Considered Forthwith: House Intelligence Committee

Welcome to the sixth installment of "Considered Forthwith."

This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies. If you want to read previous dairies in the series, search using the "forthwith" tag or use the link on my blogroll. I welcome criticisms and corrections in the comments.

This week, I will examine the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is an example of a select committee that has become a permanent fixture in the House. Select committees are usually investigative in nature, but this one also handles intelligence bills like the annual Intelligence Authorization Act.

Note: Last week, I mentioned covering the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'll get to Senate committees after the fallout has settled from the Specter party switch.

First, here are the members of the House Intelligence Committee.

Silvestre "Silver" Reyes of Texas is the chair of the committee and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan is the ranking member.

Democrats: Silvestre Reyes, Chairman, Texas; Alcee L. Hastings, Florida; Anna G. Eshoo, California; Rush D. Holt, New Jersey; C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland; John Tierney, Massachusetts; Mike Thompson, California; Jan Schakowsky, Illinois; Jim Langevin, Rhode Island; Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania; Adam Schiff, California; Adam Smith, Washington; Dan Boren, Oklahoma

Republicans: Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Member, Michigan; Elton Gallegly, California; Mac Thornberry, Texas; Mike Rogers, Michigan; Sue Myrick, North Carolina; Roy Blunt, Missouri; Jeff Miller, Florida; John Kline, Minnesota; K. Michael Conaway, Texas

Note: Yes, this Jan Schakowsky who stopped by Daily Kos in August to discuss the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act.

Not surprisingly, there is not much available at the committee's website. I had to run a search for "Jurisdiction" just to come up with this on the FAQ page:

The Committee’s Jurisdiction is over the 1) the Intelligence community and the Director of Central Intelligence 2) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies of the Department of Defense, and the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury. 3) The organization, or reorganization, of any department or agency to the extent that it relates to a function or activity involving intelligence or intelligence-related activities. 4) Direct and indirect authorizations for the CIA and director of Central Intelligence, the DIA, and NSA, and all other agencies and subdivisions of DOD, the Department of State, and the FBI, including all activities of the intelligence division.

What this does not say is that a central focus of the committee's work is the annual Intelligence Authorization Act, first passed in 1947. This act both sets spending priorities and addresses any changes in U.S. intelligence gathering policies. The committee issues a report with its markups each year. They are available here. Committee reports are explanations of bills that will be considered by the full chamber.

In summary, the committee has jurisdiction over all of the country's intelligence gathering activities. Obviously, the committee members deal with very sensitive information that could be detrimental if it were to become public. The FAQ is very concerned with the definition of "closed" vs. "open" meeting. The rules of the committee (PDF link) explicitly state that current and former members are forbidden from discussing any information discussed in a closed meeting or any "classified" information they receive. The committee won't even release the names of witnesses called to testify in closed meetings.

If you still don't believe it, here is a link to the committee's recent open hearings. The last one listed was April 1 regarding "Management Issues in the Intelligence Community." There was another one on Feb. 23, but you had to look under the press releases for a mention of it. PDF link here. Before that, there were hearings on Sept. 17 and 18. Including those two, there are six hearings listed for 2008.

Thoughts on closed government

A few years ago, I quit the newspaper business to go back to school. While I was a journalist in Pennsylvania, I fought the closed government battles. There are really two facets of the fight. One is access to government records and the other is access to public meetings. Access to the government decision-making process is at stake in both situations. Without that access, citizens cannot influence the actions of their government. That influence, in turn, is at the heart of democratic theory.

Governments can take two general approaches to open records and open meetings. One approach assumes that records and meetings are open unless there is a compelling reason to close them. The other approach assumes that meetings and records are closed unless there is a reason to open them. Until recently, Pennsylvania took the latter approach to records. Meetings, conversely, have long been assumed to be open, but state and local governments are still notorious for going into "executive session" (closed door). There are several situations (legal discussions, personnel matters, real estate transactions) where the law says the meeting "can" be closed. Government boards often close the doors, even if there is no particular reason for closing the meeting. They just do it because they can.

The law makes sense. Local governments don't want legal strategies or price negotiations for land hitting the front page. Internal personnel disputes at city hall have no more business being news than the same disputes at the bank. The problem, of course, is that without independent review, information that should be public could be hidden in concealed records or discussed in closed door session.

