[Changleen]

Or more accurately - Bush caves in under growing pressure to give his side of the pre 9/11 story....

www.washingtonpost.com
David S. Broder - Columnist

Bush's Surrender

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A31


When President Bush appeared momentarily on Tuesday afternoon in the White House briefing room, he came to announce a surrender. After weeks of resistance, he had capitulated to the growing political pressure for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to give the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 tragedy her sworn public testimony.

Bush's surrender came nine days after his former top counterterrorism aide, Richard Clarke, had fired a missile into the heart of Bush's proudest boast -- and the main plank of his reelection campaign -- by charging the president with indifference to the threat of terrorism before Sept. 11.

For nine days the White House and its allies did everything in their power to discredit Clarke, while trying to shield his old boss, Rice, from the commission's unanimous request that she give sworn public testimony in response to Clarke's stunning indictment.

When the effort to shoot the messenger failed to halt the political erosion, Bush did what he never should have done: He threw Rice to the commission. And, worse, he failed to do what he could have done long before: Offer the American people and the world a clear, coherent and detailed account of his own activities and state of mind in the months leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Instead of acting as the man in charge and saying to the commission, "No, you may not put my national security adviser on the mat, but I will answer to the public for what happened," he did just the opposite. He gave up Rice and then turned on his heel and walked out of the briefing room even as reporters were trying to ask him questions.

At a time when the American people -- and the world -- desperately need reassurance that the government was not asleep at the switch, Bush has clenched his jaw and said nothing that would ease those concerns. Instead, he has arranged that when he answers the commission's questions in a yet-to-be-scheduled private session, he will not face it alone. He and Vice President Cheney will appear together. It will be interesting to learn who furnishes most of the answers.

Bush was on sound constitutional ground in rejecting calls for Rice's testimony. The right of a president to receive candid advice from his staff members -- and to shield them from being second-guessed by officials of the legislative branch or their designees -- is fundamental. Cabinet members, because they are confirmed by the Senate and their departments are financed by Congress, do have a responsibility to respond to such inquiries. But the president's men and women have only one obligation: to give him their best judgment. Some quit and go public, as Clarke did, when they no longer can support his policies.

Ironically, the president had spoken in Appleton, Wis., on the morning of his surrender. Appleton was the hometown of the late Joe McCarthy. And it was Dwight Eisenhower, in resisting McCarthy's efforts to intimidate executive-branch employees, who gave strong voice to the doctrine of executive privilege, which Bush has now weakened.

He received a fig leaf concession from the commission and leaders of Congress -- the statement that Rice's appearance would not be treated as a precedent but simply as an acknowledgment of the special circumstances and vast public interest in unraveling the Sept. 11 tragedy. But a precedent it is -- and it certainly will be cited the next time a congressional committee or commission wants to go fishing for revelations from the White House.

It is not much of a model of leadership.

I pretty much agree with the Author - Bush is throwing Condi to the lions and hoping her faith in herself and the job won't betray him - Opinions?

I'm also interested to see if she has some amazing rebutal of what Clark said - to be honest I'm expecting some sort of trump card claim against Clark's testimony - although I will reserve judgement on who is 'more believable' for a while...

 

[stevew]

Oddly enough, I belive Ckark refused to testify in front of the same type of panel citing the same reason Bush/Rice did.

I believe it was somewhere around 1999/Y2K nonsense,

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
I pretty much agree with the Author - Bush is throwing Condi to the lions and hoping her faith in herself and the job won't betray him - Opinions?

i don't so much agree that he lacks leadership b/c of this. In fact, this is not only a bold move, but a calculated & confident one. Additionally, this is a mark of his sincerity in restoring our nation's confidence in their leadership as well. A lot of folks need to see that now. There will always be the crowd that will be suspicious of anything the sitting president does, and their voice will be heard, too.

Originally posted by Changleen
I'm also interested to see if she has some amazing rebutal of what Clark said - to be honest I'm expecting some sort of trump card claim against Clark's testimony - although I will reserve judgement on who is 'more believable' for a while...

well, there is this reported in the wash times a couple days back:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.

Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
source

...which is troubling b/c if the clinton administration did make terrorism a top priority (vs bush's "back-burnering" it), then how did this most catastrophic event get pulled off with 250 days of planning, pilot training, mock-ups, & coordination? Furthermore, if bush didn't have terrorism as a top priority, how did we implement so successfully a response to thwart more events on the heels of this one? I say if this administration was asleep at the switch, we could have had our back broken in a month.

as far as trump cards go, these would be tempting to use (but don't expect them)

• clarke's publisher & 60 minutes are owned by the same people, compromising objectivity for interview
• al-qaeda bombed the US embassies in kenya & tanzania during the clinton administration
• play the tape of an Aug 2002 briefing by clarke

  Clarke: (T)he Clinton administration had . . . a number of issues on the table since 1998. . . . (T)he Bush administration decided . . . mid-January (2001), to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings. . . . The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. . . . (The Bush administration) decided in principle . . . in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda. (The Bush administration) changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course (of) five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. . . . (T)he Bush administration changed -- began to change Pakistani policy, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started . . .
  
  Question: What you're saying is that . . . there was no delay, and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
  
  Clarke: You got it. That's right. . . . President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of rollback to one of elimination.

i don't think these 3 things off the top of my head are subject to believability - they're absolutely verifiable - and beyond "he said, she said".

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i don't so much agree that he lacks leadership b/c of this. In fact, this is not only a bold move, but a calculated & confident one. .

not necesarily a bold and confident move means good leadership.

 

[Changleen]

(Apologies for tardy reply - got sh*t on at work today and your post deserves a good reply)

Right then:

In fact, this is not only a bold move, but a calculated & confident one. Additionally, this is a mark of his sincerity in restoring our nation's confidence in their leadership as well. A lot of folks need to see that now.

From my inner-republican, I totally agree. It IS a bold move, it WILL appear to restore confidence, it is NOT required by law;
Bush could turn around and say: 'No, it's not legally necassary' but he has chosen to be 'honest' about it - at least on the face of things. I really don't feel it'd be right to judge until we see what condi says. My inner Democrat tells me it might well be a brush off that's full of half truth and bull****. I really think we should wait and see what she says.

There will always be the crowd that will be suspicious of anything the sitting president does, and their voice will be heard, too.

I try not to be part of them, but with GW it's sometimes hard not to be... 'Must.. be.. non-partisan... URGH'

As for your examples of 'Trumps' - yeah - they're all good roads to go down for people who are willing to dig into the situation a little, but for 'Fox News at 6' (or whenever Fox has their news) I feel they might be a little convoluted. The public need soundbites.

(BTW I can see the weakness in my own argument here) but I feel Clarks accusation can be easily summed up into: 'Pres was lax on terror before 9/11!' - A (relativley) complicated rebutal of that is going to look like spin in most people's eyes. To be honest, I'm sure the truth (as normal) lies somwhere between our poles, but I feel Clark has the upper hand right now. Like I said I am intrigued to see what Condi is gonna say...

Just to be complete:

1) clarke's publisher & 60 minutes are owned by the same people, compromising objectivity for interview
2) al-qaeda bombed the US embassies in kenya & tanzania during the clinton administration
3) play the tape of an Aug 2002 briefing by clarke

1) Yup, to be sure it's obviously finacially motivated, and politically calculated, but that doesn't mean it necassarily untrue.

2) True. As Jay Leno said (OMG I'm quoting Jay Leno ): The Bush administration blames the Clinton administration for 9/11, the Clinton administration blames the Bush administration - how come no one blames the bin Laden administration?' - The Al Quaeda threat is ongoing and current. I think the rea question that Clark is trying to ask is 'Why didn't the Bush administration make it No. 1 priority, from day 1?' and Clarks answer is that Bush had a bee up his arse about Iraq (from Daddy) and that wasn't the right way to handle the problem.

3)Yeah, there is no 'Good' and 'Evil' here, just grey and greyer. You choose who's the greyist for yourself.

Like I said, let's see what Condi says.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Changleen
From my inner-republican, I totally agree. It IS a bold move, it WILL appear to restore confidence, it is NOT required by law;
Bush could turn around and say: 'No, it's not legally necassary' but he has chosen to be 'honest' about it - at least on the face of things. I really don't feel it'd be right to judge until we see what condi says. My inner Democrat tells me it might well be a brush off that's full of half truth and bull****. I really think we should wait and see what she says.

we may never know the truth, but that won't stop anybody from believing what they want. Did i say "they"? I also mean "I".

Originally posted by Changleen
The public need soundbites.

and soundbites we'll get.

Originally posted by Changleen
2) True. As Jay Leno said (OMG I'm quoting Jay Leno ): The Bush administration blames the Clinton administration for 9/11, the Clinton administration blames the Bush administration - how come no one blames the bin Laden administration?'

you just know al-queda is ROFL at this circus. But hey, it's the democratic process. Makes for a hard sell when this crap is ongoing.