Leader
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Among members of Congress and Washington journalists, George Bush's administration was already a byword for discipline and secrecy even before 9/11. Whistleblowers in any field of policy were beneath its contempt. Once Mr Bush reinvented himself as a war president, however, the White House code of omertà became more unforgiving still. To ask questions about the war on terror was treated as an act of disloyalty. To refuse to answer them became proof of patriotism. So it is all the more striking that two senior Bush officials have now been prepared to brave the inevitable abuse to give the world a vivid picture of the response to 9/11 which startlingly differs from the authorised version.
First it was the former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, who alleged that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had always been "topic A" in Bush foreign policy circles from inauguration day onwards. That claim moved the White House to deposit a large volume of solids on Mr O'Neill's head. He got away lightly, though, when compared with the president's former counter-terrorism chief. Richard Clarke alleges that Mr Bush has done a "terrible job" on terrorism and charges that many in the administration, including Mr Bush himself, saw 9/11 more as an opportunity to go after Iraq than to strike back against al-Qaida. Every form of rebuttal and smear in the book - grudgebearer, minor official, friend of John Kerry - is now being deployed against the White House's accuser. Just about the only consolation for Mr Clarke is that Ariel Sharon is not in charge of the administration's response.
Mr Clarke is the latest of several witnesses who have charged that the obsession with overthrowing Saddam warped the whole US response to 9/11, with catastrophic consequences for America's standing in the world, especially among Muslims. Some outlines of this picture first appeared in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, published in 2002. Since then, the details have been increasingly coloured in by several hands, including Mr O'Neill's and now Mr Clarke's. It has long been claimed that the most hawkish members of the administration seized on 9/11 to argue the case for an attack on Iraq; a CBS News report in 2002 even had the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pushing this line less than five hours after a hijacked plane had ploughed into his own Pentagon HQ. The significance of Mr Clarke is that he moves the focus directly on to Mr Bush and his immediate circle, including the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose refusal to answer questions on these issues raised the temperature on Capitol Hill yesterday. The accumulating picture of an administration in thrall to a predetermined view of what to do in the wake of 9/11 is a truly chilling one. It tends to confirm the long-held fear that the administration was so imprisoned within its ideology that it not only focused on the wrong enemy but also failed to grasp the nature of the real foes ranged against it.
Mr Clarke will be cross-examined about his account when he appears today in front of the federal commission investigating the failures that led to the 2001 attacks. But his allegations already pose major challenges to the official American and British accounts of the war on terror. For Americans, the issue raised by Mr Clarke is principally one of failure to protect. He charges that the US government - under Bill Clinton as well as Mr Bush - let its people down by not defending them against the lethal assaults germinating in Osama bin Laden's networks. The officials giving evidence in Washington yesterday inevitably pointed the finger at political opponents. Everyone knows, though, that the buck stops with the man in the Oval Office. In an election year, the consequences of Mr Clarke's charges could be devastating.
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Among members of Congress and Washington journalists, George Bush's administration was already a byword for discipline and secrecy even before 9/11. Whistleblowers in any field of policy were beneath its contempt. Once Mr Bush reinvented himself as a war president, however, the White House code of omertà became more unforgiving still. To ask questions about the war on terror was treated as an act of disloyalty. To refuse to answer them became proof of patriotism. So it is all the more striking that two senior Bush officials have now been prepared to brave the inevitable abuse to give the world a vivid picture of the response to 9/11 which startlingly differs from the authorised version.
First it was the former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, who alleged that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had always been "topic A" in Bush foreign policy circles from inauguration day onwards. That claim moved the White House to deposit a large volume of solids on Mr O'Neill's head. He got away lightly, though, when compared with the president's former counter-terrorism chief. Richard Clarke alleges that Mr Bush has done a "terrible job" on terrorism and charges that many in the administration, including Mr Bush himself, saw 9/11 more as an opportunity to go after Iraq than to strike back against al-Qaida. Every form of rebuttal and smear in the book - grudgebearer, minor official, friend of John Kerry - is now being deployed against the White House's accuser. Just about the only consolation for Mr Clarke is that Ariel Sharon is not in charge of the administration's response.
Mr Clarke is the latest of several witnesses who have charged that the obsession with overthrowing Saddam warped the whole US response to 9/11, with catastrophic consequences for America's standing in the world, especially among Muslims. Some outlines of this picture first appeared in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, published in 2002. Since then, the details have been increasingly coloured in by several hands, including Mr O'Neill's and now Mr Clarke's. It has long been claimed that the most hawkish members of the administration seized on 9/11 to argue the case for an attack on Iraq; a CBS News report in 2002 even had the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pushing this line less than five hours after a hijacked plane had ploughed into his own Pentagon HQ. The significance of Mr Clarke is that he moves the focus directly on to Mr Bush and his immediate circle, including the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose refusal to answer questions on these issues raised the temperature on Capitol Hill yesterday. The accumulating picture of an administration in thrall to a predetermined view of what to do in the wake of 9/11 is a truly chilling one. It tends to confirm the long-held fear that the administration was so imprisoned within its ideology that it not only focused on the wrong enemy but also failed to grasp the nature of the real foes ranged against it.
Mr Clarke will be cross-examined about his account when he appears today in front of the federal commission investigating the failures that led to the 2001 attacks. But his allegations already pose major challenges to the official American and British accounts of the war on terror. For Americans, the issue raised by Mr Clarke is principally one of failure to protect. He charges that the US government - under Bill Clinton as well as Mr Bush - let its people down by not defending them against the lethal assaults germinating in Osama bin Laden's networks. The officials giving evidence in Washington yesterday inevitably pointed the finger at political opponents. Everyone knows, though, that the buck stops with the man in the Oval Office. In an election year, the consequences of Mr Clarke's charges could be devastating.
