Analysis: White House Likes Its Secrets

WASHINGTON -- The White House's limited offer of documents and interviews in the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys fits its track record of secrecy.

From the time he walked into the Oval Office, President Bush has tried to tighten the government's hold on information and restrict public scrutiny. He says he's defending the executive branch from encroachment by overzealous lawmakers and needs to make sure that he and the presidents who follow him have the chance to get confidential advice from advisers.

That push to strengthen the powers of the presidency and clamp down on public disclosure, however, is now contributing to lawmakers' wariness of the White House's latest offer in the U.S. attorney dispute.

"There is no doubt that the Democrats in Congress are strengthened by their perception of public opinion, which appears to be that the White House has not been forthcoming on this and other issues," said Karl Racine, a former associate White House counsel who advised President Clinton and members of his staff on civil and criminal investigation matters.

Critics of the Bush White House's penchant toward secrecy point to: Bush's executive order restricting the public release of the papers of past presidents; his move just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to clamp down on the declassification of government documents; and the fight, all the way to the Supreme Court, to keep secret closed-door meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

They criticize Bush's refusal to allow then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify before the panel investigating the 9/11 attacks (though he eventually relented in the face of bipartisan pressure). And they disapprove of Bush authorizing programs to eavesdrop on Americans' international communications with suspected terrorists without warrants. He acknowledged them only after news reports revealed their existence.

"I think the White House is now reaping what it has sowed by its high-handed approach to congressional requests for information," said Steven Aftergood, who runs the government secrecy project for the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists.

Bush has made what the White House describes as a take-it-or-leave-it, final offer to resolve the standoff over whether eight U.S. attorneys were improperly fired _ or for political reasons, as some Democrats suggest.

In what he called a very reasonable proposal, the president offered to make key aides available for private interviews not conducted under oath or transcribed. He also said he would release all White House documents and e-mails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any outside person, including members of Congress, on this issue.

Demanding fuller disclosure, Democrats want Bush advisers to answer questions publicly, under oath, and provide in-house documents, not just communications between White House and non-West Wingers.

Congress is going to have access to all the facts, "so I don't understand how that's stonewalling," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday in response to Democratic criticism.

So far, Congress is not buying Bush's argument. A House subcommittee authorized subpoenas for political adviser Karl Rove and other top White House aides. A Senate committee is ready to follow suit on Thursday.