Secrecy leads to speculation
COMMENTARY
Josh Deitz

Fearing that it would become “politicized,” Laura Bush postponed a planned poetry symposium at the White House.

Apparently many of the poets scheduled to attend were planning to criticize the proposed war with Iraq and the first lady felt political discussion would be inappropriate. Ironically, the symposium was to celebrate Walt Whitman and Langston Hughes, two poets known for being outspoken about the political issues of their time.

This quashing of dissent and this unwillingness to deal with any opposition is unfortunately a hallmark of the Bush administration. The president has demonstrated his lack of interest in the opinion of anybody besides Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Bush is not the first president to keep a small circle of advisors and work from a closed policy-making process. The Bush administration has not only shown an unwillingness to accept dissent, but it has gone one step further by attempting to ensure that the public is not aware of the way the policy is made.

When the president revealed his energy policy, it read like a corporate wish list: drilling in Alaska, relaxing health and safety rules, loosening environmental protection laws and so on.

After the Enron collapse, Americans demanded to know the creators of the energy policy. In defiance of the public’s and congress’ right to know, Cheney refused to reveal the makeup and decision-making process of the task force, which was put together by the White House to formulate energy policy. It took a lawsuit from the General Accounting Office to force Cheney to reveal the papers. However, the White House is still fighting the judge’s order.

Currently, President Bush’s judicial nominees, most notably Miguel Estrada, have relentlessly stonewalled nomination committees and have refused to answer questions about their personal interpretations of the law. The information these committees seek is crucial in putting together a fair and balanced judiciary especially once Supreme Court nominations are on the line. Nonetheless, Bush continues to support his nominees in their silent intransigence.

The secrecy concerning the war on terrorism is even more damaging. Thousands of Americans have been detained for months on the basis of secret evidence. The public has been treated to a series of vague, color-coded warnings which stirs up fear and does nothing to protect the country.

The reasons for a possible war with Iraq are also being kept from the public. While the White House has claimed to have “confidential evidence,” the American people have been shown nothing to justify risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and spending billions of extra dollars in a budget already in the red.

The administration has not shown evidence to our allies. Before the war against the Taliban, administration representatives made the rounds with the proof justifying the war. With testimony to the contrary, one could make the case that the president is intentionally sabotaging the work of the U.N. inspectors in Iraq by refusing to share U.S. intelligence.

In light of this secrecy in both domestic and international policy, one has to wonder, what is Bush trying to hide?

Josh Deitz is a junior political science major from Atlanta. He can be reached at (j.m.deitz@tcu.edu).