The Most Secretive Administration of All Time?
02.22.2008 - 7:55 AMHelen Thomas, the doyenne of White House reporters, calls the Bush administration “the most secretive administration I have ever covered.” Barack Obama, going slightly further, sees it as one of the most secretive administrations in our history.” The New York Times editorial page concurs, saying the same thing in precisely the same words. A Nexis search will reveal that dozens of others have leveled the identical charge.
But is it true, and if so, would it be good or bad?
I examine that question today in The Bush Secrecy Myth, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 AM
You are right, Gabe: the real problem is not the secretiveness of this administration but their silence and failure to act on a wide range of faux whistleblowers who leak to hurt Bush — I should say American — policies and programs.
And I recall during the Reagan years, and then Bush I, the Dems who I worked for were forever upset over how secretive the Republican administrations are. It’s part and parcel of an ongoing permanent campaign that begun with the early ’70s congressional investigations into the CIA; the names have changed but the script is the same, and the R in the White House is always Nixon trying to pull a fast one with rogue covert operators and classifying everything in sight in order to keep Congress in the dark. So this is nothing new.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:04 PM
We need not take the accusation of “secrecy” seriously, at least not in terms of whether it is valid or not. The mainstream media, well represented by Helen Thomas, will find a pejorative way to describe anything Bush does, because they disagree with his policies. Consider that when Bush does announce things he is being “arrogant” (read: saying things right in the Left’s face that it disagrees with), and when he doesn’t announce them, he is being “secretive.”
The “secretiveness” of an administration is entirely a function of how much the media approve of it. Anyone you’re always trying to spy on and undermine, you are likely to call secretive. If your head gets big enough, you consider this an absolute rather than a relative characterization.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I agree with Gabe and would like to suggest that one possible method for dealing with wikileaks is to flood the system with eroneous information. People looking for dirt on others or for information relavent to national security would have to sift through many contradictory documents. For example, if someone leaked a list of CIA operatives’ names, several other lists of names could also be posted. Unfortunately, it would be a full time job for a well informed group of people in order to be effective.
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Spoken like a true Nazi!
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 PM
brian,
there are no socialists commenting here–with the probable exception of you. Try reading the story everybody is commenting on before adding your two cents worth.
Nazi. How original. You obviously don’t know what Hitler and Goebbels said about the big lie.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I don’t recall the press being especially critical of Hillary when the court slapped her down for trying to conduct her health care deliberations in secret.
Isn’t there a paradox at work? If another adminstration were more secretive, and were really good at it, how would we know?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:37 PM
REPUBLINAZIs are the BIG LIE. Every word out a a republicans mouth is a LIE!!!!!!
February 26th, 2008 at 6:38 PM
oh, and Ziggy go F___ yourself!
February 26th, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Everyword I have read on this sight is Bull____!
February 26th, 2008 at 9:28 PM
brian,
you sound like one of those compassionate and informed Obama supporters.