The Art of Politics

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One of the big stories in the news today is that President Bush revealed that there was allegedly a terrorist plot to fly a airplane into a tall building in Los Angeles in 2002 that was foiled by counter-terrorism efforts. I must admit, I find the timing of this announcement most very suspicious, particularly since not four months ago the administration was claiming that revealing this information would potentially cause a security risk, and it refuses to say why that is no longer true. Even the normally sycophantic White House Press Corps was fairly irate about this suspicious timing.

Here are a few excerpts from today's press briefing with Press Secretary Scott McClellan, quoted from the non-partisan periodical Editor & Publisher:

Q Can I ask you a question about the timing of the speech today? Why now, given the ongoing discussion that is taking place about tactics in fighting the war on terror, why did the President seek to disclose the details today, specifically?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, for the reasons I just stated. This is a speech that we have been working on for the last few weeks. The President has been having an ongoing discussion with the American people about the war on terrorism. This is the nation's highest priority. It's the President's top priority. It's about protecting the American people. And we're always looking for ways to inform the American people about our efforts and provide them additional information.

As you know, it takes time to declassify information. And as time goes by, you might be in position to share more information about plots that were disrupted. Remember, back in October, the President talked about, I think it was, 10 or so plots that were disrupted or broken up. And we provided some general information at that time. One of these was the plot that the President talked about today.

But I think it's -- what he was highlighting -- the purpose of the speech was to highlight the strong international cooperation that is going on.

Q But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're talking about the -- let me mention, the terrorist surveillance program is a vital program, and it's been a very valuable tool. I'm not going to get into discussing any of the tools that may have been used when it comes to disrupting this plot. We provided you some additional information about this plot. But the purpose of this speech is the way I stated it. And I would discourage you from suggesting otherwise….

*

Q Scott, I apologize if I'm still confused, but I wonder if you could tell us a bit more specifically what has changed since October, when we were told that discussing details of this plot was inappropriate, and today? What has actually changed since October in that regard?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I described it to you; I don't know how I can be more clear to you. This is something that we had been talking about with the intelligence community in looking for a good example to highlight for the American people about the type of international cooperation that goes on that helps us disrupt plots. I think that's important for the American people to have a clear understanding of, so they have a clear and better understanding of the threats we face and they have a better understanding of the efforts that are going on around the world to disrupt plots. So that's what this was.

And as time goes by and you continue to look at this and take into account the sensitivity of sources and methods and ongoing counterterrorism efforts, you are able to provide more information.

Q So sources and methods would have been compromised in October, but not today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Peter, we're always looking for ways to provide the American people with more information and that's what I said to you earlier -- maybe you didn't quite hear all that -- but we're always looking to keep the American people informed about the threats we face and provide them better context and better understanding of what we are doing to confront those threats. So that's what this was about, and so that's something we're always looking at.

Q But that wasn't actually the question. The question was, would sources and methods have been compromised in October, but wouldn't be today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the intelligence community said that it was okay to talk about the information that we provided you today and the President spoke about. So like I said, there is ongoing efforts that we look at to provide the information to the American people, and this was --

Q It was not okay in October to talk about that level of detail?

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't say that. What I said was that they said that it was okay now to talk further about this specific plot.

Q Would it have been okay in October, but you chose not to?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know how many times you're going to keep asking the same question.

Q As soon as I get an answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've answered the question.

Q Can you say when you started trying to get it declassified so you could talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, when we were talking about doing this speech, we were looking for a specific plot that we could talk about in more detail?

Q So two weeks ago?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the speech has been in the works, as I say, for at least three weeks.

Q So three weeks ago you decided you wanted to try and declassify this particular --

MR. McCLELLAN: Martha, I can't tell you the specific time. But, again, two things -- one, we're always looking to keep the American people informed and provide them additional information like this. Two, we were looking to give this speech and talk about the international cooperation that's going on and how successful that is and how important that is to confronting the threats we face. So in that context, we were also talking in the intelligence community, is there additional information we can provide. And I think a good starting point was some of the plots that we had talked about last year, in a general sense.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am NOT saying that this is a problem endemic to the current administration. All politicians try to bend time (and sometimes space) to fit their needs. Certainly the previous administration did so as well. But I would say that the political movers and shakers of the present administration have perfected the art of political manipulation to a finer degree then we have ever seen before.

And that is really the point that I want to make.

It seems to me that in order obtain and keep power in this day and age politicians need to continue to perfect this type of thing to a greater and greater degree. And I see no real hope in reversing this dangerous trend, regardless of which party prevails in elections in the near future, including the U.S. congressional elections this year and presidential election in 2008.

Uggghhh! What a depressing topic this is turning out to be. Am I really going to post this? I guess I am, on the off chance that maybe someone has something genuinely hopeful to say in response to this. We need to find a way to break this odious pattern or we are going to be in big trouble.

[TORN]

I am hopeful that this administration, and the American people's recent willing complicity in the art of believing that truth is what one wills it to be (a rather ironic case of extreme relativism, given the professed morality of its purveyors), will be the nadir of what this country represents.

