CNN: GAO Lawsuit Yahoo! AP: GOP to Oppose GAO Lawsuit FindLaw: GAO Litigation Decision (pdf) FindLaw: GAO Request for Information, 8/2001 (pdf) NY Times Editorial Defending White House An American showdown is in the works. The General Accounting Office is about to call the White House to answer for what we all knew was at least a possibility. Even this weary liberal shrugged off every Dubya-related nightmare projection as merely that: fanciful nightmares. I had joked when he was elected that by this time next year (read, January, 2002) we would be broke and at war. Seriously, it was a joke, based solely on common, broad generalizations; a mere wisecrack over a pint in a pub .... And now this. Even during the Clinton administration, I said that deregulation was bad. Local news stations fretted about the rise in energy costs undertaken by the Pacific northwest in light of the drop some customers would see in other regions. Of course, leave it to Clinton to make deregulation a socialist maneuver. Regardless of one's intent, didn't the Reagan administration teach us anything? But as the energy crisis loomed at the end of Clinton's term, and shadows drew around the new president, we all knew it was coming. Energy concerns standing pat on ridiculous issues, flaming liberals determined to win a patch of earth at all costs. We spent so much time fighting about owls and salmon and NIMBY that nobody checked in on how much energy was left. Of course I joked about it: the Bush meetings with energy officials would produce horrendous, fraudulent, screw-you results. Despite my disdain for the GOP, I generally hold a higher opinion of people than what we may be about to learn. What actually caught my eye in the latest flap is the Yahoo link to the AP article headlined, GOP to Fight Planned GAO Lawsuit. The first thing that occurred to me was, What business is it of a political party to take part? Of course, even a cursory perusal puts that notion aside, yet we now have a different issue at hand: It is, I suppose, a fair question, though the GAO release disclosing their intent to litigate states that their position is that this information falls within the scope of their assigned auditing duties. Being that GAO is part of the Congressional branch of our government, I'm curious: Can the Congress intervene and order GAO to not file suit? The GAO release notes that this information falls within the scope of their duties per Congressional duties of oversight. And here, I wonder: Does there arise here a possible conflict of interest in the sense that the GOP legislators might be asking/ordering the General Accounting Office to not do its job? A question I would like to point directly at the GOP and its supporters: Given that the GOP supported all manner of inquiry into President Clinton for such issues as infidelity and, ironically, access and influence, does a national energy crisis warrant an inquiry into whether or not the executive or its agents had any role in said crisis? If I'm not mistaken, is not the Bush administration amid another controversy regarding the release of certain other records from past administrations? Here is a Richard Reeves article that I dug up from Yahoo on the very subject. I'm starting to wonder what it is about Republicans and privacy. It's not yours when it's your body, or when it's in your home. But if you're of the executive branch of the government for, by, and of the people, you are somehow entitled to this privacy? It's not so much Clinton envy. Forty Congressional investigations wasn't enough; we should have opened one to see if he ever peed in a baptismal font. But really, on the one hand, fellatio and old investments are that much more important than the economic threat posed by the Enron collapse, or, as Reeves notes, more important than whether President Reagan knew his men were selling weapons to Iran's ayatollahs? Heck, since GOP congressionals are considering opposing the lawsuit, why not just follow Bush's precedent and rewrite the law? That would put to an end any questions that might arise regarding what power the Congress has to (very possibly) order the GAO to not do its job. thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wish I knew more related law. Bush has said that while some "want to politicize this issue" he believes it to "not a political issue. It is a business issue that this nation must deal with." In fact, the extent to which Enron may have influenced federal policy to their benefit (political) is a separate issue from the reasons behind the corporation's collapse (business). I find it interesting that the Bush administration is avoiding the use of the term "executive or presidential privilege." Ari Fleischer said "...the administration's position, which we expect to be upheld in a court of law, is that the General Accounting Office is acting beyond their authority," Fleischer said. "So there's no need to exert the privilege; the GAO is acting outside its authority." While the administration certainly has a right to defend what it perceives as its executive prerogative, my bet is that they will assert executive privilege if they lose in court, thus stringing out the process. Peace.
(never fails that I think of something else I wanted to say) It is important to remember that the GAO is a "creature" of Congress and not the Congress itself. As such, it does not have the same power and authority to compel the release of information. On the other hand, if there really is nothing to hide, it seems to me that the Bush administration would gain immense credibility by releasing the requested documents, then loudly proclaiming how they had been wronged. Mr. Bush has stated "...it's an important principle for future administrations." Releasing documents that proved no wrongdoing would go a long way in his endeavor to help those future administrations by establishing a precedent. Peace.
And the winner is .... That, perhaps, is the very issue that will be settled in court. I admit that I haven't the patience to read the charter of the GAO, but if they walk in with legal authority granted through Congress, then they will have the legal authority. From the General Accounting Office website : The content of that later legislation, and of the 1921 Act itself, will be at the center of this lawsuit. I'm going to watch this one with interest. Watching the GOP carry out its sex-obsessed inquisitions has pretty much killed my desire to assume anyone guilty. But I haven't seen much from this administration that compels me to trust it on this or any other issue. It is only my pride that makes me believe there's really nothing criminal going on here. I mean, some of us, when Enron collapsed, felt like we knew it was going to happen eventually. I remember several years ago, when I still had my Beetle, driving in Oregon and listening to a discussion on NPR about what was going to happen to energy prices over the next period, and there was talk of the possibility of a crisis through mismanagement. Eventually, you get used to the feeling, though. When the Soviet Union collapsed, I stood with my jaw agape because a Christian publication called Plain Truth had, around 1984 or '85, written of the impending financial disaster inside the USSR. Even my frothing-Reaganite father with his fundamental hatred of Communism laughed at the notion. I was stupid enough to say it that time ... someone said something about how huge a day it was and all I said was, Yeah, but we knew this was going to happen, right? It would be a couple of years later that the Reaganites would start hailing the Gipper's "plan" to bring down the Soviet Union through economy, but whatever. Now, I'm comfortable with the knowledge that I'm hardly the brightest person in this country, so that means there are a good many people who, like me, aren't surprised. Are we so few that we cannot stem the tide of blindness infecting our neighbors? We knew this was coming; could anyone do anything about it? Sure. Did anyone? No. Why? Because those who would seem to be a minority, a fringe group, &c. In the end, though, I'm rambling because once again I can't figure out what the big deal is: a whole bunch of people screwed up and everyone's rushing to cover their tracks before they know if they're one of the people who did nothing wrong. If the GAO wins its lawsuit ... and remember that Bush doesn't get to slip this one (after all, Clinton couldn't slip the Jones lawsuit; see what happens when you let the GOP set precedents?) ... if the GAO wins its lawsuit, then we get to see who might have done what, and then we might see the reason for this two-step. But right now, I find this almost as interesting as when Clinton lost his temper and shut down the government. I love watching the executive and legislative branches tangle over substantive issues. Seriously, if Clinton is going to answer for his informational conversations, so is Dubya. To whom, however, is its own question. Maybe the GAO, maybe to Congress itself. But in the end, to the public. And that might prove to be delightfully perverse. The GAO should just call up a few Democratic legislators and have them squeeze Bush the way the GOP tried to squeeze Clinton about coffee, real estate, and sex. I'd say that comparatively, the Enron collapse and its economic implications outshine any of the investigations into our former executive. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
