They've Got a Secret -- Lots, Actually
By Dana Milbank | Washington Post
Tuesday, May 21, 2002; Page A15
Since President Bush took office, the press and members of Congress have complained about his
administration's extraordinary secrecy -- and the American public has yawned.
But last week's flap, over what Bush was told in August about Osama bin Laden's designs to hijack
American airplanes, may be different. Americans don't blame the president for doing too little to prevent an
attack, but they are displeased that the White House sat on the information for eight months. In a USA
Today/CNN poll, 68 percent said the administration should have disclosed this information earlier.
The guarding of the hijacking information for eight months -- and acknowledging it only after a leak --
brought predictable outrage from Democrats, who had been urged by the White House to postpone and
restrict probes. "Why was it not provided to us, and why was it not shared with the general public for the
last eight months?" Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) demanded.
Even allies were critical. Conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that "in a sense, Bush and his
team have themselves to blame" because of a "passion for secrecy." Had they agreed early on to a
commission investigating Sept. 11, he wrote, it "might have revealed in orderly fashion what is being leaked
piecemeal -- fueling conspiracy theories and aiding irresponsible Democratic members of Congress."
For the Bush White House, this has become a common tale. By declining to share information in public
or with Congress, it gives the impression it is covering something up when the information inevitably
dribbles out -- thus provoking congressional hostility and disproportionate media attention.
First came Vice President Cheney's energy task force. More than a year ago, White House officials
declined media requests for names of outside groups with which the task force had met. Environmental
groups filed lawsuits, and members of Congress asked the General Accounting Office to investigate. The
resulting GAO lawsuit against Cheney, scheduled for September, guarantees that a story that might have
expired in a day will last at least 18 months.
Next came the probes of Enron's collapse. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, sent the White House a letter requesting information about contacts
between the failed energy trader and the White House. Bush aides declined to provide the information.
Lieberman will ask his committee on Wednesday to issue subpoenas to the White House demanding the
information -- further extending the life of the Enron story.
The administration "has a real penchant for secrecy," Lieberman said over the weekend. "But you know,
in this city, in this time, very little remains secret. And if you don't put it out yourself, it's going to come out,
and people are going to wonder why you didn't put it out."
At the same time, the White House has been engaged in a nasty spat with both Democrats and
Republicans over whether Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge must testify. The standoff has fueled a
series of news stories and efforts in Congress to give Ridge Cabinet status -- so he can be called to testify
at will.
Now comes the eight-month gap in telling the public about al Qaeda's interest in airplanes. The episode
is consistent with Bush's earlier effort to keep the intelligence committees from receiving counterterrorism
briefings.
The White House shows no sign of changing. Cheney said he still opposes an independent
commission, and he said the Aug. 6 presidential security briefing mentioning bin Laden and hijackings
would not be given to congressional intelligence committees. They cannot be trusted with what Cheney
calls "the family jewels."
Bush's allies have no trouble defending his actions before Sept. 11, but more difficulty rationalizing the
delay in releasing the information. Asked about the delay, former Bush campaign adviser Ed Gillespie said:
"It may take a while to explain it."
So far, the White House has contended that the hijacking information wasn't significant enough to
share. "You know, frankly, it didn't pop to the front of people's minds, because it's one report among very,
very many that you get," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ventured. White House press
secretary Ari Fleischer suggested security reasons. "It's always a balance between information that is
classified, information that deals with sources and methods," he said.
Clinton administration veterans, who learned the hard way about the futility of holding back information,
said that explanation won't wash. "Once that cynicism deepens that you're not getting the straight story
out, you can be in a world of hurt pretty quick," said former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta.
Bush and his loyalists believe the public's longstanding indifference to charges of administration
secrecy will continue. "I don't think it's uppermost in people's mind," said Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a
Bush point man on the Hill.
While Portman says the White House's secrecy is grounded in a good principle -- strengthening
executive powers that have been eroded in recent decades -- "it's hard to explain in a country where most
of us are instinctively for disclosure. Maybe there could be some critical mass that builds up where through
some television ads it becomes more of a political issue."
Battle-scarred Clinton hands say it's just a matter of time.
CC |
