From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the U.S. government. After Sept. 11, 2001, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits -- Americans, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: More and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution -- yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science -- to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When General Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a CIA operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former top counterterrorism expert and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On CBS television's "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Vice President Dick Cheney, who also says that Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11 Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did Attorney General John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority -- it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" -- just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the FBI requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after al-Qaida, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Brookings Institution scholar Kenneth Pollack told the public television program "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism ... should target Iraq first." Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: More and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution -- yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science -- to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When General Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a CIA operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former top counterterrorism expert and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On CBS television's "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Vice President Dick Cheney, who also says that Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11 Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did Attorney General John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority -- it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" -- just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the FBI requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after al-Qaida, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Brookings Institution scholar Kenneth Pollack told the public television program "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism ... should target Iraq first." Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.