Backlash grows against White House secrecy
In Congress and the courts, challenges to Bush's tight control of
information rise. Energy papers due out today.
"Mike Parker, a former Republican congressman from Mississippi,
learned this the hard way. He lost his job as head of the Army Corps
of Engineers earlier this month after testifying before the Senate that
Bush budget cuts would have a "negative impact" on the corps. He
also said he didn't have any "warm and fuzzy feelings" toward the
administration. Infuriated, Office of Management and Budget Director
Mitchell Daniels reportedly sent the testimony to the White House,
and Mr. Parker was given 30 minutes to be fired or resign. "
By Francine Kiefer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
March 25, 2002
WASHINGTON - From the very start, George W. Bush made it clear
that his would be a leak-tight White House. In the past year, he has
succeeded to a remarkable degree, and is even carrying that promise
far beyond his relationship with the media.
In an attempt to reinforce the powers of the executive branch, the
Bush administration has denied Congress access to information on
the vice president's energy task force, restricted the handling of
presidential records, and curtailed government responses to requests
made under the Freedom of Information Act.
The war on terrorism has, understandably,
added to the aura of discreetness, with Vice
President Cheney often working in
undisclosed locations, for example.
Robert Dallek, a presidential historian, sees
this pattern of secrecy as a return to the
imperial presidencies of Nixon, Johnson, and
Kennedy. Others argue it differs little from
the self-preservation tactics of any Oval
Office occupant. Yet many in Washington -
including both Democrats and Republicans -
are concerned about the shift and are
fighting back.
Their weapons are the courts, political
pressure, and even the power of the
subpoena, which Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
has raised as a threat to get Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge to
testify publicly before Congress.
The Bush clam-up "creates a reaction against the executive.... It
creates distrust, animus," says Mr. Dallek, a biographer of President
Lyndon Johnson who describes this administration as having an
"authoritarian bent."
Documents to be released
Resistance from lawmakers and special-interest groups has begun to
show some success. Today, the Department of Energy is expected
to release thousands of pages of documents related to the energy
task force as a result of a court order.
And last week, the Defense secretary announced that military
tribunals for suspected terrorists, originally envisioned as secret
under an executive order from the president, will actually be public -
except for portions related to national security. This, like some other
aspects of the newly announced tribunal procedures, appears to be a
response to criticism of the president's order when it first came out
last year.
The president's emphasis on confidentiality predates the war on
terror, though. In his father's administration, the younger Bush took a
special interest in helping with leak control. He had his own papers
from his time as Texas governor archived in his father's presidential
library, so that they would not be managed by the state of Texas - or
subject to the state's open-records laws.
His disciplined, corporate style of management encourages debate
behind closed doors, but once a decision is made, Bush brooks no
disloyalty or dissent in public.
Mike Parker, a former Republican congressman from Mississippi,
learned this the hard way. He lost his job as head of the Army Corps
of Engineers earlier this month after testifying before the Senate that
Bush budget cuts would have a "negative impact" on the corps. He
also said he didn't have any "warm and fuzzy feelings" toward the
administration. Infuriated, Office of Management and Budget Director
Mitchell Daniels reportedly sent the testimony to the White House,
and Mr. Parker was given 30 minutes to be fired or resign.
It's a lesson not lost on others in the administration.
"We don't want to wind up like Mike Parker and others and take on
OMB," one agency official recently commented when asked about
that agency's budget.
Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, rejects the notion that the
Bush administration is any more secretive than past administrations.
"This is a traditional strain between the branches of government," he
says, referring to the flap over whether Homeland Security adviser
Ridge should testify publicly on the Hill.
Defending 'unfettered advice'
"What we're doing is protecting the president's ability to have
unfettered advice and counsel," says Mr. Card. It is the same reason
given for the vice president's refusal to hand over information on his
energy task force to the nonpartisan General Accounting Office,
which, for the first time, is suing the White House on behalf of
Congress.
The White House argues that Ridge, as an adviser to the president
(as opposed to a cabinet officer with operational responsibilities), is
not required to appear before lawmakers. But members of both
parties counter that he has a unique new position with influence over
multiple departments whose budgets Congress must approve.
One conservative his fellow Republicans might not have expected to
go after the administration is Larry Klayman, head of Judicial Watch.
In the Clinton years he filed roughly 80 suits against the
administration.
Mr. Klayman is again appealing to the courts, this time to force the
administration to speed up his Freedom of Information Act requests
on the energy task force.
"The general precept is that open government is honest government.
That's the principle of democracy," says Mr. Klayman. "Bush-Cheney
wants to return to government from the British monarchy."
That's nonsense, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at
Texas A&M University in College Station. While he's not happy about
some of the White House decisions, "it's a great exaggeration to say
we've got an imperial presidency." Today's tussles, for example, don't
compare to the all-out battles over access to information during
Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, or the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Transparency helps to hold government accountable, Mr. Edwards
says, but "anything that hampers the president getting the most
candid views is bad."
csmonitor.com |
