The Bush White House; Screwing Up and The Press Is Finally Reporting it; Blood on the Tracks, Part Deux
By Allan P. Duncan
When I was a cop in New Jersey in the 70's we used to have a saying that applied to people who needed to be arrested simply on principle. These were people who were such dumb-asses that they needed to be taken off the streets for their own good and for the good of the community. We referred to these people as needing to be taken down and charged with Mopery and Dopery.
Since writing my last article, Blood on the Tracks, where I talked about how the Bush Administration was standing dead center in the middle of the tracks while the mainstream press was about to run them over for their handling of 9-11, there has been a whole series of incredible bungles by the Bush people that prove that his underlings are not any brighter than the man at the top. In fact, there seems to be evidence of a preponderance of Mopery and Dopery in the White House and I think its time for the American people to do something about it.
This morning I read an article in Newsweek titled, A New Window on the War Room, where Michael Isikoff reported that 9-11 Commission Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, warned the White House of the political fallout that might ensue if his old friend Condoleeza Rice didn't testify before the 9-11 Commission.
"The grainy photograph rolled off the fax machine at the White House counsel's office last Monday morning, along with a scribbled note that smacked of blackmail. If the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the 9/11 commission, it read, "This will be all over Washington in 24 hours." The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF TESTIFIES read the headline over the snapshot of Leahy's very public testimony. The point was clear: the White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent.
The fax was the work of Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, a University of Virginia historian who had been poring over records of the Pearl Harbor inquiries for months. Those probes, Zelikow believes, are the clearest blueprint for the 9/11 panel's work."
In his position as Executive Director of the Commission, it seems to me it would have been more appropriate for him to call the White House and tell them that Rice needed to testify because they needed answers to important questions and because it was also the right thing to do. By tipping the White House off that Rice's refusal to testify would be politically damaging, Zelikow has once again demonstrated that he is more interested in politics than he is at getting at the truth.
Thomas Kean's response to Zelikow's warning to the White House was also quite telling.
"This is what happens when you hire historians," joked commission chairman Thomas Kean."
No"this is what happens when you hire people with clear conflicts of interest and appoint them Executive Director of an investigation that they are themselves part of.
On January 15th of this year, Shaun Waterman wrote an article for UPI titled, "Whitewash': 9/11 Director Gave Evidence to Own Inquiry. In his article Waterman states:
"The panel set up to investigate why the United States failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was rocked Thursday by the bizarre revelation that two of its senior officials were so closely involved in the events they are investigating that they have had to be interviewed as part of the inquiry. Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney transition team as the new administration took power, advising his longtime associate and former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, on the structure of the incoming National Security Council." Further on in the article we find this telling tidbit of information: "Zelikow, who the commission says has withdrawn himself from those parts of its investigation directly connected with the transition -- a process known as recusal -- was also appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in October 2001. The board provides the White House with advice about the quality, adequacy and legality of the whole spectrum of intelligence activities."
Kean laughing this off as a joke tells me that this entire sham of an investigation has been compromised and is itself nothing but a joke.
We also heard this week that White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, called several Republican members of the 9-11 Commission on the morning they were to question Richard Clarke. On April 1st, Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen wrote an article for the Washington Post titled, Bush Counsel Called 9/11 Panelist Before Clarke Testified, where they revealed:
"President Bush's top lawyer placed a telephone call to at least one of the Republican members of the Sept. 11 commission when the panel was gathered in Washington on March 24 to hear the testimony of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, according to people with direct knowledge of the call.
White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales called commissioner Fred F. Fielding, one of five GOP members of the body, and, according to one observer, also called Republican commission member James R. Thompson."
When pressed for information about the calls Gonzales allegedly made to Fielding and Thompson we find the following:
"White House spokesmen were unable to get a response from Gonzales. Fielding did not return phone calls seeking comment. Thompson declined yesterday to say whether he spoke with Gonzales. "I never talk about conversations with the White House," he said. Asked about the source of his information for his questioning of Clarke, Thompson said: "I ask my own questions.""
So why did the White Hose counsel call two Republican 9-11 Commissioners on the very day they were questioning Clarke? Was it to simply wish them a good day? I doubt it. If the calls had been made about a subject not related to the 9-11 Investigation I'm sure that Fielding and Thompson would have been happy to tell the press what the calls were about. Since they chose not to comment it seems to indicate that they have something to hide.
After Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission, The Washington Post published a story on March 27th, by Charles Babington and Walter Pincus titled, GOP Leaders Seek Release of Clarke's 2002 Testimony. In this article Bill Frist and other Republicans called for Clarke's testimony before the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee in July of 2002 to be declassified.
