And let slip the dogs of spin

And let slip the dogs of spin
By Gloria Borger
U.S. News and World Report
3/27/04

In all the stir caused by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke's new book, there's one unequivocal truth: No one took Clarke's obsession with al Qaeda seriously enough. Sure, the Clinton administration lobbed some low-risk cruise missiles to try to kill bin Laden but otherwise avoided high-risk operations. And yes, the Bush White House may have been slow off the mark when it came to al Qaeda, looking instead to Iraq as the root of all evildoers. Clarke humbly compared his crusade to "Winston Churchill's lonely, isolated campaign during the 1930s to call attention to rising Nazi power before it was too late," according to Steve Coll's new book, Ghost Wars. No one likes to be called a Chicken Little.

Now, of course, the White House is calling Clarke a lot worse: a disgruntled bureaucrat (his job was downsized by the Bushies), a John Kerry partisan (his good friend Rand Beers left the White House to join the Kerry campaign), and a "nut" (who spent his time fighting other bureaucrats, not terrorists, says one insider). He has also been dubbed an egomaniac who "wasn't in the loop" (according to the vice president) and, alternately, a man who was in the loop with some shared responsibility for policy since he was "in every meeting that was held on terrorism" (according to the national security adviser).

We've seen this movie before. It's Trailer Park Trash, the sequel, starring Richard Clarke. Remember the original? That's the one where Bill Clinton fans started calling Paula Jones names after she dared suggest inappropriate behavior on the part of the then governor. And what about that "stalker" Monica? Wasn't she just another misguided, trashy gal who wouldn't leave the poor, hardworking president alone? Please. This much we've learned: An attack machine in overdrive signals fear.

And why not? If the rock of President Bush's re-election is the promotion of his effective leadership in the war on terrorism, Clarke's negative critique--of a president he says failed to take steps that might have prevented 9/11--is destabilizing, to say the least. "It's kind of like looking through a pair of binoculars," Democratic Sen. Joe Biden told me. "It gets clearer and clearer as the dial is turned." Add Clarke to ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's assertion that an attack on Iraq was always a front-burner issue, Biden says, and "there is finally some focus on the question of whether the president has done a good job in the war on terror." And that's bad for the White House.

Blame game. Bad politics, that is. But isn't there more here? Can't hyperpartisanship ever take a back seat to substance? The truth is that no one will ever know for sure whether 9/11 could have been avoided, no matter how much closed-door testimony gets declassified. The real question Clarke raises is not culpability for 9/11 but responsibility for the continuing fight against terrorism: Is the war in Iraq hurting the war on terrorism, as he claims? Or, as the Bushies argue, is it all part of the same fight? That's the honest debate, and we ought to have it.

If the Democrats are smart, they will lead it. What good does it do to suggest that 9/11 is George W. Bush's fault? It's overplaying a great hand--in the same way Newt Gingrich overplayed the Lewinsky mess. Besides, such heated charges only lead to questions of why Clinton and his team couldn't get their act together to kill bin Laden when they had the chance. Clarke's book, and his testimony last week, probably won't change many minds. Those inclined to blame Bush will blame him, and those inclined to blame Clinton won't change their minds. So why engage in a fight that gets you nothing? Or turns everyone off?

As with most things in life, there are bits of truth in all that we have seen in the Clarke-White House brawl. Sure, Clarke was the ultimate bureaucrat and was hopping mad because he wasn't invited to the important meetings. And, yes, the White House does hate Clinton so much that it wouldn't even consider signing on to his plans against terrorism--which did not include their idee fixe, Iraq. But what about now? If the past is any guide, there is no time to dwell on recriminations. As it turns out, Chicken Little was right.