To put this in the committee context, the committee members could be discussing anything in these meetings. Are they discussing security problems at the Pentagon that won't be fixed for two months? Could it be that they are discussing domestic spying programs? Maybe they are eating pie and reading blog posts about Georgia politicians and their mules.

The point is that there are no whistleblower opportunities. I could not track down specific penalties for members who do disclose information from closed door sessions. Members of Congress are generally allowed to disclose anything they want on the floor of the House or Senate. However, the committee has the option of "disciplining" members, presumably including dismissal from the committee.

Additionally, the committee is not likely to get members who are inclined toward releasing information that might even come close to national security issues. Go back and look at those members and try to remember the last time you saw any of them on the national news.

For an intriguing example of government secrecy, see the case of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg, a former RAND Corp. employee was charged with (later acquitted of) treason for releasing the documents. (The case revolved around the fact that most of the documents had been improperly classified "Top Secret.") However, Senator Mike Gravel convened a subcommittee he chaired and read the documents into the Congressional Record. In doing so, he made the documents public record, allowing newspapers to print the material. Ellsberg released the document before Gravel's meeting and it would be two years before Ellsberg would be acquitted.

One possible solution, though it would probably never be implemented, would be to have an independent judge sit in on the meetings and rule whether the substance of the meeting warranted a closed session.

Other activities of the committee

The following topics are culled directly from the latest report on the FY 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act. It is available here in PDF form. The report was released in May, 2008.

Torture investigation: as early as May, 2008 the committee was demanding information about "interrogation techniques. See pages 11-12 for the report the committee wanted by November.

The House Judiciary Committee has been making all of the noise about investigating torture, but it seems like the Intelligence Committee will have a role to play too. This is another committee to pressure for investigations.

Domestic spying: The committee remains concerned about the FBI's use of National Security Letters (NSLs) to gather information without probable cause or a warrant. From page 41:

The Committee has been, and remains, extremely concerned by the reports from the Department of Justice Inspector General(DOJ/IG), which found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) abused its statutory authority with respect to National Security Letters (NSLs) from 2003 through 2006.

The report includes some language about reforms to the FBI's use of NSLs and indicates that the committee intends to continue to monitor this situation.

Bush's handling of Syria: Did George W. Bush violate the Intelligence Authorization Act? From page 36:

In April 2008, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) briefed the Committee on the construction of a covert nuclear facility in Syria and its subsequent destruction in September 2007.

Over the course of the preceding eight months, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member had requested that the President brief the full membership of the Committee about these developments, which significantly impact U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East and North Korea.

Just hours before a highly-orchestrated public roll-out of the previously classified intelligence, the President finally sent briefers to the Committee. The delay was inexcusable and violated the National Security Act of 1947, which requires that the executive branch keep Congress ‘‘fully and currently informed’’ of all intelligence activities. Congress should be briefed on the threats to the United States in a timely manner, not simply when it is politically expedient.

Unfortunately, there is little else other than a sharp rebuke about how Bush's actions undermined Congress's role in national security.

There is plenty more in those 121 pages. It would also be a good idea for us to read the next report when it comes out, likely within a few weeks.

Subcommittees
Like the rest of the committee's webpage, there is next to nothing about the subcommittees. These explanations are culled from other sources.

Subcommittee on Terrorism/HUMINT (human intelligence), Analysis and Counterintelligence

Mike Thompson of California is the chair and Mike Rogers of Michigan is the ranking member.

From the Napa Valley Register article announcing Thompson's appointment as chair of the subcommittee:

The subcommittee has jurisdiction over such agencies as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the national security aspects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the intelligence aspects of the departments of State, Energy, Treasury and Homeland Security.

As chairman, Thompson directs the subcommittee’s hearings, investigations and legislative initiatives.

Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland is the chair of the subcommittee and Mac Thornberry of Texas is the ranking member.

I've got nothing. Any assistance would be appreciated. Presumably, this committee would look at the technology side of intelligence gathering (phones, computers, etc.), but I could be wildly wrong on that one.

Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management

Anna Eshoo of California is the subcommittee chair and Sue Myrick of North Carolina is the ranking member.

Jurisdiction described by Scientists and Engineers for America.

Oversees policy and management of the 16 government agencies within the United States intelligence community, as well as performs oversight of the policies governing the designation of classified intelligence information.

