Cheney pulls a Goreism

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxx>]

< http://news.independent.co.uk >
Pressure building on Bush to reveal his energy advisers
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
08 August 2001

A United States government watchdog is poised to take legal action
against the Bush administration over its refusal to divulge the names
of advisers secretly consulted before the announcement of its
controversial energy policy.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) - the investigative wing of the
Congress - has insisted it has a right to know the membership of the
national energy policy development group.

This group discussed various options before Dick Cheney, the
Vice-President, announced in May an energy policy package that
included drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in
Alaska.

Last month, the GAO sent Mr Cheney a "demand" requesting details of
the group, which is known to include a number of executives from oil
companies. It was the first time a president or vice-president had
ever been sent such a letter by the watchdog.

Mr Cheney has since continually refused to provide the information. In
a letter to David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, he said the
request exceeded his lawful authority and "would unconstitutionally
interfere with the functioning of the executive branch".

The GAO is now considering the unusual option of issuing a legal
challenge to the administration, which environmentalists claim gave
the energy industry lobby too much involvement in the drafting of the
policy document.

"The GAO firmly believes it has a clear statutory authority to perform
this review and to obtain the information we are seeking," the
watchdog said in a statement.

If the President decides the information was part of the White House's
"deliberative processes" he could "certify" it, to prevent it being
released. The next step would be a formal report by the GAO followed
by a possible writ.

Henry Waxman, a Democratic Congressman and member of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee said of the secret advisers: "They want
immunity from scrutiny. They're distorting the law to shield them from
routine oversight and in the process trivialising and demeaning the
constitutional prerogatives available to the President."