Reply #347: The whole point of transparency in government is that the people don't know what may or may not

[No Elephants]

affect them if things are kept secret. Therefore, the presumption has to be in favor of letting the people know what is going on (at their expense) and let them decide. Besides, Obama ran on transparency, so his efforts (and there have been more than one) to preserve the secrecy of Bushco, the most secretive administration in American history, are not only anti-democratic, but go to his credibility.

Gannon was given a press pass that many legitimate and respectable journalists could not get, so he could lob softball questions to Bush during press conferences. Didn't the public have a right to know that what it seemed to be seeing during televised press conferences was as phony as it could be?

Secrecy is justified only when absolutely necessary to protect the physical safety of the American people. Embarrassment to the President is not the standard. To the contrary, we have a right to know almost everything about people who ask us to vote for them so they can become rich and powerful on our dime.