[Ethel]

I am hopeful that this administration, and the American people's recent willing complicity in the art of believing that truth is what one wills it to be (a rather ironic case of extreme relativism, given the professed morality of its purveyors), will be the nadir of what this country represents.

From your mouth to God's ear!

[Erunáme]

Voronwë, I've been thinking about this same thing recently...that the timing of certain announcements seem too convienent. I've been finding myself being increasingly annoyed with Bush lately and irritated that he has three years left. Of course I would have been irritated with Kerry as well. I wish we had better candidates to chose from. :|

[IdylleSeethes]

I see nothing odd about today's statement. It's an obvious attempt to demonstrate the reason he feels his approach is necessary while this approach is being attacked.

The timing stated makes sense. The attacks on the legal model he inherited began during my last stay in MA. It took about a week to make a decision on how to proceed and several more weeks to clear the response. There were probably a thousand hours spent on those few sentences. A very natural and forseeable reaction. I think it was about 2 weeks too late to help, though.

This is one of 10 incidents we have known about for some time. The more stale these are, the more can be told about the events. I see no news there. I hope no one is forced to give away the methods, although I did hear a report yesterday that barely skirted that line.

I fault the Bush administration for not being more public about all of these incidents. There is a lot they can say without giving away methods and sources. Padilla, for instance, has languished in obscurity for years and most Americans have no idea why.

The surprise, to me, is the reaction of the press as indicated in your quote. They seem extremely disappointed that some facts might sway public opinion in Bush's favor.

This is very far removed from some of the serious transgressions of the past, like the day the US Navy was attacked by the North Vietnamese "navy" in the Gulf of Tonkin, as told by President Johnson. I'm more concerned about that and the Clinton/Gore use of NSA intelligence to help their campaign contributors. Unfortunately, the press didn't protect us from either of these real problems.

What I can plainly see, in the wider arena, is that what is being fought here is the next election. The nonsense being spouted by Democrats and propagated by the press has created some concern about November. The less conservative (more liberal?) Republicans are going to outdo the Democrats to put an end to the tragically mischaracterized "domestic spying".

The longstanding US tradition of Inter Arma Silent Leges may be all that saves us.

[Faramond]

There is no time when Bush could have announced this that would satisfy most of his detractors. No matter what he would be accused of being dirty about it.

Well, I'm no fan of Bush but I have no problem with the timing of it.

[Cerin]

It would have made sense to me if they would have said that this plot was foiled by the domestic spying now under scrutiny. But they didn't say that, as I understand it.

To me it looks like just another example of how stupid they think the American public is (and are justified in thinking so). As if we are bunch of little kids and will 'ooh' and 'aw' because a terrorist plot was foiled some years ago, and will forget about that other little thing (or 30 things) that are currently upsetting us.

Basically, they have only one thing going for them. The public's fear of another terrorist attack, and the public's perception that they are better than the Dems at protecting us. So that is what they will keep dragging out periodically in ways such as this, to keep people's minds off of things like health care, falling wages, jobs going overseas, domestic spending cuts and the other ways that quality of life is degrading for ordinary (as opposed to ultra-rich) Americans.

I feel very uneasy. I think they are an exceptionally dishonest, manipulative and secretive administration, and they are so very good at playing the American public (the portion that's even paying attention) with the help of the consolidated corporate media.

So I'm afraid I have no hopeful words to offer, Voronwë. If the Democrats weren't so inept at electioneering I'd pin my hopes on the mid-term elections and restoring some balance to the government. But even then, the re-aligned Supreme Court will probably rule in the President's favor for whatever issues end up there.

[Alatar]

A character in "Assassins" talks of flying a Jumbo Jet into the WhiteHouse.


I think Stephen Sondheim is to blame.

[sauronsfinger]

Those of us who lived as adults during the Nixon and Carter administrations should have learned something. With varying degrees, presidents have always attempted to manipulate the most favorable treatment they could manage from the press. With Nixon, it was elevated to new heights - or lows - by use of information - some true and some false - some revealed and some withheld - to benefit them. This extended to their own illegal activities to benefit themselves.

When Carter took over, he went in the opposite direction and almost made no attempt at all to control the press. This was partly a result of his own beliefs and partly a reaction against the Nixon excesses. Carter ended up looking like a castrated brothel attendant.

It is no secret in Washington that Bush and company want to return the presidency to the pre-Watergate levels of control and powers. Carl Rove has been very instrumental in this.

Voronwë is right in reminding us of the suspicious timing of this latest LA airplane announcement. But as old comedians use to say "you ain't heard nothing yet". Just wait for the Congressional campaign to get rolling in top gear later this summer and we will be deluged with tactics like this. Rove made a speech last month where he laid out much of the plan that the Republicans will use to hold onto Congress.

The centerpiece will be the issues of safety and security and the draping of such a mantle upon the shoulders of the Republican Party. It is the only issue that they have any chance at all to win with.

