The Incredibly Damaging Story That Wasn't
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Energy — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Here it is. Read it all.
Done?
Good. Allow me to comment.
For the past six years, we have been duped into playing the "let's poison the well when it comes to the formation of energy policy" game. There is and has been scant attention on the actual substance of the Cheney task force and massive amounts of attention instead on the identities of the people who were consulted in forming the substance. Everyone and their pet canaries must know that if the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace got secret meetings with the Vice President of the United States, there would be hardly any hue and cry over "penchants for secrecy" and all that associated noise and nonsense. No, identities only matter when they belong to energy company executives. So long as such executives are consulted, evidently, we don't even have to look much at the substance of the work of any energy task force to judge the merits or demerits of that task force. It is enough to simply declare--or insinuate--that the work of that task force is invalid because energy executives were ask to render their opinions on energy policy.
Of course, there is a reason why we don't have much discussion of the actual substance of the Cheney task force recommendations. Not until the fourth to last paragraph of the story do we get the following. Talk about burying the lede:
The task force issued its report on May 16, 2001. Though the report was roundly criticized by environmental groups at the time, some energy experts say that in retrospect it appears better balanced than the administration's actual policy.
Divided into eight chapters, the report correctly forecast higher energy prices, stressed energy efficiency and conservation, and pushed for boosting domestic conventional energy supplies and increasing use of renewable energy. Although it advocated wider drilling and omitted climate-change measures, it also said that "using energy more wisely" was the nation's "first challenge."
Some key proposals, such as opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, have never won congressional approval, but some measures to encourage oil and gas production, coal output, and the development of biofuels and nuclear power have been included in Bush's budgets and in the 2005 energy bill.
(Emphasis mine.) Ah, but why discuss what the task force's report actually says when we can instead discuss the identities of the people who were consulted during the writing of the task force's report? Why not act instead as if responsible governance is nothing more than a game of Clue brought to life and as if the outlines of an energy policy proposal can be said to have been debunked through breathless pronouncements about how it was Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the candlestick who was responsible for pushing for ANWR to be opened up to oil exploration?
« Winning The Battle on Drilling — Comments (7) | Al Gore the Betrayer, Al Gore the Destructor, Bane of Polar Bears, the Shouting Man has come! — Comments (3) »
The Incredibly Damaging Story That Wasn't 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If the information about these meetings is so innocuous, why has the administration spent so much energy over the past 6 years trying to keep it secret?
The principle of the separation of powers. The Executive has the right to receive information in confidence. This was something most Democrats and members of the Press Corps passionately believed in when the President was a Democrat.
And I do believe, in this case, the Presidency wanted the policy itself addressed rather than tangential detritus like who took part in it.
In my opinion, most environmentalist organizations, quite apart from being DNC subsidiaries, have nothing to contribute to any debate about energy policy, so I totally understand the Administration's decision to not invite them to sit in on these meetings.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
you seem to be saying that no one in government has the right to secret deliberations. This is nonsense. What other people think is pretty irrelevant, and in this case it is a cross between disingenuous and probably projection.
Government officials and corporate officials and even parents have conversations all the time that are secret. That is the way humans conduct their affairs. And half the world has a IQ in double digits so I'm not sure why anyone would care about what "people assume."
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'm just going to reply to both of you (MartinAKnight and streiff) here...
The principle of the separation of powers. The Executive has the right to receive information in confidence. This was something most Democrats and members of the Press Corps passionately believed in when the President was a Democrat.
And, apparently, most Republicans used to think that transparency in government was important. Gosh, it's almost like whichever party is in power wants to be able to do things in secret... I'm not sure whether you consider yourself a Republican first or a conservative first, but it seems to me that a conservative would want government transparency no matter who was in control.
You seem to be saying that no one in government has the right to secret deliberations. This is nonsense.
Not at all. I recognize that certain things (national security and military planning, primarily) need to be kept secret. But we are talking about energy policy, not homeland security. Everyone here rails on and on about transparency when it comes to $500,000 for some museum in Podunk, Pennsylvania but is apparently unconcerned when it comes to the formation of energy policy for our entire nation.
And half the world has a IQ in double digits so I'm not sure why anyone would care about what "people assume."
Hah, well from a strictly logical perspective, I agree with you 100%. However, many of those people do vote, so their opinion is important. If you don't want them to think that you are trying to hide nefarious schemes from them, maybe you shouldn't be so secretive about mundane policy discussions.
I'm not sure whether you consider yourself a Republican first or a conservative first, but it seems to me that a conservative would want government transparency no matter who was in control.
And I guess a liberal would not?
The thing is; at the end of the day, there was a policy proposal that was presented to the Congress with supporting documents and written arguments in favor. So there was transparency - there was a document produced and it was given to Congress. That Mr. X, who is the CEO of the XYZ Energy Company was invited while Mr. Q, who has doctorate in music but somehow leads an environmentalist organization was not invited has no bearing on the value of the policy presented.
And once again, it's a matter of principle. None of the three branches have the right to demand the private internal correspondences of the other(s). Unless it involves criminal activity and provided for by law, the President has every right to refuse to hand over the attendance list or transcripts of private conversations he has on policy or even just the tennis schedule on the White House lawn.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
participants must feel secure that their remarks remain confidential. For example, I often played "devil's advocate" while in the military, private business and state civil service.
I felt free to make the most outrageous statements to encourage the development of the topic. If I had to worry that my remarks would become common knowledge and might be used against me as I sought a higher position or, even, as I tried to hold on to a present one, I would have been a "Schultz." Hearing nothing, seeing nothing and saying nothing.
In order to promote the full and free exchange of ideas, the attempt to violate the secrecy of any meeting must be resisted. You cannot chose the ground on which you fight. You must defend any and all attempts to breach security.
That is why President Nixon sought to prevent the publication of the "Pentagon Papers." Those papers did not concern his administration but those of Kennedy and Johnson. It was to his political advantage to see the papers published but it was a damaging blow to the principle of governmental secrecy, so Nixon fought the publication and lost.
All the media has to do is drop dark but obvious hints and the Pavlovian liberal herd salivates, and rages. There's been so many I had forgotten about this one. Remember Enron, not Global Crossing where Terry McAuliffe parlayed $100,000 into $18,000,000 cashing out before G C went bust. Enron, where there wasn't a hint of favoritism much less corruption on the part of the Administration. And so it goes.
The moronic premise seems to be that you ought not to talk to energy company execs if you're discussing energy, and if you do everything should be released to the NY Times so they may promptly lie and distort it. Which is never a scandal.
The liberal voter who was willing to forgive so much during the Clinton years need only be tossed a few verbal bones, a few key words, to leap into the flames, hysteria, hate, and always, moral superiority, where they need all the help they can get.
Let's not forget the long simmering Great Eight Lawyers Scandal. It's a road show with no end in sight and no crime committed or even alleged. But it's still a "scandal".
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
If the information about these meetings is so innocuous, why has the administration spent so much energy over the past 6 years trying to keep it secret?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just pointing out that if you take rather mundane policy deliberations and then make a huge deal out of keeping them totally secret, people are going to assume that you are trying to hide something or cover something up. It is simply human nature.