"The Senate's top Republican called yesterday for declassifying Richard A. Clarke's testimony before a House-Senate intelligence panel two years ago to determine whether he lied, as partisan exchanges intensified over allegations leveled this week by the Bush administration's former counterterrorism chief. "In a blistering speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Clarke "has told two entirely different stories under oath" -- first in private before Congress's joint intelligence committee in July 2002, then this week before cameras at a hearing conducted by the commission looking into the same topic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." ""If he lied under oath to the United States Congress, it is a far more serious matter" than being inconsistent with reporters, another Republican charge aimed at Clarke, who served in the White House under four presidents."
This was simply grandstanding. Frist knows damn well that he doesn't need Clarke's testimony to be declassified for him to be able to read and examine it. I would have been much happier if Frist had given a blistering speech on the Senate floor and demanded that the 28 pages of redacted information about the Saudis and the Pakistanis be declassified from the same report. America deserves to know what the role of the Saudis and the Pakistanis were in regards to the perpetration of 9-11.
We then found out that the Bush Administration refused to release documents from the Clinton Administration to the 9-11 Commission. In an article dated April 2nd, Phillip Shenon and David E. Sanger wrote an article published in the New York Times titled, Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel. In the article it was reported:
"The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators. The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks." "The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda."So why would the Bush Administration not release Clinton's records that Clinton himself had already approved for release? Could it be that they might be embarrassed by the evidence that maybe the Clinton Administration did have a more cogent plan on dealing with international terrorism and Al Qaeda in particular? We know for a fact that the Bush Administration is the most secretive in history, but what gives them the right to keep information secret that was developed during the Clinton era?
One of the funniest bungles I have heard about in decades was reported by the Washington Post's Al Kamen on March 31st in a piece titled, Note to Eric: U Need 2B More Careful. In what is now being referred to as the Starbucks Papers Scandal, handwritten notes and phone logs notes were found on a table at a Starbucks in DC on official stationery from the "Office of the Secretary of Defense," and right under that "The Special Assistant." .
The notes were apparently used to prepare Donald Rumsfeld for his appearance on Fox News Sunday. Other Bush staffers scheduled to appear on Sunday news shows that day were Colin Powell on Face the Nation and Condoleeza Rice on 60 Minutes.
The notes made reference to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission and were apparently talking points to counter the media frenzy and criticism of the Bush Administration that came about as a result of Clarke's testimony.
The notes also mentioned the 9-11 Commission and several of its Democratic Commissioners.
"Emphasize importance of 9/11 commission and come back to what we have been doing. "[Commission member Jamie] Gorelick pitting Condi [ Condoleezza Rice] v. [Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage" "Commission member [ Richard] Ben-Veniste said a long string of reports on the use of airplanes as missiles was available. Did you ever see them?"
So this is just another example of a Defense Department official who couldn't shoot straight. It shouldn't really surprise me since I made following assessment of Donald Rumsfeld's leadership abilities in Blood on the Tracks:
"The Pentagon, the headquarters of the most powerful military force ever assembled in the history of the world was struck by one of these hijacked planes itself, even though there were defense systems in place at the Pentagon to thwart such an attack. The airspace over DC was left totally unprotected that morning, and that plane could have crashed anywhere the hijacker wanted to crash it since there were no interceptors anywhere around even though this plane had been flying for hundreds of miles before it reached DC.Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who our Commander-In-Chief appointed to head up our military, claims that he never even knew that a hijacked plane was in the area of DC until he felt the rumble and heard the crash of Flight 77 as it exploded into the same building in which he was sitting. What does this say about the guy who is supposed to defend our homeland, when he can't even defend his own damn building?"
Richard Clarke raised an interesting point this week during his appearance on The Daily Show. Clarke stated that his book was actually finished last October but that it had to be sent to the White House before it could be published so that it could be checked to see if any classified information was contained within its pages. The White House kept if for months and then returned it to him with suggestions on sections that needed to be removed. Clarke then removed the passages and the book was published several weeks ago.
Republicans have claimed that Clarke timed the release of his book to coincide with his testimony before the 9-11 Commission. Clarke denied these claims and stated that it would have been published much sooner if the White House hadn't hung onto it for so long.
John Stewart, the host of The Daily Show, asked Clarke if anyone from the White House had ever called him and complained about the claims he made against the Bush Administration while they were going over his book. Clarke then replied that nobody from the White House had ever called and protested anything in the book. He also stated that they had to know what was going to be published since they had his entire manuscript for months and thought it curious that they should raise so much hell about it now.
The final comedy of errors by the White House gang this week was their insistence that since they made a deal with the 9-11 Commission regarding Condoleeza Rice testifying in public, that President Bush should now be allowed to testify before the Commission with Vice President Cheney at his side.