This seems to be an internal policies and procedures subcommittee. I did find this Government Accountability Office report (PDF) indicating that the subcommittee was involved with security clearance reforms within the government.

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Jan Schakowsky of Illinois is the subcommittee chair and Jeff Miller of Florida is the ranking member.

Like most of the other committees, the oversight committee has the responsibility for conducting investigations into allegations of wrong-doing at agencies under the committee's jurisdiction.

That's it for this week. Next week, I think I will look at the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. With the passage of the Budget Resolution, these committees will be considering how money will be spent in FY 2010.

Judiciary Committee's Book of the Month Club

I finally finished Scott McClellan’s book. The Book of the Month Club House Judiciary Committee hearing is over. Here’s the video:

Here’s what we learned:

NOTHING

Ok. That statement is a bit disingenuous. The revelations contained therein are nothing that the reality-based community did not already know or infer. Most of the book is concerned with three main issues that he dealt with as press secretary.

First, we hear that the administration oversold the case for war. Well aware. Thanks.

Second, we learned that Scooter Libby certainly and Karl Rove probably blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame. This was almost definitely retaliation against Joe Wilson (Plame’s husband) for his questioning of the administration’s rationale for going to war. Yup. Knew that, too. The only real revelation was that Andy Card directed McClellan to exonerate the guy who has the most ridiculous nickname in the history of politics. McClellan seems most upset that Libby and probably Rove lied to him about their involvement in leaking Plame’s identity to the press.

Third, we find that the government really screwed up the response to Hurricane Katrina. We heard about that, too. In one minor revelation, readers did learn that McClellan objected to Bush’s infamous “fly-over” because it might make Bush look detached and unconcerned about the problem. Rove convinced Bush to proceed. Guess what? It made Bush look detached and unconcerned about the drowning city. Imagine that.

There is no case for impeachment against Our Fearless Leader or Darth Cheney in What Happened. It is more of a mea culpa by the former White House spokesman than an indictment of the Administration. It is also a critique of the media’s performance between 2003 and 2006 when McClellan was press secretary. McClellan even exonerates his former boss, noting several times that Bush’s style is to make a broad decision and leave it to his surrogates to work out the details. The advantage of this is that the underlings can take the role of the fall guys while insulating the president from any wrongdoing on their parts.

Instead, McClellan uses these major examples and a few other minor episodes to illustrate the underlying problems with modern politics within the executive branch. The overarching problem is hyper-partisanship (i.e., hate the opposition because they are the opposition rather than on the basis of policy positions). McClellan offers three factors that feed this atmosphere of hyper-partisanship. And yes, Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans. The three factors are:

1. The permanent campaign
2. A culture of scandal
3. Viewing politics as war that is a zero-sum game.

The permanent campaign was identified in 1976. Basically, it means that the party in power attempts to shape public opinion on a policy and silence critics in order to get that policy implemented. This is in contrast to the much more democratic strategy of floating a policy idea and then refining the policy in response to public opinion and input from the opposition. The larger goal is on winning the next election. Influencing public opinion is the point of campaigning, but not the point of governing. This is a situation where governing (theoretically altruistic and non-partisan) becomes secondary to campaigning (necessarily self-serving and partisan) rather than campaigning being secondary to governing.

McClellan decries this strategy by the Bush people, but does correctly point out that it was Bill Clinton’s people who really perfected it. Bush came into office promising to change the Washington game and then proceeded to play it even better than his predecessor. His major case-in-point was the disastrous decision to invade Iraq with shaky evidence. He never says that the administration lied. Instead, they selected the evidence most supportive of their case and disregarded contrary information.

The culture of scandal is nothing new to Washington. Granted corruption and the resulting scandal are inherent in any political system. Arguably, the modern era of the scandal commenced when Ron Ziegler dismissed the Watergate break-in as a “third-rate burglary.” While he was technically correct (those guys were certainly not criminal masterminds), it was the cover-up that ultimately brought down Nixon. The same holds true for Clinton’s Monica-gate. McClellan accepts that notion.

However, McClellan would prefer (at least now) to address scandal when it erupts in a true, open government way. He reasons that the short-term damage of providing the public with all relevant information is less significant than the long-term damage of a cover-up. He accuses the administration of a lack of candor and forthrightness in issues like the war and Plame episode. I tend to agree, but the media will disagree. Ongoing scandal is ratings gold, so they don’t have an interest in resolving any given scandal quickly.

