Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Faurot who wrote (33058)	12/19/2003 10:46:07 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Americans feel less safe today than at any time in recent history. In an era where national security is a serious concern, its invocation is sacred and should not be used for purposes that strain credibility or appear politically expedient. However, the Bush Administration invokes national security concerns in situations where it has the effect of undermining efforts for oversight and accountability, essential elements in a democratic system. For Example: In a memo last week, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz prohibited any companies from Germany, France or Russia from bidding on reconstruction contracts in Iraq. According to Wolfowitz, this is necessary to protect "the essential security interests of the United States," even though the White House had already said that countries which did not support the war would be left out of the reconstruction process. Congress created an Inspector General position in Iraq because of concerns about secret, no-bid contracts and gross overcharging by U.S. contractors. President Bush pre-empted the situation by denying the Inspector General access to the most relevant information. Private companies may now have access to information that the government's own Inspector General cannot see. The reason? National security. Past administrations have classified politically damaging information-this isn't new. It is the context that has changed. In the face of terrorism, Americans feel an intense and legitimate need for national security. And when the Bush Administration uses the phrase "for reasons of national security" simply to avoid accountability, it belittles that need. National security cannot become the excuse for extraordinary secrecy. At a time when our nation's credibility is on the line, we need less secrecy - not more. The Bush Administration projects an image of fearlessness when it comes to terrorists. When it comes to transparency and accountability, however, it seems to be taking cover. INDEED IT IS WITH CHENEY IN POWER CC