Contact the White House? Don't bother

If you think the government ignores you when you want to know something, imagine how WorldNetDaily columnist Jerome Corsi must feel. His best-seller "Unfit for Command," exposing John Kerry's Vietnam war record, contributed handily to President Bush's 2004 re-election bid. Yet in 2007, Corsi's continued investigative reporting has turned up some shocking allegations about Bush's activities as president – and now the White House won't give him the time of day.

The following WorldNetDaily articles written by Corsi just in the last month – along with their corresponding presidential brush-offs – underscore my point:

TRENDING: Poll: Stunning number say Biden suffers 'cognitive ailment'

• In an almost unanimous vote, Congress rejected DOT's plan to allow uninspected Mexican trucks into the U.S. But, Corsi writes, "The White House and the Department of Transportation declined to comment for this column."

• According to an article aptly tagged "Bush makes power grab," the president reserved near-dictatorial powers for himself without congressional approval should he decide a "national emergency" exists. But, according to Corsi, "The White House had no comment."

• The president also allegedly contracted a Texas firm to build detention facilities on U.S. soil, presumably also in preparation for some unspecified emergency, again bypassing Congress. But, Corsi reports, "The White House declined comment on the initial WND story and has not yet responded to the story or to my previous column on the subject."

Declined comment? I don't know about you, but if I were president and accused of suspicious activities on that level, I would be falling all over myself to set the record straight.

But, secure in his lame-duck smugness, President Bush clearly places his desire to rule above the people's right to object. Understandably, some information can't be divulged in wartime to protect national security. But why is it that, as news stories about his actions become more and more incredible, the president becomes less and less accountable?

A request for information I made last month, for instance, hardly constituted a security risk.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones apparently had offended his host country by not attending its Jerusalem Reunification Day celebration May 15. (Jerusalem Reunification Day marked the 40th anniversary of the liberation of East Jerusalem from Jordanian occupation.) Not exactly earth-shaking, but this seemed a peculiar way for us to treat an old ally, especially during wartime, and I wanted to understand.

Jones's snub was very sparsely reported in the mainstream media. Perhaps it was seen as just another tradeoff of Israel for cheaper oil and a respite from terror attacks, or as one more baby step on our inevitable trek to the New World Order. But whatever the reason, it did not sit well with me.

Why was our country boycotting this event? I asked in my e-mail to the White House press secretary's office. When was the decision made? Who gave the order? Did it have anything to do with pressure from the Saudi government? Did it have anything to do with the "Palestinians," who also claim Jerusalem as their capital? Was it because they might become upset with us? Does this mean we should also discontinue celebrating our Independence Day because some aliens also claim our country as their state of "Aztlan," and they might become upset with us as well? Could you please explain the difference?

Although no e-mail response was received, a month later a paper form letter from the White House arrived at my street address, which, interestingly, I had not provided in my e-mail.

"On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence about the current situation in the Middle East," the letter read.

"President Bush's vision for the Middle East is guided by the clear principle that all people in the region deserve to live safe from terrorism and under a democratic and honest government. He also believes that people who live in freedom are more likely to reject terrorism. The President has pledged that America will be an active partner of every party that seeks true peace.

"For more information on this developing situation, please visit the White House website at whitehouse.gov/infocus/mideast. Thank you again for writing, and best wishes."

I visited the White House page as requested. There, under a photograph of President Bush shaking hands with the "Terrorist in a Tie," Mahmoud Abbas, were excerpts from a September 2006 Bush speech with vague references to "terrorism," "extremism" and "the enemy." But not a hint of our ally Israel, its eternal capital Jerusalem, Jerusalem Reunification Day, or any answers to my questions.

So, I guess, the lesson is this: If you are waiting on U.S. bureaucrats to get back to you about issues they don't particularly want to discuss, don't hold your breath. Read the nice website they put up for you and don't ask so many questions. Be mindful of your lowly taxpayer status and don't expect to have access to the president or his staff just because you helped put them into office. Jerome Corsi apparently doesn't have access to them, either, so at least you are being ignored in distinguished company.

Related special offer:

"Roadmap To Nowhere"

Marylou Barry is a journalist and Christian Zionist with a special interest in the Middle East. Visit her blog, Marylou's America.