Text 16844, 86 rader
Skriven 2005-12-29 08:13:18 av BOB SAKOWSKI (1:123/140)
Ärende: Bob Barr speaks
=======================
Presidents all the same when scandal strikes

Published on: 12/28/05  [AJC]

Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever
experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's
defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic,
"it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush
responded to a question at a White House news conference about what now
appears to be a clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by
trying to argue that he had not ordered the National Security Agency to
"monitor" phone and e-mail communications of American citizens without
court order; he had merely ordered them to "detect" improper
communications.

This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the
president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that
when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to
monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something
different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been
McCurry, and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern
rather than illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been
listening to a White House news conference at the height of the Clinton
impeachment scandal.

On foreign policy, domestic issues, relationships with Congress, and even
their selection of White House Christmas cards and china patterns,
presidents are as different as night and day. But when caught with a hand
in the cookie jar and their survival called into question, administrations
circle the wagons, fall back on time-worn but often effective defense
mechanisms, and seamlessly morph into one another.

First, we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows
he can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The
resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to
attempts to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his
accusers.

Soon, he begins taking trips abroad and appearing at the White House podium
with foreign leaders with minimal command of English, allowing him to duck
for cover whenever scandal questions arise.

Of course, the president can't carry the entire stonewalling burden alone.
The next actors to enter the stage typically are the president's press
secretary and the White House counsel's office. Serious scandals tend to
spawn congressional investigations and independent counsels. As Clinton
quickly learned, and Richard Nixon before him, the best way to
short-circuit such endeavors is to force the investigators and lawyers to
fight like dogs for every inch of ground they get.

By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of
motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an
investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the investigation
actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real charges or issue a
report, the courts, public and media are so sick and tired of hearing about
it that the final charges fall stillborn from the press.

A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the
partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels
don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative
and you don't let up. If you're always attacking your accusers, the debate
becomes one of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone
who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of
Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a
bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war.

Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid
or at least control pesky oversight investigations. A president's job here
is made far easier if his party maintains a majority in one or both houses.
Even if your party doesn't enjoy control of either the House or the Senate,
you can still achieve your desired goal, as did Clinton — America's master
scandal handler. You've just got to work harder at it.

The signs are everywhere that the Bush White House is busily implementing
all parts of this defense strategy. It would be refreshing if it decided to
clear the air and actually be honest about its post-Sept. 11 surveillance.
However, that's unlikely. The problem this president faces, as did his
predecessors, is that full disclosure would lead to the remedy stage. No
president wants to fight that end-game.

http://www.bobbarr.org

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)