But Mr. Bush's unilateral rollback of laws andpractices designed to promote government accountabilitysurely rates further scrutiny by voters.
We've learned over the last four years that what we don't know can hurt us.
![[Click for official biography]](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/justices/photo-De.jpg?1299748013-0.1-974446364)