Absent legitimate matters of national security, absolutely. These behind doors consultations have a direct bearing on public policy.
And as I've heard here so very often - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
What went on "behind doors" resulted in the President's Energy Plan - which you can still read at the White House web site.
It's all there for you to see. If there is a particular item in the plan, are you saying that you would agree with it or oppose it, not on its merits, but based on who on Cheney's panel proposed it?
And as I've heard here so very often - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
You usually hold the position that that statement is nonsense, but suddenly you’ve embraced it to try to make your point.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
Since he is beholden to his shareholders, he cannot express that opinion publicly, though he may sincerely believe it and he may be absolutely correct.
I think government officials need to hear those opinions.
If the government then makes policy decisions based on that input, they can state their reasons for it, without any negative impact on those from the private sector who offered their expert advice.
The elected official needs to be held accountable for policy decisions, not those private citizens who offer their opinions about it.
Come on, in todays world if you give the libs one line in a 20,000 word document that they can use against you it will appear as a headline in the New York Times.
I refer you to the 9/11 Commission report, a public document where they've done just that.
There was no "secret" meetings, just private. This allows for candid conversation.
The Energy task force put out a 69 page list of recommendations, what the Dems want is every scrape of info that went into developing the report. Do you really think they want this for any other reason than to squeal about Halliburton, Enron, etc. They just want the Bush Admin to give them the knife with which they can stab them. I say none of their business, judge the product, not the process. IMHO.
National security was one potential issue here, but I suspect the bigger reason for the secrecy was that many of these discussions revolved around proprietary energy technology that belongs to private companies and shouldn't be revealed to the public for obvious reasons.