The zero-sum game of war politics is probably the most damaging of these three factors. In a zero-sum game, one side can only win if the other side loses. That means utterly destroying your opponent. This is fine in a game of chess, but is unnecessarily destructive in the game of politics. As the governor of Texas, Bush gained a reputation for working with the Democrats to establish sound policy. The result was that both sides compromised to establish policy that was good for the whole state.

Something must have happened on the airplane ride from Austin to Washington because bi-partisanship was a main theme of Bush’s 2004 campaign. It probably did not help that Washington was already in full partisan mode in early 2001. The Republican Congressional revolution was still strong as was Democrat resentment over the Florida recount. After 9/11, Bush and the Republicans got wide public latitude, especially in regards to national security and foreign policy. When the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses in Congress, they could and did implement policy with little to no opposition input. Even in 2008, the Congressional Democrats are still not fighting back on key issues. Case-in-point: FISA.

McClellan’s solution: a permanent presidential advisor that every future president will be required to retain. This person would essentially be an ombudsman for the administration. This person would have the responsibility for ensuring that the administration is telling the truth and the whole truth while also legitimately working with the opposition party and tending to govern to the center. This person would almost be required to butt heads with the president and senior advisors. I would offer that the person either be from the opposition party (good) or a dedicated and vetted non-partisan (even better).

The second part of the solution is a media the White House does not cow that and that are willing to ask the tough questions. McClellan calls for a return to real investigative journalism rather than a press corps that more resembles a group of stenographers who get to travel the country and world with the president. The problem, Scott, is that mouthpieces like you are so busy constructing the current message and so obsessed with staying on message combined with a secretive administration that it is nearly impossible for journalists to do their jobs. In fairness, McClellan makes a fair mea culpa on this point too, though he likes to think he would have been more forthright if he had all of the information.

To conclude, I offer this stunningly shortsighted paraphrase from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). He asked McClellan why he could not take his story to the grave and do a favor for this country. The answer, of course, is “not a chance.” Rep. King, the air of secrecy compounds the problems that McClellan is identifying. Your attitude seems to be that we should just sweep it all under the rug as usual.

Chris

Flashback: "We Win"

I was checking through the archives this evening and I came across this headline:

There Goes the Sun

I ranted then about the government's decision to shut down a key website that provides useful economic data. Apparently, the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESB) could not set aside a few bucks for a web page. Come on. We're only $9.4 trillion in debt.

The good news is that this is how democracy is supposed to work. I checked ESB's page today and saw this on the front page:

ESA initially planned to discontinue the service due to cost concerns but given the feedback ESA received, the decision has been made to continue the site and improve its functionality.

Score one for open records.

Chris

Update on Wikileaks

Just a quick update today. A federal judge in California has reversed his decision to restrict access to wikileaks.org. A Swiss bank that was caught up in some shady dealings is involved in a court case in California (even though the alleged dealings took place in the Cayman Islands, outside of U.S. jurisdiction.) Documents posted on the site detailed some of those dealings and were released by a former bank executive. The bank requested and got a ruling from the judge to block all public access to those leaked documents, even though they were already out there and available.

Here is a telling quote from the New York Times article.

In reversing himself at a hearing here on Friday, Judge White acknowledged that the bank’s request posed serious First Amendment questions and might constitute unjustified prior restraint. He also appeared visibly frustrated that technology might have outrun the law and that, as a result, the court might not be able to rein in information once it had been disclosed online.

Judge White ordered that the site shut down access to the site from its American portal. Too bad for the judge, the site is intentionally accessible from its many overseas sites. The whole point was to circumvent censorship efforts. Read all about it here.

It all seemed pretty pointless at the time. Kudos (I guess) to the judiciary for recognizing a pointless and potentially illegal ruling.

Chris

Worst decision since those recruiting violations

Southern Methodist University, home of the Mustangs, recently accepted the rather dubious honor of hosting W.’s Presidential Library. This comes, of course, over the objections of the faculty and alumni. The president wants to raise $200 million, possibly even from his good friends in Saudi Arabia, to erect a lasting monument to his service as president. I really don’t see the point. The disaster of the last seven years has been permanently etched into my brain. I guess the rationale is that we need to leave a primer to future generations on how NOT to run a country.

