Unnecessary White House secrecy does a disservice to the millions of citizens whose informed vigilance could be a crucial asset in the war against terrorism.

The American tradition of open, representative government should not become a casualty of the war on terrorism. The Bush administration deserves the patience and support of the American people as it navigates an uncharted course in responding to an unprecedented threat to our security. As that response unfolds, the White House occasionally will have legitimate reason to keep information secret from other government officials and the American people. In several instances, however, the White House already has been unnecessarily secretive. This war, particularly as it relates to homeland security, will require the informed involvement of all citizens.

Even in times of war, criticism of White House policy is not necessarily partisan, much less unpatriotic. In fact, some of the most pointed criticism of Bush administration secretiveness has come from prominent Republicans generally allied with the president.

Consider these recent disagreements:

Top Republican officials in New York say they should have been made aware of intelligence reports last October -- later determined to be unfounded -- that terrorists were planning to smuggle a nuclear weapon into New York City.

Republican Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York City at the time, says that if White House officials were aware of such a threat, "then I should have been notified, the New York Police Department should have been notified, the governor should have been notified, and the state police should have been notified, at a minimum, and maybe others."

George Pataki, New York's Republican governor, says he and his staff had an "ongoing problem" getting necessary information from the federal government in the weeks following the Sept. 11 attacks. Pataki said it was "unfortunate" that he was not made aware of the nuclear threat.

Leading Senate Republicans have joined Democratic colleagues in criticizing the administration's refusal to make Tom Ridge, the director of homeland security, available to testify before a Senate committee considering the administration's request for $38-billion in additional spending for domestic security programs. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the committee's ranking Republican, and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., sent a letter to Ridge arguing that his testimony would be "critical to the committee and the nation."

Several congressional leaders said this week they had been unaware of the "shadow government" that has operated at a secure location outside Washington since Sept. 11. The White House's decision to put that contingency government into operation was prudent, but the failure to include other branches of the federal government in the process was a stunning stretch of executive authority.

Legitimate public debate of the war effort also is inhibited when defenders of the White House impugn the motives of those who offer even mild criticism of the administration. For example, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., and other Republicans piled on Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the other day. "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field?" Lott asked rhetorically. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who happens to be chairman of the committee leading the effort to elect Republicans to Congress this fall, even implied that Daschle is a traitor, accusing him of giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies.

And what was Daschle's sin? He told reporters last week that while the war on terrorism has been a success so far, continued success "is still somewhat in doubt," particularly if Osama bin Laden and other key al-Qaida leaders remain at large. That view is hardly controversial, much less unpatriotic.

Republican congressional leaders often were harshly critical of President Clinton's military decisions. They should know better than to try to squelch legitimate debate over President Bush's policies. To their credit, some prominent Republicans have defended Daschle and raised fair questions of their own. For example, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and respected Republican voice on foreign policy, said Daschle's comments were "appropriate," and he has raised his own concerns about the administration's inadequate consultation with Congress and our allies. Even Lott acknowledged that he had no advance knowledge of the administration's decision to send U.S. troops to Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

After meeting Wednesday with leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations and House International Relations committees, President Bush promised that his administration would do a better job of keeping Congress informed. And at a gathering of state and local officials in Orlando this week, Attorney General John Ashcroft promised to share the information those officials will need to carry out their duties in the domestic security effort. But Ashcroft stressed that "some information is best kept on a need-to-know basis."

That's certainly true. No one should question the suppression of information that could compromise the safety of our troops. But any administration heads down a treacherous path when it routinely withholds information even from congressional leaders, and from the millions of patriotic American citizens whose informed vigilance will be a crucial element of homeland security. The White House should show a little more trust in the people it is working to protect.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page