Loose Lips

Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

— Benjamin Franklin

Secrecy lies at the very core of power.

— Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power

Honesty is such a lonely word.

— Billy Joel

The Bush Administration and Secrecy

The Bush administration has been accused of being overly secretive.

U.S. Subpoena Is Seen as Bid to Stop Leaks: New York Times, By ADAM LIPTAK, Published: December 14, 2006.

Many of the most important news articles of the past year (such as those concerning N.S.A. eavesdropping, rendition of foreign prisoners of our nation to other nations, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s views on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, National Security Advisor Hadley’s assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, and the report on the Iraq insurgency’s funding sources) have been based on classified documents leaked to reporters.

It appears, from my reading in researching this post, that Bush is trying to make some adjustments to counter the impression that his administration is carrying secrecy too far, as in his signing of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.

Secrecy in Government

Secrecy in government is a controversial thing. There is always a conflict between the need for secrecy versus the public's right to know. Loose Lips Sink Ships may apply for tactics in war, or for covert government activities to stop threats, but it may not be wise in selling administration policies.




It may be prudent, for example, not to reveal exact details about how we are thwarting actual terrorist attacks. We don't want the terrorists tipped off to the point that they can adjust and carry out their plans to harm American citizens. On the other hand, it might be advisable to reveal to the public the government's overall thinking on the War on Terror, and the Iraq War.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

Conspiracy Theories

One of the reasons for the rampant conspiracy theories of the loony left is that these loons are actually right sometimes. Watergate started all this fear of our government and of things that go on behind closed doors. Nixon really did have an enemies list and a dirty tricks policy. The government really was spying on Martin Luther King. Nixon really was secretly taping all conversations in the Oval Office.

Other conspiracies that have been proven to be true include the overthrow of governments and leaders in Vietnam and South America, CIA assassination plots against Castro, and things that go on in most any political campaign.

Still, the loons, in their paranoia, take these as proof that everything is a conspiracy, from the Kennedy assassination to the O.J. case to the death of Princess Diana. Then, you have your charlatans taking advantage of this paranoia by positing their own conspiracy theories to engage in their demagoguery. These unethical practitioners include the dishonest and misleading Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. If you want to have some fun, go to Seize the Night to see several of the various conspiracy theories floating around the ether.

Why conspiracy theories seem to be flourishing at this particular time is strongly related, I believe, to the Bush administration's penchant for keeping things from the public.

Bush and Secrecy

Despite the fact that I believe the Bush administration is an honest one, I feel they are making big mistakes with regard to secrecy. I think they are justified in keeping some things classified and secret, but unwise in hiding other things.

For example, I think it's appropriate to conceal many of the covert things we hopefully are doing to thwart terrorists from harming American citizens. I also agree that it's important to hide our immediate tactical and strategic goals in Iraq if and when their revelation would negate the element of surprise, or cost American lives.

On the other hand, I think it is unwise not to share the complete rationales for the War on Terror, and our overall strategy and thinking on Iraq. Bush ought to get away from his sound-bite media strategy of such things as "We're going to stay in Iraq until the mission is completed." Instead, Bush ought to share with the American public all his thinking on the matter. He ought to talk about oil, regional politics, Iran, the divisions of Sunnis versus Shia versus Kurds—about all the complexities of the region and the situation.

Why Governments Conceal

The basic reasons why governments don't share information are twofold. First, because of national security issues. On this score, the Bush administration has classified more documents than usual.

The Age of Missing Information: By Steven Aftergood - Slate Magazine, The Bush administration's campaign against openness. Thursday, March 17, 2005.

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day. The government does a remarkable job of counting the number of national security secrets it generates each year. Since President George W. Bush entered office, the pace of classification activity has increased by 75 percent, said William Leonard in March 2 congressional testimony. His Information Security Oversight Office oversees the classification system and recorded a rise from 9 million classification actions in fiscal year 2001 to 16 million in fiscal year 2004.

Yet an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, Web sites, and official databases. Once freely available, a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."

Less of a goal-directed policy than a bureaucratic reflex, the widespread clampdown on formerly public information reflects a largely inarticulate concern about "security." It also accords neatly with the Bush administration's preference for unchecked executive authority.

I don't know whether to trust the above-mentioned type of article, since the left-wing attack sites are never objective. They gather "facts" that are always one-sided, always anti-Bush; so, many times they aren't even worth reading. Still, there is something to this idea that Bush is overly secretive.

The second reason why governments don't share information is less noble—paternalism. Paternalism is generally a Democrat way of life. Democrats always think the people are too dumb to look out for themselves. They believe in big government programs because the poor stupid blacks, Hispanics, white trash, and generally ignorant populace can't get educated, get a job, provide for their retirement, or even fill out a ballot properly without government assistance.

This is exemplified by the Democratic hoax against the privatization of Social Security. To any educated person it is obvious that putting money averaged among safe stocks over a period of twenty years would yield a vast amount more cash than the piddly return you get from your government-issued Social Security checks. But the Democrats don't think your smart enough to keep all your money. They think you'll waste it. So, they scare you with the fear that privatization will mean losing all your investment. They know better than you. They are the smart parental figures for their dumb, inadequate, incompetent public.

The Irony of It All

Unfortunately, this attitude also applies to government secrets. Bush, who comes off as looking dumb, keeps secrets about the War on Terror and the Iraq War because he thinks Americans can't comprehend all the complexities. Or, he imagines that revealing everything will hurt him politically. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

By explaining more about his thinking on both subjects, Bush would do several positive things. First, he would dispel the impression that he is an idiot. He could reveal the complexities of his thinking on the matters, and the process of his decision-making. Second, he would engage the American people in the thought-process, thereby making them partners in these wars, and, hence, more engaged and perhaps more supportive.

By choosing to be unnecessarily secretive about his innermost thinking on some issues, Bush has earned his 30% or less approval rating. He deserves it. Again, I want to make it clear. I believe he is very bright. I believe the war in Iraq was a good decision. I think it was a good decision, though, for reasons far more complex than Bush is admitting. It is not enough to say we thought there were weapons of mass destruction there. Instead, we ought to be talking about the geopolitical complexities of the region, the future of Israel, the rise of radical Islam, the future of democracy, and all the other matters important to consider for that region.

None of us knows whether the War on Terror and the Iraq situation will work out for the good or not. We'll see in about twenty years. We can, though, engage in intelligent debate about the issues. This intelligent discourse ought to be led by our President. To do this, he has to level with us.

Mr. Bush, tear down this wall.

click to hide most of this post

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)

Technorati Tags for this post: secrecy, government secrets, public right to know, covert activities, Watergate, Nixon, Bush, Iraq War, War on Terror, terrorism