This Secretive Administration

"Reveal not every secret you have to a friend, for how can you tell but that friend may hereafter become an enemy. And bring not all mischief you are able to upon an enemy, for he may one day become your friend." ~ Saadi

There's been a lot of speculation lately in regards to this administration's policy of secrecy. Many of President Bush's opponents are declaring that the Bush Administration is the most secretive of any administration in history.

They say that like it's a bad thing.

Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying words to that effect recently in the wake of the Dick Cheney non-issue involving his unfortunate hunting accident. Aside from the fact that as first lady, she was involved in quite a bit of secret behind the scenes shenanagins in her own right, it would seem to me that perhaps a little secrecy wouldn't be such a bad thing right now, in light of the fact that we are at war.

Yes, I know that the Democrats will be quick to point out that the war we are in currently is an undeclared war. That is a semantical point that could be argued ad infinitum. Democrats may say war was never declared, and Republicans can make the valid point that a declaration of war is implied when the Congress voted to authorize the use of force in the effort to subdue Saddam Hussein and by so doing, neutralize what can be argued to be a threat to the United States.

I don't intend to address that argument today.

Digression aside, my point is this: During any conflict between America and any combatants, whether uniformed or non-uniformed, secrecy is necessary in keeping the enemy unaware of what our future moves will be.



I made the point in a post some time back that there is truth in the adage, "Loose lips sink ships", which was a popular slogan during World war II. It means we shouldn't reveal anything to anybody anything that could, in any way, compromise the outcome or the execution of any armed conflict in which we happen to find ourselves involved.

Democrats will find themselves agreeing with that statement as long as we are talking about leaking the name of a CIA employee. And as long as the one who leaked the information was a Republican. In the Valerie Plame case, they are sticking to their story that a law was broken, even though it has been firmly established that Valerie Plame was not covert at the time of said "outing", and as such, could not have been outed. Non covert agents are not protected from being identified.

But where is the Democrats outrage at the leaking of secret information regarding how the security forces in our country go about the very important task of gathering intelligence information about known enemies? Enemies that have publicly stated their goal of killing every man, woman and child in the United States?

There are no Democrats calling for an investigation of how the New York Times came to have classified secret information about the NSA surveillance of enemy communications within and without the borders of the United States.

Not only is there no outrage, they have mounted an all out assault on the President for daring to try to use intelligence gathering in an attempt to protect this country from further 9/11 type attacks, or worse.

The only thing all this political shoving match during a time of war will get us is a very possible attack by our enemies. I can just see bin-Laden now, waiting until America's attention is diverted away from National security, as Republicans scramble to acquiesce to the Democrats incessant demands that we immediately cease and desist arrantly wiretapping, and put the program on hold long enough to appease the Democrats.

He might even be hoping to get all the Congress together in one place so he can bomb the Capitol, while the two parties are engaged in debating the importance of secret wiretaps, and whether it is legal to know in advance if we are going to be attacked again or not.

It just seems to me, that if we are allowed no more secrets, there may soon be no Americans left to worry about whether the Government is listening into their phone calls to Aunt Emma and Uncle Clyde.

I think secrecy is a good thing. What if we hadn't allowed our security forces to spy on Germany and Japan in World War II? What if we had declared the way we attained information about our enemies was illegal in World War I?

Do you realize that had it not been for a Union soldier fortuitously finding a secret plan that had been carelessly discarded by one of General Lee's aides, the Union may not have defeated the Confederacy in the war between the states?

What if some opportunistic political foe of the President had cried foul and pressured President Lincoln to ignore what the soldier had found, and even insisted in prosecuting the hapless snoop, because he obtained the document without first getting a warrant?

Perhaps this great country of ours would now be known as the Confederated States of America and we would still own slaves.

Now, project that same scenario, but with the added advantage of modern technology, into todays debates about secrecy in the Administration. Are President Bush's opponents absolutely sure they want full disclosure of what we are doing to protect this country?

Yes, I believe there is something to be said in favor of secrecy in matters of national security, and in some other things, as well.

I think there are just some things I don't need to know.