Spooks, Enron right at home in the Good Old Boys Club
Bush's rationalization for voiding law
CIA chief's directive for handling compartmented information
Reach other ConantNews pages
Shaky media math in Florida presidential count
Still shaky media math in Florida
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
[January 2002] Following the footsteps of his father, President Bush used the holiday break, when interest in political news is low, to maneuver to pull the CIA's bacon out of the fire.
Bush signed the intelligence authorization budget but issued a statement saying that he would not honor the intent of Congress in interpreting a provision that requires the administration to, in writing, notify Congress of significant intelligence activities and to, in writing, explain significant intelligence failures.
Bush cited the war on terrorism in his statement, though Congress was prompted to inclide the provision as a consequence of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the attacks of Sept. 11. Angry lawmakers found that what they were being quietly told about the circumstances leading up to Sept. 11 did not square with what the public was being told by administration sources. In addition, lawmakers found themselves on the receiving end of administration fire over 'leaks' of sensitive information, inferentially tending to shift blame away from an administration intelligence failure and onto 'loose-lipped' lawmakers. Bush's statement implies that Congress is not fit to handle CIA data, a not uncommon attitude. The problem with that thought is that it means that our elected representatives are left with little ability to guard the guards.
Bush said Congress had acted unconstitutionally in attempting to force this reporting requirement on the administration. But, if that is so, Bush did not use his constitutional perogative of vetoing the intelligence budget.
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the line item veto, passed by the GOP during Bob Dole's presidential run, is unconstitutional because Congress is not permitted to turn over its power of the purse to the president.
Bush does not assert use of a 'line item veto.' Nor is the provision he in effect scratched out a 'line item.' Nevertheless, it is an item of a bill that is intended by Congress to have the force of law. A line item veto by any other name is still a veto. But how can a president say he has authority to veto part of a measure? He doesn't. He simply asserts that he needn't be bound by Congress' intent if he feels that Congress' intent is wrong, legally or otherwise, even though the courts normally feel bound by legislative intent.
Does this make Bush a law unto himself? Well, he has the example of his dad. Bush Senior would also write statements accompanying intelligence measures in which he made clear that he had no intention of obeying any curb on spook power that he signed into law. But that was before the top court had definitively outlawed the line item veto.
Obviously, this Bush can make a case that he is only trying to defend America against terrorism. But, a democracy permits even bad ideas to be tested out. If Congress' will can be cleverly overrided to protect the perogatives of powerful clandestine forces, can it fairly be said America is a true democracy?
Perhaps Congress, worried that Bush will blast it as soft on terrorists, won't take this high-handed maneuver to the high court, but we must hope that some politically active group will do so.
Bush's father, a former CIA director, detested holding the CIA accountable for anything. Bush Senior pardoned CIA operatives facing Irancontra charges over one Christmas break and over another holiday lull vetoed a CIA budget rather than accept oversight requirements that he didn't like.
During Bush Senior's election campaign against Bill Clinton, political pressure forced him to sign a bill that required the CIA to release documents on the assassination of President Kennedy. However, he made clear that he didn't think it was a valid law and that presidents shouldn't feel bound by it (so why sign it?).
The current president, like his dad, treats any questioning of the CIA's doings as some kind of sacrilege against a holy band of noble-born brothers. This attitude was present before the war on terror and is becoming more obvious during the war on terror, which made it politically convenient for Bush to use "executive privilege" (a hazy and uneven doctrine) to prevent the public from obtaining data concerning President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. Bush's squelch order also prevented the public from obtaining data on Bush Senior's pardon of the Irancontra spooks. The White House claim is that it Bush is striving to prevent erosion of the institutional powers of the presidency. Yet, we must suppose he believes his maneuvers to erode Congressional power are 'necessary' in order to counter terrorists. That means that he views himself as a font of wisdom more profound and trustworthy than can be found anywhere in the houses of Congress, that his way of doing things is so far advanced over Congress's, that it makes perfect sense to dispense with the annoying details of democracy whenever in the 'national interest.'
Bush is known for playing favorites, as the Enron affair shows. Vice President Dick Cheney granted Enron officials an exceptional amount of White House access during consultations on national energy policy, evidently with the blessing of Bush, who has had close ties to the failed energy corporation. Enron is now under federal and congressional investigation over reputed deception of investors and the destruction of Enron employee pensions.
[The hit counters on this and other Conant pages are unreliable. Despite Angelfire having been notified, counts continue to rise and fall erratically. Rather than yield to a form of censorship (by whomever), I decline to deactivate the function. As of July 5, 2002, there is an ambiguous posting on Angelfire's 'help' site that appears to indicate Angelfire's hit counter system is not working. On Jul5, 2005, I added a Beseen hit counter with a startup number of 200.]
Subject: Fight for the First Amendment
Text:
Hello,
Thought you'd be interested in these pages:
http://angelfire.com/az3/nfold/bushfiat.html
http://angelfire.com/az3/nfold/freepress.html
http://angelfire.com/az3/nfold/psyops.html
Simply by forwarding this letter to others, you are doing your bit to fight for the principle of freedom of the press.