Obama Pledges Open Government (But We've Heard That Before)
At a swearing-in ceremony for top officials of the new administration, Obama said: "For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
In executive orders and presidential memoranda, the president is trying to overturn the Bush administration's tight-fisted control over government information that belongs in the public domain.
Obama quickly reversed Bush's post 9/11 measures that made it easier to deny requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act. He also blocked Bush's policy that permitted former presidents or their heirs to claim executive privilege to keep records secret.
In a far-reaching statement, Obama said, "Every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."
If carried out, we will know a lot more than we do now about foreign and domestic issues, especially how taxpayer money has been spent to bail out big banks in recent months.
I've heard such presidential pledges before -- starting with Lyndon B. Johnson -- and the thought keeps running through my mind: "That'll be the day."
Johnson told wire service reporters after he became president in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: "I want you to know everything that is on my desk."
Of course, that far-fetched promise was never carried out. All the administrations I have covered -- dating back to Kennedy -- have been secretive and shown little respect for keeping the people informed of what is being done in their name -- unless a president wants to brag about an accomplishment. Then the government's giant information machine whirls into action.
But secrecy goes with the White House turf.
One dodge used by executive branch officials is that concerns about "national security" forbid the release of information. The "national security" label is enough to inhibit the free flow of information in many areas.
Few administrations have hidden as many undercover activities as the Bush-2 administration.
To this day, former President Bush has not given a credible reason for invading and occupying Iraq in March 2003. All the reasons he has offered -- especially Iraq's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaida terrorists and threats against the U.S.-- turned out to be bogus. Where was the public outrage?
Bush's cohorts collaborated by making false statements in the run-up to the war against Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney said on several Sunday talk shows, "We know where they are," referring to Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Then former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned ominously that a failure to invade Iraq could result in "a mushroom cloud."
Have they no shame?
Truth is called the first casualty of war but unfortunately the American press played along with the Bush administration's duplicity.
A few years ago when I asked the Pentagon why U.S. military officials were withholding the death toll of Iraqi civilians killed, a Pentagon spokesman replied: "They (the Iraqis) don't count."
With fewer investigative reporters these days, news outlets are relying too much on government handouts which are usually self serving for the administration in power.
The concept of an open administration is great. Now let's put it to a test.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
10 Comments so far
Show AllThe public outrage is here and will remain. The problem is the MSM won't report on it!
Open?
Let's start with the prosecution of the bush gang.
Concurrent with a proper investigation into the demolition of the WTC buildings.
(I just don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only man in any of those cockpits.)
And Holder is part of a law firm (and he is himself one of the lawyers) who have been defending Chiquita in Columbia for murdering farmers and unionists.
>Where was the public outrage?
There's a WHOLE BUNCH of outrage among "the public" - But the real question is: How do we channel that outrage? What can we do short of mass killings of politicians that suck?
"...Johnson told wire service reporters after he became president in 1963 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: "I want you to know everything that is on my desk."
....And everything I take off my desk will never be known.
Helen, i am so glad your back in the WH press corps. You've always been a bright star for me, no matter how dark the night.
Openess falls under the category of CHANGE !
It takes CHANGE AGENTS to make changes !
Obama keeps promising CHANGE while he hires insiders when there are plenty of qualified change agents for the same jobs.
"On his first full day in office, Mr. Obama declared that his administration would place a high priority on openness and transparency. Yet the first official White House briefing was given by two senior aides who, in the time-honored way of Washington, demanded anonymity.
At the same time, the Obama team made no apologies for the president's willingness to make an exception to his tough anti-lobbying rules for William J. Lynn III, a military industry lobbyist who is the president's pick for deputy secretary of defense."
From the NY Times - January 24, 2009.
"The entire world knows that Israel is guilty of war crimes and that the U.S. government made the crimes possible by providing the weapons and diplomatic support. What Israel and the U.S. did in Lebanon and Gaza is no different from crimes for which Nazis were tried at Nuremberg."
Paul Craig Roberts - January 26, 2009.
"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory. He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"
George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley - January 26, 2009.
B.O. is on the hotseat. We'll see if he wimps out or walks his talk "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
We Won. If there are no changes, we can change that in 2012. I believe Obama is listening, he can't clean up Bush's mess alone. We all have a voice, USE IT ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com
Helen's sooo right to doubt.
Just look at his silence in the face of the collective punishment of innocent Gazans a war crime.
Holder's secret aquiessence to the GOP demands for no investigations of past interrogators.
It's only the start.
At least Bush admitted he gave 'green lights' to Israeli attacks.
But I could be wrong !