GAO focuses on reality

Last week, the General Accounting Office, the Republican-headed investigative arm of Congress, announced that it will sue the White House for information regarding Vice President Richard Cheney's contacts with energy industry executives last spring. Mr. Cheney refuses to turn over the records, citing executive privilege, while not using the term executive privilege itself.\nUnderstandably, his refusal has generated suspicion. Some say, "If there's nothing to hide, why not turn it over?" \nBut it's not nearly that simple: There are compelling reasons to preserve confidentiality in connection with executive decision-making and policy formulation. \nFirstly, it's a good way to work. There are distinct advantages in getting people together in a room and having them hash out a plan to which everyone can sign on. When they leave the room, nobody on the outside knows who stood where, who won or lost and what was said about whom or what. Our very own Constitution was developed in this manner.\nSecondly, we want our leaders to have access to the best minds and latest information. It's reasonable to assume that many who advise our leaders would obscure or censor their true views if their opinions might be writ large in newspaper headlines. Confidentiality can ensure the candor our leaders need. \nSome say that this is a special case because of the intimacy between this administration and Enron's villainous executives. But so far, there is no evidence of illegal or even unethical behavior in the administration. There aren't even allegations of that. There should be, at the very least, credible allegations of wrongdoing before Congress intrudes upon the executive branch's conversations.\nOthers argue that confidential deliberation makes the president unaccountable to the public. That's nonsense. Bribery excepted, the public should hold elected officials responsible for their actions and policies, not the way in which decisions are made or policies formulated. The GAO's suit doesn't allege impropriety or seek to clarify the administration's actions. It's a fishing expedition that shifts interest from its rightful place: Policy.\nIt's no secret that Enron contributed lavishly to Bush's campaign and exerted influence on Bush's energy policy. It's also no secret that the policy is fatally flawed: It's unbalanced, myopic, environmentally absurd and simple-minded. It should be discarded not because Bush received Enron's bounty or because Cheney met with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, but because it's bad policy. Finding out, after the fact, the content of Cheney's meetings tells us little -- it's already clear from the policy whose interests Bush represents. \n Further, the GAO suit brings an unsettling reality into focus. It's enough nowadays to say something is secret to make it seem sinister. You don't have to prove an allegation; you don't even have to make an allegation. One need only say, "The White House is refusing to hand over documents" and visions of Watergate and Deep Throat dance in our heads. That's a real shame.\n As much as Republicans deserve to reap in the Bush administration what they sowed in the Clinton administration, I hope the GAO suit is dismissed. I also hope Democrats don't resort to the tactic patented by Republicans during the nineties: Alleging without evidence. \nLet's move beyond the time when implication is fact and secrecy proves corruption. It's time to get down to the serious business of strengthening the Republic. That takes serious people. We've yet to see if our leaders can be serious for more than a month.