Throughout Bush’s first term, the president was surrounded by officials who refused to admit mistakes and were loath to share information with anyone. In his second term, he’ll be surrounded by different officials who’ll do the same thing.
President Bush and his Cabinet nominees have been sending a firm message as they kick off a second term: no mistakes, no regret, no comment.
In testimony Tuesday and yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s choice to be secretary of state, angrily rebuffed invitations to admit a foreign policy mistake during the first term.
[…]
Two weeks earlier, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush’s pick to be attorney general, professed no recollection of his role in the writing of a controversial memo that narrowly defined what constitutes torture. This week, he refused requests to research the origin of the memo.
[…]
Even by the standards of often tight-lipped White Houses, the Bush team’s recent disinclination to explain itself has some Democrats and outside analysts saying Congress cannot conduct proper oversight and provide the public with sufficient knowledge of its government. But with White House officials such as Rice and Gonzales assuming top places in the Cabinet, the administration will, if anything, retain even more control over information.
This makes sense, of course, because the administration’s “accountability moment” passed two months ago. According to Bush, the voters agree that from now on, anything goes.
The Post’s Dana Milbank noted, for example, that Ted Kennedy submitted written questions to would-be Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to cover areas missed during his hearings. Gonzales’ answers sounded a lot like Ronald Reagan responding to Iran-Contra questions.
In written answers to Kennedy, Gonzales used the words “I am not at liberty to disclose” at least 10 times; “I do not recall” or “I have no recollection” six times; I did not “conduct a search” seven times; “I am not at liberty [to discuss certain matters]” 10 times; and “I have no present knowledge” seven times.
How forthcoming.
It’s worth noting, however, that a meeting yesterday of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans admitted they simply didn’t care about oversight. When Kennedy looked to his GOP colleagues, asking if they felt they were conducting sufficient oversight of “very important issues and questions on torture,” Milbank reported that GOP senators “stared impassively or scanned newspapers.” Your tax dollars at work.
Rice wasn’t much better.
When it came to particulars, Rice often demurred. Asked about briefings on part of Iraq’s weapons program, she said, “I’m sorry, I just don’t remember.” Pressed about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, she said, “I’m not going to speak to any specific interrogation techniques.” When Biden asked about a possible agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, she replied: “The answer, Senator, is I’m not going to get into hypotheticals till I know what I’m looking at. That’s the answer.”
The ridiculous displays prompted one conservative scholar to denounce his fellow Republicans’ abdication of responsibility.
“It’s a little bit appalling,” Bruce Fein, a Reagan administration Justice Department official, said of the Bush administration’s dealings with Congress. “A conservative should want greater congressional scrutiny — it limits government, and it checks folly.”
And therein lays the point. We have no scrutiny or oversight, so there are no limits on government and there’s far too much folly.