« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
More Obama Secrecy -- This Time On Cheney's Plame Interview
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at this point. But the latest example of the Obama administration mimicking the Bushies in opting for secrecy over openness feels like one of the most infuriating yet.
The Justice Department is declining to release Dick Cheney's interview with federal investigators looking into the Valerie Plame leak, arguing -- as it did under President Bush -- that doing so would discourage future high-level officials from cooperating with criminal investigations.
The good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had filed a lawsuit seeking to have the interview released.
CREW points out in a press release that Cheney was never promised confidentiality in the investigation. And its executive director, Melanie Sloan, notes:
It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?
It's really hard to see how this stance jibes with the president's much-hyped claim, upon taking office, that his administration would privilege transparency. In several previous instances where the Obama-ites have opted for secrecy -- such as the controversy over photos that show detainee abuse -- there was at least an argument to be made that the path of openness would endanger American troops or otherwise threaten national security.
In this case, no such argument can be made.
Josh
Zachary
I am very disappointed in Obama with regard to openness and transparency in government. Thank God for CREW and the ACLU.
July 2, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not "infuriating" to me. While I don't exactly know why the Justice Dept has taken this position, I can hazard a guess why the Obama Administration generally lacks the desire to re-hash the Bush years. Among other things, Obama is trying to stabilize the economy; reform health care; win in Afghanistan; enact a global warming bill; and get out of Iraq. Like Obama, I am MUCH more interested in the future than the past. The United States is in a time of crisis. Dredging up Bush-Cheney abuses now will only stir up partisan tempests, cause massive distractions, and very possibly derail the momentous policy initiatives essential, I believe, to the nation's well-being. Bush and Cheney will not escape history: It will come out in the end. Be patient.
July 2, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sympathetic towards your point of view on this question but I see it a little differently. I am much more interested in the future than the past as well. As I see it, however, this is about protecting the future. These decisions set a precedent. I want information like the contents of this interview to ALWAYS get released to the public. We've got to start sometime and there's no time like now.
July 2, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I see it, there are two major categories of people hoping that Obama immediately releases information about the Bush-Cheney abuses: there are vengeance-seeking Democrats; and there are savvy Republicans. Each group wants this for completely different reasons. The motivation for the vengeance-seeking Dems is obvious; they want to investigate and prosecute Bush, Cheney, etc. The motive for the Repubs is cynical; they want the investigations only because the country will immediately be so consumed with Bush-Cheney vitriol that the Obama agenda collapses. Consider how many senators will we need to pass health care reform. Or the green energy and global warming bill? How many senators does Obama lose the instant he releases torture photographs, or Cheney's deposition transcript, or whatever? Several, I think. And once the door is open, what happens next? Demands for full and formal investigations, if not immediate prosecutions. That is precisely the reason the vengeance-seekers want the info, isn't it? Then what? The country is utterly consumed, just like it was during Clinton's impeachment, and nothing gets done. Nothing. Far too high a price to pay, in my opinion. The truth about Bush and Cheney will come out. But it doesn't have to happen immediately. And, under the circumstances, it shouldn't.
Happy Fourth of July!
July 3, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As I see it, there are two major categories of people hoping that Obama immediately releases information..."
A little short sighted...
My desire has little to do with seeking vengence for what was done. Rather, it is desiring to stop a nation from decaying and losing its freedom and democracy from within. It is to be able to show my children that we DO have a just nation and their votes represent what a country can do with the hierarchy living with the same rules as commoners.
What I can show them at this moment is that there are different rules for those in power than commoners... that folks in high places do not have to fulfill their obligations... that their vote is pretty much worthless... that the people able to give them a better future do not care about their future, only their own power... that democracies cannot last over about 250 years... that true patriots are sent off to die so politicians can remain on top of the heap and play with their lives in Washington.
This IS about the future, wbgone!