There are two problems going on here. The first is that our fearless leader is too afraid to disclose where exactly the money is coming from. Watch it:

With all due respect (both modicums) Mr. President, the appropriate response to an informal freedom of information request is not, “nice try." How do we know that you and your team are not soliciting donations in return for your good graces and favors during the rest of your lame duck term?

The second problem is that, thanks to a law that was passed by congress an executive order that W. signed in those scary days after 9/11, W.’s library might not even contain all of the records of his presidency. Oh, and guess which one of our favorite unemployed Bushites is advising on this thing. So much for leaving a legacy for our posterity from which to learn.

Oh, and that $200 million. here is a partial list of what that amount could cover:

Efforts to clean up brownfields in Connecticut
Projected deficit in foreign aid created by increases in food prices
The costs of new school construction in Santa Ana, Calif., thus leaving no child behind
Damage to Ecuadorian crops caused by flooding
All of the new development in Niagara Falls last year
Bangelina's Prenup

At least SMU has a heckuva football team…

Maybe this will set precedent at SMU: the athletics department could redact all of those football records since the 1988 season.

Remember 9-11-01 and plan for 1-20-09.

Chris

Prostitutes, guns, and money

As Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower left office in 1961, yielding the presidency to John F. Kennedy, he warned the nation against the growing influence of the military-industrial complex. During that time, the United States was engaged in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Within months of Ike's speech, the East Germans erected the Berlin Wall. Profits could not have been better for the defense contractors as the American military was committed to battling all aggression, real and imagined, from the communist bloc.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 had the bean counters in the defense industry shaking. Peace is not good for profits if you are in the war business. Moreover, the few conflict between 1989 and 2001 (Iraq take 1, Panama, Kosovo, Somalia, a few rockets fired into Sudan and Afghanistan) could not possibly generate the type of profits that come from a protracted Cold War, punctuated by a couple of hot wars. So what's a Vice President with ties to a major defense contractor to do? Start a protracted war, of course. Do it in oil-rich Iraq, and a president with ties to the oil industry makes money, too. How's that for a twofer?

Observation: Oil hit $102 per barrel today. That's good news for the oil industry. Kinda bites for those of us who have to drive to work.

Here's an easy question. What is worse than an industry with undue influence in the government? Answer: A corrupt industry with undue influence in the government.

Thursday the Chicago Tribune, with the aid of federal investigators, gave us an insider's view of the world of defense contractors. It seems the best way to get a prostitute or Super Bowl tickets is to be an executive of Halliburton/KBR (the same people who are facing uninvestigated allegations of gang rape). However, they are going to use people infected with a non-communicable form of Hepatitis to prepare food. Here's the actual text:

KBR retested those 550 workers at a Kuwait City clinic and found 172 positive for exposure to hepatitis A, Lang told the judge. Khan tried to suppress those findings, warning the clinic director that Tamimi would do no more business with his medical office if he "told KBR about these results," Lang said in court. The infectious virus can cause fatigue and other symptoms that arise weeks after contact.

Retesting of the 172 found that none had contagious hepatitis A, Lang said, and Khan's attorneys said in court that no soldiers caught diseases from the workers or from meals they prepared. It remains unclear if that is because the workers were treated or because they did not remain infectious after the onset of symptoms.

Still, the incident shows how even mundane meal contracts can put troops at risk. Similar disease-testing breaches cropped up at cafeterias outsourced to firms besides Tamimi, former KBR Area Supervisor Rene Robinson said in a Tribune interview.

The Tribune article is rather lengthy, but it is well worth the read. Oh, and don't bother trying to find the story on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or even the Drudge Report. I could not find a report on any of their archives. This nugget of information came from the Drudge Retort and it was only posted today.

Chris

So that's what it sounds like

This is just a quick update to yesterday's post concerning the website wikileaks.

The site is back up and running. You can access it here now. It seems that they have numerous backup sites and the site is also accessible from foreign addresses such as wikileaks.de and wikileaks.be. As they point out, these backups are necessary to circumvent censorship efforts. They just really never expected to have to protect themselves from domestic censorship.

Happily, the site is planning to increase its activity in light of this intrusion on free speech. Kudos. The main story currently regards the bank records that led to the shutdown in the first place. Gee. I hope the damaging records don't get out now.

