«
»

No Transparency

Friday, April 30th, 2004

So not only did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath before the 9/11 commission, not only did they prohibit video and/or audio recordings of the testimony, not only will there be no official transcript, not only were press not invited, the actual 9/11 commissioners themselves were required to give up their notebooks before leaving the White House. Administration officials will then purge the notebooks of classifed information before returning them.

At least that’s what WH correspondent Nora O’Donnell reported on Imus this morning.

We’ve explored before on this site the White House’s rather broad (and neglibible) parameters for what information deserves to be classified.

Matt Welch has more on how the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy hampers national security.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

This entry was posted on Friday, April 30th, 2004 at 4:10 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

9 Responses to “No Transparency”

  1. #1 |  Tom |  April 30th, 2004 at 10:12 pm

    May I point out to you, that Clinton Gore Albright etc did not testify under oath. Two on the non-partisan Dems left early. You’ve lost all credibility with your anti Bush rectoric. You have no problem with a member of the commision writing the order which inhibited criminal/enemy investigations coordinating thier efforts? I have yet to see a coherent plan from you of how to deal with terrorism. I guess that’s what’s good about being a member of a permanent fringe party. All you have to do is find fault cause you’ll never really have to do anything.

  2. #2 |  Jason |  May 1st, 2004 at 1:31 am

    Tom, don’t you notice how you didn’t address, refute, explain or defend any of the charges made against Mr. Bush, other than to dismiss it all as anti-Bush rhetoric?

    Are you truly that blinded by him?

  3. #3 |  Bagovegeta-bles |  May 1st, 2004 at 2:58 pm

    You have to read this site every day, Tom.

    Rad’s put up other people’s ideas about how they’d deal with terrorism, and said “I agree with this”.

    That’s the same. Obviously, it is about as good as you agreeing with Bush, even though his “plan” will apparently never be fully spelled out. Can’t tip off the terrorists, ya know. Secrecy and what not.

  4. #4 |  Anon |  May 1st, 2004 at 4:14 pm

    So Tom, are you saying that Bush and Clinton have a lot in common?
    Are you saying that since Clinton was a crook and got away with it, Bush can claim the same right?
    Are you holding Bush to the same ethical and job performance standards as Clinton?
    Can he not do better than Clinton? – a trick question this one…

  5. #5 |  Jeb |  May 1st, 2004 at 5:38 pm

    Would it be better for them to testify in an open forum? If they did, they would have to refuse to answer all questions related to national security, or at least most, since they wouldn’t want to disclose any classified plans. And the 9/11 commission should mostly be asking about classified plans, one would think.

    Further, anybody’s who’s been paying attention has noticed that the 9/11 commission has simply become a forum for partisan grandstanding, and the more public we make it, the less actual good it will be able to accomplish.

    It’s a sticky situation all around, but I don’t think the way to fix it is by publicizing this commission’s work even more, and making it even more open to partisan grandstanding. Is that really what you people suggest?

    Here’s a suggestion: let’s spend some time working on intelligence holes, hiring enough people to analyze the intelligence we get, allowing police and intelligence agencies to work together, and doing other activities that will have a positive benefit on national security.

  6. #6 |  Byna |  May 2nd, 2004 at 3:41 am

    Anyone that thinks the commission is interested in finding the truth and correcting problems, please move to
    Saudi Arabia. The rest of us realize (as exemplified by one of the causers of 9-11 being on the commission, and not recessing herself) that the commission is designed to screw the current administration in order for the Democrats to win the next election.

    No dice.

    This atheist is voting for the religious party, in order to make sure that the religious extremist don’t (literally) cut my head off.

    Byna, is willing to pay for a one way ticket to Saudi Arabia for anyone that thinks that Kerry would make a better president than Bush.

  7. #7 |  Bagovegeta-bles |  May 2nd, 2004 at 11:48 am

    Byna is right, of course, about the commission. And Kerry would make a worse president.

    But not by much.
    So I’m voting Libertarian.

  8. #8 |  Rocketman |  May 6th, 2004 at 10:41 am

    Radley:

    I’m looking forward to the list of administrations that never had a penchant for secrecy when it was politically advantageous for them. Please stop blaming this one, for the facts of life.

    Naivete–thy name is Libertarian.

  9. #9 |  ? ᠩ𨸰袠/>Email Address:<input name= |  July 17th, 2006 at 1:40 am

    . Obviously, it is about as good as you agreeing with Bush, even though his “plan” will apparently never be fully spelled out. Can’t tip off the terrorists, ya know.