George Bush bungled the defense of America, then lied to justify invading Iraq; now all America is hearing the truth.
By Regis T. Sabol
Although trouble has been brewing for the Bush regime since the beginning of the year as former Bush aides, government insiders, and even Congressional Republicans have debunked most of its policies and alleged achievements, the latest bombshell has struck with the force of a smart bomb exploding on one of Saddam Husseinâs palaces.
Richard Clarke Steps Forward
What has rocked the Bush White House are allegations by former National Security Council counter-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke that the Bush team might have prevented the catastrophic terrorist attacks of 9/11 and, worse yet, that Bush and his warlords decided the day after 9/11 to use the attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq despite abundant evidence that Saddam had nothing to do with them.
Clarke made the charges in his just released book, Against All Enemies, and in a 30-minute interview with Leslie Stahl of CBSâs revered news program Sixty Minutes. According to the Washington Post, 16 million viewers watched the interview as Clarke, who served for ten years as a top White House official in four administrations, revealed how little Bush and his advisors did to prevent an attack by Al Qaeda and how they immediately jumped on the attack as the excuse they were waiting for to go after Iraq. When one considers the demographics of the programâs viewers--over 30, aware of current events, and active voters, that spells serious trouble for the Bush campaign.
Clarke didnât mince words.
âFrankly,â he told Stahl, âI find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that heâs done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe Weâll never know. I think heâs done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.â
Ouch!
These revelations are particularly damaging because they undercut the only category in which the public approves of Bushâs performance, his alleged leadership in the war on terrorism. According to all recent polls, almost 70 percent of the American public believes Bush is doing a good job in the war on terror. By contrast, most Americans donât like his economic policies, believe heâs in bed with big business, and are now even questioning his handling of the ongoing war in Iraq.
Clarke, a registered Republican who former Clinton Administration aides described as a âhawk,â claimed Bush and his team jumped all over him to come up with evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks. When Clarke pointed out that the CIA, FBI, and White House staffs had already thoroughly investigated any potential link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and found none, Bush told him for a third time and in no uncertain terms, âLook into Iraq, Saddam.â
In a moment worthy of Stanley Kubrickâs Dr. Strangelove, Clark described when the day after 9/11 he ârealized with almost a sharp physical pain that ⦠Rumsfeld and [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq.â Rumsfeld recommended that we bomb Iraq. When Clarke pointed out that Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban, Rumsfeld countered that there were no decent targets in Afghanistan âand that we should consider bombing Iraq.â
Even more damaging is Clarkeâs assessment of how little the Bush team did to counter the threat posed by Al Qaeda, despite ample warnings even before they took office. Clintonâs National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told Rice in no uncertain terms that the number one threat to the security of the nation was Al Qaeda. Clinton aides provided the incoming administration with reams of documentation about the seriousness of the threat Al Qaeda posed.
Clarke, himself, asked for an urgent Cabinet-level meeting on Al Qaeda during Bushâs first week in office. Not only was he turned down, he was denied permission to brief Bush for nearly eight months. It was all Saddam all the time. According to Clark, Rice had never heard of Al Qaeda before. And she was the new National Security Advisor! During a meeting in April, Wolfowitz demanded to know âwhy we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.â Duh?
When Clarkeâs allegations became the big news story of the week, the White House went into denial before launching into its now familiar smear campaign against the wicked messenger. No sense going into the ugly details since all of the charges have been proved false by independent witnesses who support Clarkeâs version of events.
9/11 Commission Speaks
Starting yesterday, things have gotten even more ugly for Bush & Co with top officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and Richard Clarke himself, testifying in public before the independent panel investigating the war on terrorism and 9/11 in particular. They are laying out what the Bush Administration did do, what it did not do, and most important, what it should have done.
Conspicuous in their absence will be key advisors to the president, particularly Rice, who has refused to testify. Bush, himself, grudgingly agreed to âtalk withâ the co-chairs of the investigation commission, but he, too, has refused to testify under oath.
The obvious question arises: Why does Rice refuse to testify in public about what the administration knew about impending attacks by Al Qaeda and when the administration knew it? Moreover, why will she not reveal what the White House did in the immediate wake of the attacks? This is information the American public deserves to know.
The White Houseâs defense for barring Riceâs testimony is âexecutive privilegeâ that might compromise national security. Thatâs the same excuse Dick Cheney is using for refusing to tell us for three years just who was on that energy policy committee he established. That case is now going before the Supreme Court, one of whose justices, Antonin Scalia, went on a duck hunting trip with Cheney a month ago but refuses to recuse himself from the case. Scaliaâs response was, âQuack! Quack!â Profound words from an august member of the highest court in the land. Richard Nixon also used the claim of executive privilege to hide the high crimes and misdemeanor that toppled his presidency. So did Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush when Congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal.
Whether or not Rice testifies, the Bush regime is now damned if it does and damned if it doesnât. Should Rice and others testify, the American public will find out just how badly they have bungled the war on terror and the bogus invasion of Iraq. If they continue to stonewall the commission, more and more Americans are going to want to know why.
If they donât get an answer, theyâll provide their own in November.