July 3, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way...I say.."let's see you in court" over this means of siding with the bad guys! if public officials are afraid to cooperate with the criminal investigations out of fear, then be afriad and get charged with obstruction!
July 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
wbgonne:
Bill Clinton was impeached for far less offenses than those committed by Bush administration officials. The country survived and we are all still here. Abrogating responsibility to "history" goes against the very tenets this country was founded upon.
Allowing their illegal activities to go unpunished practically guarentees that when another Republican administration comes to power their abuses may very likely be far worse.
July 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what you are saying, basically, is that President Obama must suspend his campaign (promises) to deal with the economy. Didn't President Obama directly refute that reasoning when McStain suspended his campaign because of the economy?
You, sir, are an intertubes version of a Harry Reid.
July 2, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many story lines can the public hold in focus at the same time? Three? I think that's about it. For the opposition the game is distraction; break the focus, get more fights going; distract, distract, distract. Obama sees to understand this; therefore he keeps sliding by potential fights that are important, but which would provide a distraction from the bigger and immediate issues he sees.
And make no mistake. If there is little or no progress on economic recovery and on medical care, energy, regulatory reform, and the wars in Asia, before 2010, the game will be up. We will be stuck with a Republican Senate, House or both. Katy bar the door. You think B43 and cohort screwed up, contemplate what will happen then. I'm not trying to use fear as an all-purpose excuse, but get real. In a fight it is possible for the good guys to lose.
July 2, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. YES.
July 3, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
"I can hazard a guess why the Obama Administration generally lacks the desire to re-hash the Bush years. ... Like Obama, I am MUCH more interested in the future than the past."
Bizarre, given your belief that a record of the past will. apparently at some future date, overtake Cheney.
"The United States is in a time of crisis. Dredging up Bush-Cheney abuses now will only stir up partisan tempests"
Aren't you paying ANY attention? What you label "partisan tempests" are the norm for Republicans. Just look at the front page of TPM for this story:
"Right-Wing Group: Keep Obama's Gay Appointee Away From Kids!"
Do you need a stronger definition of partisan? Here are a few recent individuals from the front pages of TPM:
Unhinged and possibly berserk partisanship:
Michelle Bachmann
Climate change partisanship:
Rep. Joe Barton
John Boehner
Campaign finance and voter enfranchisement partisanship:
Mitch McConnell and the Republicans at the FEC
Want people outside the Republican mainstream? Okay: the guy who killed the guard in the Holocaust Museum was a partisan. The guy who shot the abortion doctor in Kansas was a partisan. Limbaugh; Riley; Beck; Savage; everyone, apparently, at Fox.
Seriously: what planet are you on? Elvis has left the building, the barn door was left open years ago, etcetera.
It's over.
"...cause massive distractions, and very possibly derail the momentous policy initiatives essential, I believe, to the nation's well-being."
The rule of law is essential to the Nation's well-being.
"Bush and Cheney will not escape history: It will come out in the end. Be patient."
Anthropomorphising history? One cannot escape history, because history cannot pursue. It cannot judge. It has no volition, no will; it is not an actor. History has no future (which is where you postulate this non-escape will occur) because it is the past.
July 2, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy the "We can't walk and chew gum at the same time" defense, and neither should you.
Your argument is precisely why the outrages that occurred during the Bush years will happen again. There will always be other things "more important" going on, in your mind, to justify punting the whole thing down the road. And I can assure you that yes, it IS infuriating.
July 2, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. The hopiate of the masses.
July 2, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a look at what pernicious things can be hidden under refusal to comply with FOIA:
http://pubrecord.org/nationworld/978-eager-to-tap-iraqs-vast-oil-reserves-industry-execs-suggested-invasion.html
"There has long been speculation that a key reason why Cheney fought so hard to keep his task force documents secret was that they may have included information about the administration's plans toward Iraq.
However, both before and after the invasion, much of the U.S. political press treated the notion that oil was a motive for invading Iraq in March 2003 as a laughable conspiracy theory."