In the Star Ledger on April 1st, Ron Hutcheson of the KRT New Service reported in an article titled, Joint questioning may limit Sept. 11 panel's probe, that "Bush insisted on the joint appearance in agreeing to take questions from all 10 members of the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. He initially had offered to meet only with the commission's top two members, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the chairman; and former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), the vice chairman." "The arrangement virtually eliminates any possibility of divergent answers from Bush and Cheney, and lets Bush pass off any question he'd rather avoid and makes it impossible for the commission to ask either man any follow-up questions."The Bush/Cheney joint testimony agreement has already caused writers all over the internet to create humorous spoofs portraying Bush and Cheney, among others, as Beevis and Butthead, and numerous cartoons showing Bush on Cheney's lap while Cheney manipulates his puppet AKA George W. Bush.
The sad thing is that the 9-11 Commission actually agreed to this travesty. In another incredibly naïve statement by Thomas Keane, he once again kisses the Presidents ass and gives him a "Get out of Jail Free Card" in this passage:
"Kean said he saw no need to place Bush under oath. "We're happy just to have him talk to us," he told CBS yesterday."
I'm sure Kean is simply happy just to have Bush talk with the Commission. If Bush was forced to testify under oath without a tutor present, he might just blurt out information that could be used against him. Then Kean would be forced to do something about it.
This agreement now enables the President to say whatever he wants without the fear of being held accountable. "The Buck Stops Here" is certainly not a mantra that has ever passed this Presidents lips and never will as long as weak people continue to pander to his whims and refuse to stand up to him and challenge him.
It's actually crossed my mind that maybe the Republicans are actually trying to sabotage the 9-11 Commission investigation. With all of the conflicts of interest apparent and all of the interference by people within the Republican hierarchy, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
With the Commission's report due to come out in July, I still think the Bush Administration is running scared over what might be revealed. If they continue to attack and smear witnesses, compromise Republican Commission members and staffers, continue to block the release of records, which has become their hallmark, and demand that Bush and his administration only testify with strings attached, such as not having to testify under oath in public, they just might be able to create enough damage to totally discount any findings that the Commission might have concluded if there had been no interference to this degree. In fact, if this had been a court case it would have been called a mistrial a long time ago and thrown out of court.
I still have faith, however, that justice will prevail in the end. The examples I cited above were all reported by the mainstream press over the past week, and like I stated in Blood on the Tracks, it appears as though the press has finally awakened from its slumber.
The press needs to keep nipping at the heels of these folks in the White House and needs to keep documenting the Mopery and Dopery that is being perpetrated by the Mopes and Dopes who live under the delusion that they can do anything they want and get away with it. Mopes and Dopes aren't the sharpest tools in the shed and this is evidenced by the incredibly stupid things the Republicans have been caught doing lately. Documenting their screwups over the past few weeks has been kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.
All of this indicates to me that the Bush White House is panicking, getting sloppy, is out of control and is getting very desperate.
They are still out there in the middle of the tracks like that trembling little fawn, totally unaware that a massive locomotive is bearing down upon them at breakneck speed"getting closer and closer by the moment"
I Hear that train a comin'"
Comin' round the bend"
Resources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660588/
A New Window on the War Room By Michael Isikoff Newsweek
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0115-11.htm
Published on Thursday, January 15, 2004 by UPI
"Whitewash': 9/11 Director Gave Evidence to Own Inquiry by Shaun Watermanhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40578-2004Mar31.html
Bush Counsel Called 9/11 Panelist Before Clarke Testified
By Dana Milbank and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 1, 2004;
GOP
Leaders Seek Release of Clarke's 2002 Testimony
Frist Cites 'Entirely Different Stories'
By Charles Babington and Walter
Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 27, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02PANE.html?hp
April 2, 2004
Bush Aides Block Clinton's Papers From 9/11 Panel
By PHILIP
SHENON and DAVID E. SANGER
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37321-2004Mar30.html
Note to Eric: U Need 2B More Careful
By Al Kamen
Wednesday, March 31, 2004; Page A23
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42125
Found at Starbucks: The Pentagon's Papers
March 31, 2004
Richard Clarke's Appearance on The Daily Show
Joint questioning may limit Sept. 11 panel's probe
Thursday, April 01, 2004
BY RON HUTCHESON
KRT NEWS SERVICE
Blood
on the Tracks
By Allan P. Duncan
March 28, 2004
OpEdNews.ComExtra Added Bonus Feature: http://www.buzzflash.com/harrison/04/03/har04006.html March 30, 2004
9/11 Hearings
BuzzFlash is proud to bring you original sociopolitical cartoons by Eric Harrison. This animated cartoon actually shows Bush about to get run over by a train marked 9-11. I couldn't believe it when I saw it"AllanAllan Duncan is a 911 activist, and a former Social Worker and police officer, who lives in New Hope, PA. This article is copyright by Allan Duncan ADuncan282@aol.com originally published by opednews.com Permission is granted to forward this or to place it on a website as long as the article is included intact, including this statement
