SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (257523)5/22/2002 12:21:35 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
George Will

May 22, 2002

Picking a blue-ribbon 9//11 commission

WASHINGTON--The Bush administration is in a quandary which is, as Washington quandaries so often are, partly self-inflicted. There is only one way out of the growing--tardily growing; by no means grown too large--controversy about investigating intelligence inadequacies prior to Sept. 11. The way out for the administration is to go through an investigation, and not one conducted by itself. Eleven days. That is how long it took President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor to appoint a blue-ribbon commission, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, to examine what was known, and what should have been, prior to Dec. 7, 1941.

More than 250 days have passed since Sept. 11. Last week, one of the most dispiriting in recent Washington history, the administration seemed surly and defensive regarding the inevitably rising tide of questions about governmental intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks.

Understandably, the administration was provoked by some Democrats' crassness in casting their questions in Watergate-era cadences--what did the president know and when did he know it? Actually, a blue-ribbon commission, concerning itself with all three branches of government, almost certainly would vindicate President Bush, who, after all, initiated the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing on the threat of al Qaeda operations in the United States.

The commission also would find that Congress has already begun correcting some problems--for example, belatedly funding modernization of FBI computers, more than 13,000 of which were too old to be compatible with crucial software last year. Given the rapid multiplication of new means of communication, from cell phones to the Internet, the commission should recommend revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978. The commission should evaluate judicial standards of probable cause when law enforcement agencies seek wiretaps, access to computer hard drives and bank records, and other forms of surveillance covered by Fourth Amendment privacy protections.

The commission should be balanced between Republicans and Democrats but should have an even number of members to underscore the assumption that its proceedings are not expected to be internally adversarial, producing party-line votes and requiring a tie-breaker. A commission of sufficient prestige can perhaps impart to its recommendations momentum that will overwhelm the institutional rivalries that can make national security a hostage to jurisdictional jealousies. So the co-chairmen of the commission should be former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Sen. Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat.

Shultz, who also was secretary of labor and of treasury and was the first head of the Office of Management and Budget, has had more high-level government experience than perhaps any American in history. And his memoir of his six and a half years running President Reagan's State Department, ``Turmoil and Triumph," contains this laconic sentence: ``Our knowledge of the Kremlin was thin, and the CIA, I found, was usually wrong about it.'' Nunn has a long-standing interest in a matter of increasing urgency: Russia's surplus nuclear weapons.

Sens. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat, and Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican, with considerable experience on the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees respectively, can represent the legislative branch. Former Sen. Jack Danforth, the Missouri Republican, having conducted the investigation of the 1993 Waco disaster, understands investigating government misadventures. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Indiana Democrat, served on the International Relations Committee for 34 years. Professor Donald Kagan of Yale, author of ``On the Origins of War,'' would bring a historian's understanding to the challenge of making retrospective judgments about events viewed through the lens of present knowledge.

The eighth and final member of the commission could be former Sen. Pat Moynihan. He was vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee--and in 1984 he resigned from it until CIA Director William Casey apologized for not informing the committee of CIA involvement in mining Nicaraguan harbors.

In his book ``Secrecy: The American Experience,'' Moynihan says it is an iron law of institutions that the ratio of unnecessary to necessary secrecy increases--including secrecy maintained by one part of the government against other parts. President Truman could have used the proof, contained in intercepted messages between the Soviet Union and its agents in America, of the espionage by Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs--but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept it from him.

Secrecy renders societies susceptible to epidemics of suspicion. A blue- ribbon commission would be immunization against such an epidemic, and would be preventive medicine against future failures. The administration and the nation need to go through it.

©2002 Washington Post Writers Group

townhall.com



To: calgal who wrote (257523)5/22/2002 1:00:32 AM
From: bonnuss_in_austin  Respond to of 769670
 
Dana Milbank | They've Got a Secret -- Lots, Actually

truthout.org

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.