The historical record is, in fact, so toxic, that I can understand why Obama would want to keep it under wraps.
But for him to do so is criminal.
July 3, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I have a question!!!
Why should people in an administration be able to choose whether or not they cooperate with an investigation in the first place? So WHAT if they are discouraged? They should have to cooperate just like the lowly citzens they "rule over!"
July 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should people in an administration be able to choose whether or not they cooperate with an investigation in the first place? So WHAT if they are discouraged? They should have to cooperate just like the lowly citzens they "rule over!"
Actuallly private citizens have no duty to cooperate with law enforcement. They can choose not to speak to them. If they are subpoenaed before a grand jury, then they have to answer questions (if they are not claiming the Fifth) but there is no duty to cooperate.
July 2, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question really is how valuable Cheney's 'cooperation' (or that of some current or future 'high-level appointee') really was or could be.
Which is not a question that we should be taking seriously.
July 2, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point; our elected officials should subpoena people like Cheney or leave them alone. They're all carrot and no stick. Pathetic.
July 2, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you are saying that if the FBI, CIA, a Prosecutor, or the local police give me a notice that I am required to testify, I can just not show up and everything is hunky dory? And if there is a subpoena (as there was with Gonzo and Rumsfeld, and Myers, et al), it is okay to just ignore them, because they mean nothing?
I have a hard time believing that.
July 2, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As president Obama has gained tons and tons of information that was well hidden even from some members of Bush administration and Bush him self.
Many laws were passed in all quietness giving Cheney immense power, this might be the reason Obama cannot do all that he feels is right and should be done.You and I know that all the rebups are just searching with all they have for Obama breaking one of this secret laws.
Lets give him time to find out about these hidden laws.
He has been The President only less than 6 months. We should all be greatfull, amazed and respectfull for what he has allready accomplished in such truly difficult times.
July 2, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney seems to have retained his fake "executive privilege."
BTW have the list of attendees at Cheney's Energy meetings ever been released?
We can guess them:
Big Oil
General Electric
etc. etc. etc.
July 2, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had wanted a reprise of Bush, I would have voted for John McCain. Next time, I guess I won't bother to vote at all.
July 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have completely lost all good feelings I had for Obama. I can't even watch him when he's on TV anymore.
July 2, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one in the Admin whose voice doesn't make me wince is Gates, for some reason (could he possibly be more sincere?).
For the rest, I am not 'disappointed' in Obama. Our Government was designed to mimic class distinctions in its different Branches, and Obama is now a member of the President's Club.
He quite literally 'represents' Bush and Cheney's interests.
July 2, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was Andrew Sullivan who said that Obama thinks in terms of the long game. I hope he was right and I cling to that idea when I read of him mimicking the bushie mob.
As a well-trained lawyer, I'm sure he understands the notion of precedent. Perhaps he's trying to egg on a lawsuit to set real precedents into the books(?) I know I'm reaching, but I gotta cling to something.
But, I would love to see the list from Cheney's energy pow-wow.
Also, one of Shrub's first acts was to prolong the time frame for the release of presidential papers. This put his father's admin under an extended veil of secrecy. How about we see some of that stuff - the re-definition of "unemployed," the first gulf war - all sorts of evil was perpetrated under Bush I.
July 2, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that Obama is the master of the long game.
What I wonder is why everyone assumes that Cheney was not playing the long game, too, and did not make sure that Obama (or any other successor) would be on his side.
Just because Cheney's policies were a catastrophe for 98 percent of Americans (and incidentally, the rest of the planet) does not mean that they were short-sighted or unsuccessful- at what they were intended to achieve.
July 2, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only agreement possible to this argument is that Cheney was trying to start a war of attririon between the Christians and the Muslims lasting a thousand years, providing gobs of money to Halliburton and KBR, and resulting in the Christians wiping out the Muslims leaving their lands open for occupation by WASPS, much in the same manner that the USA was opened up for population by WASPS in the last 400 years by wiping out the native populations.
