Friday, December 15, 2006

Democracy

Think about this:
  1. We are a representative democracy. That is, we elect leaders to represent us.
  2. In a representative democracy we depend on the electorate to make good choices about who represents their interests.
  3. The electorate making good choices depends on the electorate having good information.
  4. Ergo: restricting accurate/good information is a detriment to our representative democracy.

From thinkprogress.org/

EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official »
Middle East analyst
Flynt Leverett, who served under President Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran.
Leverett’s op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA, where he was a senior analyst. Leverett explained, “I’ve been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I’ve never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, ‘Yeah, you’re not putting classified information.’”
According to Leverett the op-ed was “all based on stuff that Secretary Powell, Secretary Rice, Deputy Secretary Armitage have talked about publicly. It’s been extensively reported in the media.” Leverett says the incident shows “just how low people like Elliot Abrams at the NSC [National Security Council] will stoop to try and limit the dissemination of arguments critical of the administration’s policy.”
Listen to Leverett’s remarks at a panel today at the Center for American Progress:
CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

4 comments:

quinn said...

The paranoia and groupthink of this adminstration continues to startle me, even six years in. If anything, they seem to be getting more combative and heavyhanded. Bush's talk of bipartisan cooperation after the recent Congressional elections seems to mean only that he expects newly powerful Democrats to agree with him. Things could go even deeper than recess appointments (John Bolton, etc.) and bizarre flouting of wiretap rules in the next two years.

Looking ahead to 2008, democratic practices could be even further compromised if Rudy Giuliani were to somehow get elected President. People outside of NYC forget or never knew that he routinely took actions that were deemed illegal by courts, after the fact and often after they were irreversible, such as tearing down occupied buildings overnight to make room for developers. Thankfully, Giuliani never implied that his actions were based on faith (in God) and was graceful enough to accept court verdicts when they went against his reversible actions, unlike this Bush administration.

Andrew said...

It is interesting to me that once the Republican strangle hold on congress has been rejected, they all want to be non-partisan and get along. Let me get this straight. The Republicans use every scorched earth tactic in the book for twelve years and when the American people boot them out they want everyone to play nice. Oh please. I hope no one falls for this crap.

Don't get me wrong. I believe their tactics were egregious and we as Democrats need to go back to governing with candor and respect for the democratic process. I do not, however, feel they get a free pass on the crap they pulled. I believe they should be held accountable in large part so no party thinks they can get away with these tactics in the future.

Andrew said...

By the way, I agree with you. They show no indication that they have learned anything in this past election. I expect them to continue to proceed as usual.

Anonymous said...

Also consider this: the GOP is completely dependent upon liars to state their fraudulent case,(e.g. Rush/O'Reily/Coulter et al.), and on foreigners to broadcast it, (Murdoch's Fox Corp and NY Post, Moonies Washington Times etc.).

Robert Parry at Consortium News just did a piece on "Messiah" Moon's purchase of influence in the GOP. It is estimated that he has spent $3 billion of DRUG MONEY to prop up the Washington Times. Murdoch has also dumped over a billion dollars to keep the Post afloat.

Isn't it strange that the party claiming to be champions of the free market and protectors of America would knowingly embrace billions in drug money to subsidize media that lacks sufficient audience to be independently viable?