Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Government Transparency

Isn't that a quaint phrase?

I don't think I'm an especially ignorant person. But I wasn't familiar with Council for National Policy until Jon Stewart brought it up on The Daily Show last night. I think it's unbelievably alarming that the mainstream press is so obsessed with Britney, OJ and GOP perverts that they don't have time to cover the people who are actually determining what direction we are headed as a country. Why aren't they covering the activities of the man machine individual who might very well be running our country?

Apparently Dick Cheney had a top secret meeting with the CNP on September 29th in Utah. Supposedly there were 300 or 400 people there, but no one is supposed to know what happened inside those walls. Presumably, the American taxpayer paid for Dick's travel expenses and the Salt Lake City taxpayers paid for security.

I think if we're paying for this crap, we ought to know what's going on. What was discussed at these meetings? With whom was Dick speaking? Or even more frighteningly, to whom was he listening? Who the hell is setting our policy?

7 comments:

davidm. said...

I don't think the Council for National Policy is funded by public money.



To answer your last question: Irving Kristol, NWO think tanks, and Haliburton.

alice said...

But Cheney's activities with CNP are certainly funded by the taxpayer. We pay for his travel, his security, and local cities pay for the cops that have to show up where ever he does.

alice said...

And as for the second part, the stomach turns...

davidm. said...

fair enough. but my attitude is that if cheney wants to go bump nasties with the christian right on the public dime that's way better than going to iraq/iran on the public dime.



and really i just wanted to use the phrase "bump nasties with the christian right"

alice said...

Oh, God. Thanks for that image. Now I'm going to have nightmares.

josiah said...

brings back the college memories... *sigh*

ted said...

Well, the organization can't be terribly effective if they think that backing a third party candidate will result in them gaining power. They don't sound worrisome to me, just silly. And how secretive can you be if you have a secret meeting and the Times reports what happened a day later.