At that point in time, WASPS would be writing the history and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. would be the heroes.
July 7, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a well-trained lawyer, Obama must also know that the farther away, in time, we get from committed crimes, the harder they get to investigate and, ultimately, prosecute.
Let's face it. The Obama administration and DOJ has no intention of investigating the numerous illegal activities of the Bush administration.
Considering how Obama has supported NOT releasing recent Bush era reports and documents I highly doubt he would go back to Bush's first days and rescind those earlier, self-protecting, signing statements.
July 2, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how Obama has supported NOT releasing recent Bush era reports and documents I highly doubt he would go back to Bush's first days and rescind those earlier, self-protecting, signing statements.
Actually Obama has already issued an executive order saying he is not bound by Bush's signing statements (even though such an order was unnecessary since signing statements, both his and Bush's, are of no legal effect)
July 2, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a hierarchy in Washinton an dthis nation and the commoners are no longer even on the list.
I am an attorney and have taken an oath to obey the constitution and rule of law... except, of course when it might bring some friends or cronies to justice or embarrass me or cause commoners to actually disbelieve our system or I just don't like to do it on Wednesdays or...
We have lost our nation, folks... get used to it!!
We have dallied around too long and have placed the mobs in power long enough that we no longer have a say... on anything slightly important... like EQUAL justice.
So it is with nations with two sets of rules... one for the commoners, and none for the all important rulers...
July 2, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at Obama's election as an American living outside of America, it appears that Obama was selected by the hidden powers running America, and those powers made a deal with him not to investigate the Bush years. And only on that basis they let him run for president and win. As I told many friends who worried about another stolen election leading up to last November, that yes, the election was fixed, but it was fixed for Obama to win.
July 2, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, is Chicago, Illinois outside of America? Because THAT is where he was living. Last time I heard, it does not matter where you are living as an adult, anyway. Are you a birther? Go back into your hole.
No one "let him win." He won with a mandate across the board. No one who was a Cheney militant would have let Obama win if they could have stopped it. And "Bushies?" Jokes anyone?
July 2, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wake up CVille. Ruth was saying that she lived outside America, not that Obama did.
As for Obama being selected to win by the powers that be in America, just look who was chosen to run against him - a crotchety old, cancer survivor with a running mate who had no clue about anything at all and who would have been first in line for the presidency if McCain died in office - a likely prospect.
These two people were selected by a very few politically powerful Americans for the rest of us to select among for our current president.
It was a win, win for the rich and powerful. Obama looking forward and refusing to prosecute admitted war crimes, or a sick old man backed up by a bimbo who could easily be controlled by the establishment.
July 7, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Wake up CVille. Ruth was saying that she lived outside America, not that Obama did."
I feel like that person that Gilda Radner used to play on SNL who misunderstood a comment and ran with it!
I could'a had a V8!
July 7, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Normally in a criminal investigation interviews with suspects or others are not released. these interviews are a tool. If the person was lying, what good does it do to release them. The investigator just continues to investigate whether the person was telling the truth or part of the truth. What we should be doing is pushing for the Justice department to complete its investigation. Its up to some enterprising journalist to ask Cheney what he was asked about and what he said.
July 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Support NYCCAN and watch the fireworks begin.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/make-it-happen/
July 3, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really think we are all putting a lot more to this case than it deserves.
I have been retired for a few years here in Hawaii and when Obama was elected, frankly it was a shock. Even though he did not get a majoity (47%) that was enough. But I did not understand the O-bots that elected him. Today I had to take a day a home with the flu so in front of the TV at noon I came across the movie "Borat". This explaned it all. As I watched Borat I thought about the bloggers for Obama. All of a sudden Carville and Bagalla where wrestleing and where fighting in a DNC meeting.
Mr. Cohen has the pulse of the Democratic party and will make a real nice Democrate Senaor from Califroina..
July 5, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink