That was the eye-opening conclusion to be drawn from the hysterical GOP response last week to Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle's remarks that the administration needs to provide lawmakers with a "clearer understanding" of where the war on terrorism is headed.

Daschle's comments followed the questions raised by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and other Democrats on the war's price-tag and direction. Byrd warned the Defense Department not to expect additional funding for the war without a clear explanation of the administration's goals.

Finally, they have the nerve to ask questions on plans for phase II of the war and the U.S. troop presence in places beyond Afghanistan. Until then, the Democratic leaders had remained silent and had praised President Bush's conduct of the war.

That prompted a howl from the Republicans. "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field?" asked Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott.

Well, I wonder how Lott dares to ask such a question.

Daschle made it clear he was not criticizing Bush's conduct of the war. But the senator insisted in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that "the time has come for us to ask a lot more questions... That is the role of Congress. We're a co-equal branch of government, and I don't think we ought to rubber-stamp any president as we get into these very difficult decisions."

Lott must have a short memory. When former President Bill Clinton was in power, the Mississippi Republican criticized the timing of the U.S. intervention in Iraq. He predicted that the "cursory air strikes" would be ineffective and said the operation should be "more clearly defined." The next day he retracted the criticism.

In the early aftermath of Sept 11, it was proper to support the administration in every way. But now it is perfectly proper to ask how deeply the president intends to involve the United States military around the world? Where and why?

Is this a one-man show? When should the president inform Congress of his war plans, and why have lawmakers been kept in the dark so long?

Secrecy is this administration's second name. Bush and his tightly knit coterie of advisers are giving the American people and the lawmakers as little information as they can get by with. They have forgotten that the legislative branch of government has a need to know. Of course, other administrations have often consulted Congress only in a cursory way. But the Bush people don't even take a stab at that.

In setting up a shadow government in the wake of Sept. 11, the administration's policy was "don't ask, don't tell."

Bush, fearing that al-Qaida might somehow release a portable nuclear weapon, created the secret government of 70 to 150 senior civilian officials and deployed them to two fortified, underground bunkers along the East Coast. Their job is to govern if Washington collapses in a major disabling blow.

Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been absent from Washington much of the time in the last several months, would work with the clandestine operation, called COG, or "Continuity of Government," to minimize disruptions in food, water, energy, communication and transportation.

As members of Congress complained they had not been informed of the shadow government, the White House scrambled to make sure all of them were briefed. But the fact remains consultation is a back-burner priority with this administration, and Congress needs to be more assertive.

Does anybody remember the Vietnam War when Congress lived to regret giving President Lyndon B. Johnson carte blanche in Southeast Asia?

As the war wore on, disillusionment set in and the country became deeply divided over what was seen as an unwinnable war. As the philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

So I say to Congress: It's time to speak up.

Copyright 2002 Hearst Newspapers

###