Bush's Veil Over History - New York Times
The New York Times

October 10, 2005

Bush's Veil Over History
By KITTY KELLEY

Washington

SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush
presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil
executives
who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting
photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the
release
of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice
Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is
permitted
to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look
almost transparent.

But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when
President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former
president's private
papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president
(or his heirs) and the current one.

Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the
release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which
stipulated
that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be
made available 12 years after a president left office.

Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he
did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan
did
in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12
years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed
paperwork
in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.)

Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all
his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access
to
documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last
days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised
questions
and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to
know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is
there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current
president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant?

The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act
also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National
Archives
from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might
have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played
by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush.

What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive
orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders
in chief.
But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by
Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it
came
to her own husband's papers.)

Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic.
Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly
introduced legislation
to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican
Congress defying a Republican president are slim.

There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other
academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the
District
of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to
ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan
and elder
Bush administrations.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see
to it that their administrations pass into history without examination.
Their
rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There
will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to
condone
torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with
public welfare during times of national disaster - 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina
- will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically
connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the
president's
role in Environmental Protection Agency's policies on water and air
polluters.

This is about much more than the desires of historians and biographers - the
best interests of the nation are at stake. As the American Political Science
Association, one plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, put it: "The only way we
can improve the operation of government, enhance the accountability of
decision-makers
and ultimately help maintain public trust in government is for people to
understand how it worked in the past."

Kitty Kelley is the author of "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush
Dynasty."

Posted by Miriam V.