Wednesday Aternoon Update: found this on Helen Thomas, the repected White House reporter, who voiced her opinion on the White House's set-up questions and 'call-aheads' to alert reporters they'll be asking a question at an Obama presser, or in today's case, at a 'townhall meeting.'
You'll remember Bush's fear of Ms. Thomas who was put in the back row during the Bush-Cheney administration's pressers which often seemed to me to be sneakily embedded with softball questions that were set-up, if not called-ahead.
Above link contains a video of Ms. Thomas' comments which made W-H press secretary Robert Gibbs squirm, along with Chip Reid's complaints. Good.
Original post begins here:
Today NPR is reporting that the Obama administration is making the same argument in court that the Bush-Cheney administration made to keep secret the logs on who visits the White House.
The argument didn't go over well for Bush & Co. so it's a head-scratcher that Team Obama can't come up with a new reason with which to frustrate the American people and their expectation of a much more open government including what's really going on at what's supposedly our White Lodge...er, House.
Putting it down to 'campaign promises are hard to keep' doesn't work for me, does it work for you?
Perhaps they could set up a VIP Back Door For Slick Operators (aka, advisers, consultants, and special interest lobbyists) who come and go freely on the sly with their missions unknown but which have results we-the-people so often end up suffering from and, because of such secrecy, have trouble finding out the true source of our problems (which makes them impossible to repair.)
But let's leave all US sovereignty and Constitution underminers to walk in the Front Door with cameras flashing in their treasonous snoots.
There. I've said it.
Well, I'm still disappointed in the way 'open government' has turned out to be only a campaign promise that sounded at the time too good to be true to my suspicious astrologer's nature - and it was. And it is.
2 comments:
You said it I believe what you said to be true.And yet I just don't worry as much about this secrecy as much as I did with George.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't he just defending lawsuits already started?
Hi Tango Daddy! He may be in a sense but could be more open about things if he would - which is not to say that sometimes there are legitimate reasons for secrecy such as national security.
And i agree with you on the tone of things seeming less...freakily secretive (Big Bro)...as they seemed under Bush-Cheney.
My fret is that BHO won't be an improvement in the honesty department much less the totalitarian world gov dept!
Thanks for dropping in and Y'all have a great Independence Day! jude
Post a Comment