Abusing Secrets

 

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

The White House decision to release the now-infamous Aug. 6, 2001 President’s Daily Brief not only shows the Bush administration could not be trusted when it previously characterized the document as merely a "historical" analysis that made the obvious point that Osama bin Laden was interested in traditional hijacking. This briefing"which noted that bin Laden was determined to strike within the United States and that Al Qaeda apparently had set up a support structure in this country"also provides proof, if any more is needed, that this White House cannot be trusted whenever it argues it must keep information secret. The PDB episode is but one in a line of instances when the Bush White House hid information and claimed releasing the material would compromise national security or the presidency, when the real motive was protecting its own rear end.

Political pressure"generated partly by Richard Clarke’s book and his testimony before the 9/11 commission"forced the White House to yield on the Aug. 6 PDB. But for almost two years, it had refused to declassify this PDB. (The existence, though not the full contents, of the PDB was first reported in May 2002.) When the House and Senate intelligence committees were conducting their 9/11 joint inquiry in 2002, they requested access to this PDB. The White House said no. It would not even permit the committees to question CIA personnel about the process by which PDBs are prepared. In their final report on 9/11, the congressional intelligence committees were able to strongly hint at the contents of the PDB because their staff did manage to interview CIA officials involved in the drafting of this particular briefing. But they never were able to see it. A simple question: why not?

Protecting Secrets Or Reputations?

All administrations have considered PDBs highly sensitive information that should remain tightly guarded secrets. But now that the public has seen the Aug. 6 PDB, it is hard to understand why this document could not have been shared with the members of the intelligence committees, or at least the leaders of the committees. These members routinely handle classified information and deal with the most significant secrets of the U.S. government. With the 9/11 investigation, they were examining a profound intelligence failure that led to one of the most traumatic events in American history. Is there any good reason the Bush White House could not give them a peek at the PDB?

The PDB does not appear to contain material that would burn specific sources or compromise national security if publicly known. Three times the briefing attributed information to a foreign intelligence service. But the White House deleted the identities of these services"as it could have done in providing a copy to the intelligence committees. And even if the PDB had included material that should not become public, the White House could have shown it to the intelligence committees and not permitted them to disclose the most touchy parts.

Moreover, the intelligence committees are supposed to oversee the intelligence agencies, and this means they have an interest in (and are obligated to) examine the intelligence produced by federal agencies for the president. That information should be available to Congress under the appropriate safeguards. But the White House told the intelligence committees to get lost, and the committees chose not to confront Bush. (At the time, the Senate intelligence committee was chaired by Bob Graham, a Democrat, and the House intelligence committee was led by Porter Goss, a Republican.) Now it’s clear that the White House, in blocking the intelligence committees, was more interested in defending itself and its prerogatives than in safekeeping legitimate secrets.

Politcs In The Guise Of Principle

This comes as no surprise. For months, the White House would not let national security adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly testify before the 9/11 commission. It argued that if a national security adviser could be grilled in public under oath about what she told the chief executive, then future national security advisers and other presidential aides, fearful of being hauled before Congress, might think twice before speaking candidly with the boss. There were strong counterarguments to the White House’s position: the 9/11 commission is not a congressional body; 9/11 was an extraordinary event; presidential advisers have testified before Congress a few times in the past and the Republic survived. But the White House declared over and over, we are sticking to principle, this is a crucial principle, we will never abandon this principle. Then, when the political tide seemed to turn against the administration, it said 'never mind.' So much for the moral high ground.

The Rice imbroglio was reminiscent of the fuss over Vice President Cheney’s energy task force. In refusing to make public the names of industry lobbyists and others with whom the task force met while crafting an energy plan, the White House maintained that this secrecy was necessary; otherwise, other outsiders might be reluctant to provide their views to presidents and vice presidents. This makes little sense. Will industry executives years from now turn down the chance to bend a president’s ear because their names might appear in the newspapers? And shouldn’t the White House"and the public"generally be wary of advice that only arrives in a brown paper bag? But unlike the recent Rice affair, this controversy has not ended with the White House caving. The administration has fought all the way to the Supreme Court a lawsuit demanding the names of Cheney’s pals. Confused about the administration’s on-and-off relationship with principle? The line seems clear: the Bush White House will take the heat and defend principle for business interests, but not for national security.

Another 9/11 Controversy

A lesser-known 9/11 controversy also indicated that the Bush administration will abuse the rules"national security, executive privilege, you name it"to place self-interest over the public’s right to know. When the House and Senate intelligence committees released an interim report in September 2002, they included a hot-damn piece of information, noting that a "briefing prepared for senior government officials at the beginning of July 2001 contained the following language:

'Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that UBL [Usama bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"

Here was a warning of a spectacular Al Qaeda attack two months before that dreadful day. The obvious question was: Did Bush get this information and, if so, how did he respond? But the Bush administration refused to let the intelligence committees tell the public whether this intelligence warning had been provided to the president. The reason given: doing so would compromise national security. Think about that one. The administration was saying it was okay to reveal the existence of this warning but that the country could be endangered if people knew this warning had reached the person it should have reached: the president. Committee sources told reporters that the warning had indeed been presented to Bush. But the intelligence committees were unable to declare so in their report. Thus, misusing the classification system permitted the Bush administration, two months before the congressional elections, from having to deal with discomfiting questions and a round of criticism and bad press.

It didn’t start with the Aug. 6 PDB. Bush and his crowd have been hiding behind presidential secrecy and other privileges from the get-go. There really are no principles at stake. There is but one rule: citizens (and even members of Congress) have no right to know, unless it’s better politics to reveal than to conceal.

Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what's new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.

Published: Apr 13 2004