by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 27, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

oing for the jugular, White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice lashed out at her former employee, veteran anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, whose new book and sworn testimony before the bipartisan Sept. 11 Commission dropped a bombshell on President Bush's lap. Despite Bin Laden's brazen suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Sept. 2000 in Yemen's port of Aden killing 17 sailors, Clark testified that the White House regarded the attack “as Clinton's problem,” viewing terrorism as “important” but not “urgent.” For a president whose strength is defense and national security, Clarke's testimony hurt Bush's credibility. But before Clarke uttered a word under oath, the White House already impeached the nation's foremost counter-terrorism expert, whose distinguished career spanned four administrations. Now on the defensive, the White House attacks the messenger.

      Refusing to testify before the 9/11 Commission, Rice ducked the chance to set the record straight, apparently distorted by Clarke, claiming that before Sept. 11 terrorism was low the White House priority list. Even with Bin Laden attacking the World Trade Center1993, it wasn't Bush's fault CIA Director George Tenet dropped the ball, declaring his toothless war on Bin Laden in 1998, following bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. With few assets on the ground, Tenet allowed Bin Laden to infiltrate U.S. borders. Rice expressed disbelief after 9/11, stating using passenger jets as missiles was unthinkable. She knew, along with former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Tenet, such threats were well documented. Squaring Rice's prior public remarks with possible discrepancies under oath, left White House worried about possible pitfalls under cross examination.

      Former Texas Supreme Court Justice and now White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales insisted that Rice's refusal to testify was purely on constitutional grounds. “It is important that these advisers not be compelled to testy publicly before congressional bodies such a the commission,” said Gonzales, asserting the same right of “executive privilege” used by Vice President Dick Cheney to prevent the General Accounting Office—the auditing wing of Congress—from examining transcripts dealing with energy policy. Sure, Gonzales has the right to assert privilege. But Rice's failure to come clean under oath leaves unanswered questions, including what Rice knew and told Bush before Sept. 11. “This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities,” said Michael Gehrhardt, William and Mary constitutional law professor, not buying Gonzales' legal argument.

      Putting Rice on the stand was too risky for a White House already faced with enough controversy before presidential elections. There's a huge difference between talking to the press and facing tough cross-examination under oath, without the benefit of White House scripting. “She's going to tell it exactly how it happened,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, pretending that there's no difference between testifying under oath or on friendly cable talk shows. Bush's reelection strategy hinges on touting his national defense and security credentials. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Secretary of Defense Donald M. Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stuck to their guns, telling the commission that nothing could have been done to prevent Sept. 11. Yet commission members already criticized the CIA and FBI for falling asleep at the switch.

      Whatever chatter Bush received before Sept. 11 didn't result in Rice ordering beefed up security at U.S. airports. Clarke's testimony goes to the heart of problems at the National Security Agency, namely, that Bin Laden wasn't flashing on the White House radar screen. Immediately after 9/11, White House officials—including Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld—refused to finger Bin Laden, prompting outrageous denials from Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, Al Qaeda's one-eyed partner in crime, still loose in Afghanistan. Clarke testified that the White House seemed more focused on Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Responding to biting criticism, but still refusing to testify, Rice denied that Clarke expressed reservations about diverting attention to Iraq. Rice highlighted Clarke's inconsistency, praising the White House in an Aug. 2002 interview.

      Rice insists that Clarke changed his tune, criticizing the White House only after his demotion at the NSA. “There's two different picture here, and the fact of the matter is these stories can't be reconciled,” said Rice, attributing sinister motives to Clarke's position. In reality, Clark plainly supported the White House when it focused on capturing Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. When Bush switched to Iraq, Clarke felt Bush took a wrong turn. Rice knows Clarke's views mirror the Army War College report, criticizing the White House for going to Iraq. Other theories imply Clarke's a turncoat, teaching a class at liberal Harvard with his friend Rand Beers, a national security advisor to likely Democratic nominee Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Refusing to testify gave Rice legal cover but hurt her credibility—and the White House. Playing it safe opened up an unsightly can of worms.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.