"The horse got out of the barn! Quick! Close the door so the horse doesn't get out!"

Much thanks to De Warf Rat and POAC for the info.

Chris

What's the sound of a whistle not blowing?

Yesterday, I ranted about the Executive Branch decision to shut down a website that provides easy access to all manner of economic data. Today, the good folks at Daily Kos brought us this little ray of sunshine from the Judicial Branch.

It seems that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in California has ordered that Wikileaks be shut down. (The link is not intentionally broken; that is the message currently displayed.) According to the BBC, Swiss bank Julius Baer is in a tizzy because some information leaked on the site about the bank might reveal some shady dealings in the Cayman Islands. It seems the bank is in the middle of a court case right now.

Here is the official ruling:

"Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."

I'm taking bets on when we hear a "further order" from the court. I'm taking 2182 AD. In the meantime, the site that claims to have leaked 1.2 million documents since 2006 has been entirely silenced over one court case and the documents in question are likely to be released in court sooner or later anyway.

Wikileaks was a powerful tool that allowed whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents. It had particularly irritated the governments of China and Thailand because the site allowed people to documents regarding non-spurious issues like human rights abuses and misinformation about the Iraq War.

I guess corporate interests trump human rights and transparency yet again.

Yesterday, I made the point that democracy requires open government. Daniel Ellsberg proved that in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers and Senator Mike Gavel read them into the Congressional Record, making them a public record. (A congressional committee later determined that only .5 percent of the 7000 pages were indeed "top secret." I will add an attribution later.) That information helped end the Vietnam War.

As Daily Kos' stephen soldz so eloquently points out, Nixon did not try to shut down the New York Times and Washington Post entirely for printing the Pentagon Papers. My own educated guess, though, is that Nixon would not have been too upset about that, but he could not find a judge to go along with him.

Whistle blowers are an integral part of any democracy. As a nation, we entrust our government to operate in our own best interests. With such a large government entrusted with so much power, there will be abuses of power. That's the sad reality. The silver lining is that there are ways, like "blowing the whistle," that uncover abuses of power and that is the first step toward correcting abuses. Our judiciary did no favors today for American democracy or for democratization efforts across the globe.

Keep digging into those government records.
Chris

There goes the sun

Some years back, the legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas spoke in our little town. She called the Bush administration one of the most secretive ever. Considering Ms. Thomas covered the Nixon Administration, that's a pretty strong indictment.

The latest is not quite on the level of the 16 words. It pales in comparison to the destroyed torture tapes. It is really not even in the same ballpark as the NIE on Iran. But it is one more example of the Bush Administration attempting to hide bad news. Seems kinda pointless really, considering Bush's current approval rating.

Due to "budgetary constraints," the Department of Commerce's Economic and Statistics Administration will be discontinuing this site on March 1. Up until now, this site allowed easy public access to a plethora of economic data as soon as it is released. The "we ain't got the money this week" argument fails when you consider that 1) the proposed budget for this year is a whooping $3.1 trillion and 2) millions of people operate websites absolutely free. Ye gods, just include a few Google ads, and the site will pay for itself.

The public is well aware that the economy is currently in the toilet. We just want to know how far it is to the bottom of the sewer.

In fairness, the Office of Budget Management Watch, an independent group, has announced that they will start providing the same information on their website.

The Bushies must think the less you know, the better. Here is a good list of some of the more egregious lies coming from the administration lately. The problem with secrecy is that the public and media have no chance to vet the veracity of government claims (like the 16 words) before the government pursues potentially disastrous policies (like invading a sovereign country, just as an example). A little probing by a critical press corps is essential to solid collective decision making.

Here are the original 16 words, by the way: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,"... Too bad it turned out to be untrue. (More about this in a future post.)

Government needs to stop operating on the assumption that information should be classified unless it is okay to release it. Instead, the assumption should be a government record is open to public inspection unless there is a reason to seal it. My beloved Pennsylvania just got that message this week. As of next year, we will not longer have one of the weakest open records laws in the country. Thanks, Governor Rendell. With all that sunshine, Punxsutawney Phil should keep seeing his shadow for a long time.

We have the right to know what our government, the one we elected, is up to. We as a public need to trust that the information provided to reporters is complete and accurate. Then we can stop pursing policies based on misinformation.

Chris