Then why don't they share the documents. The argument that industry leaders will not speak freely with the gov't is a crock. Every industry leader [except may be those from TX] knows that conversations with gov't officials can be subject to public examination. After all, they had no trouble disclosing Rubin's requests re ENE to the media.
The concept is much broader than this. I think Cheney has done an excellent job of conveying the reasoning, although they have failed to do so over-and-over again, which is what is required to get the message out. We have seen an erosion of presidential powers over the last 20 years, and they are determined to stop it. You don't have to think very deeply to figure out that it is a principle at work here, NOT that they have anything to hide.
It does not require any deep thinking to recognize that government officials should and do meet frequently with industry officials as part of determining policy. It would have been absolutely stupid for the Bush Administration to have established an energy policy without first consulting with a broad array of industry officials, and there is certainly nothing wrong with their having done so. The Democrats have, however, done a great job of making political hay out of what is ostensibly an insignificant event.
For there to be wrongdoing, there must be a quid pro quo, or the appearance of one. There is neither. The Bush energy policy is in no way inconsistent with his prior statements. In effect, the American People elected Bush knowing in advance what his energy policy was. Why would they [the administration] now have to defend it?
They don't. They're defending the broader principle that the members of an administration have an unfettered right to keep private such discussions as it chooses to.
Since you mentioned Rubin's request, I feel obliged to respond. Rubin came to the administration asking for an inappropriate, and probably illegal, intervention. In light of the media attention, Bush appropriately disclosed any contact that appeared inappropriate.
One can question whether the administration used good political judgment in taking their stand. But as we have seen, this is not Clinton, and he seems to make decisions on the basis of right/wrong rather than the political implications. I, for one, think that's a GOOD thing. |