[vison]

....The President has been having an ongoing discussion with the American people about the war on terrorism. This is the nation's highest priority. It's the President's top priority. It's about protecting the American people. And we're always looking for ways to inform the American people about our efforts and provide them additional information.

Aside from anything else.

When I read the above, and the rest of the material quoted by Voronwë, my head spins.

It doesn't read like an attempt at communication. It reads like -- weird. It's the STYLE of this, and seemingly everything else that comes out of this administration! I can't stand it. I admit it. It isn't just that I think Mr. Bush is a terrible President. I do think that and make no secret of it.

But honestly, even if I thought he was right, I couldn't stand the way they "talk".

They "talk" as if they were speaking to kindergarten kids. Short, simple and simplistic. Hammering the same words over and over: war on Terror, war on Terror, we are protecting Americans, we are protecting Americans.

I just can't stand it. Words fail me. I find it terribly hard to articulate. When Mr. Bush speaks, my head feels like it's going to explode.

He/they make these assertions, over and over, and I KNOW they/he think if they just keep saying this stuff, it's going to "be true".

Does anyone see what I'm driving at so badly?

I don't mean any disrespect to the President as The President. But my word, my word, I can't stand this jargon, this method, this "newspeak" he uses.

[sauronsfinger]

Yes Vision.... I see exactly what you are saying... and I think most intelligent people would share those feelings.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A couple of interesting developments in this area today. The first, mostly for its irony. The second should (but probably will not) have enormous ramifications.

It has now been revealed that Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury that "his superiors" (read Vice President Cheney) authorized him to leak classified intelligence information to reporters in order to bolster the administration's drive to war in Iraq. This is the same Vice President Cheney who is leading the charge against the nefarious leaking of the existence of the NSA's illegal domestic spying program (and yes, it is illegal, and it is not even a close question, or shouldn't be).

Much more significant (to my mind) is a front page article in the Washington Post in which:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02418.html

This article, about the accusations of Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, is a real eye-opener about the machinations of the current administration.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

...
he describes a process in which the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.

Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."

In an interview, Pillar said the prewar assessments "were not crystal-balling, but in them we were laying out the challenges that would face us depending on decisions that were made."

Pillar wrote that the first request he received from a Bush policymaker for an assessment of post-invasion Iraq was "not until a year into the war."

That assessment, completed in August 2004, warned that the insurgency in Iraq could evolve into a guerrilla war or civil war. It was leaked to the media in September in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bush, who had told voters that the mission in Iraq was going well, described the assessment to reporters as "just guessing."

Then things veer into a depressingly similar scenerio:

Shortly thereafter, Pillar was identified in a column by Robert D. Novak as having prepared the assessment and having given a speech critical of Bush's Iraq policy at a private dinner in California. The column fed the White House's view that the CIA was in effect working against the Bush administration, and that Pillar was part of that. A columnist in the Washington Times in October 2004 called him "a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism."

Leaked information "encouraged some administration supporters to charge intelligence officers (including me) with trying to sabotage the president's policies," Pillar wrote. One effect of that, he said, was to limit challenges to consensus views on matters such as the Iraqi weapons program.

It should be noted that this is no whacko college professor or internet conspiracy theorist:

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

[anthriel]

particularly since not four months ago the administration was claiming that revealing this information would potentially cause a security risk, and it refuses to say why that is no longer true

Okay, so they should tell us about these operations. Right? Or else everyone will think they're not doing anything. Right? That's the way it goes? Even if revealing current information could cause problems with security risks? We need to know, or else nothing's being done. We want proof!

President Bush revealed that there was allegedly a terrorist plot to fly a airplane into a tall building in Los Angeles in 2002 that was foiled by counter-terrorism efforts.

Okay, so they ARE going to let us know about what they are doing, in some more detail. Whew! They listened! But what of that pesky problem with revealing information about an ongoing mission? Perhaps an older operation, where the information wouldn't be as much of a security risk?

Oh, wait a minute. THEN it's probably a political ploy. Right?

There is no time when Bush could have announced this that would satisfy most of his detractors. No matter what he would be accused of being dirty about it.

Bingo.

Is this the part where I say I am not in love with everything the Bush administration does? Just so I can fit in here, and all? Make sure everyone is comfortable with my IQ?

I was an apologist for the Clinton admin, too, although that "let's not think about Monica, I'll lob a missile or two at the terrorists to distract you" thingy was so blantant a tap dance routine even I had to shut up.

They all do it.

[Cerin]

Okay, so they should tell us about these operations. Right?

It isn't that they should tell us about the operations (speaking now about the domestic spying). It's that they should tell the appropriate people so that there can be oversight, so that power can't be abused.

With regard to the report on the terrorist operation, as I said, I believe they'll try to keep our minds on the terrorist threat as much as possible, as it's the only card they have to play.

[anthriel]

Okay, so they should tell us about these operations. Right?

It isn't that they should tell us about the operations (speaking now about the domestic spying). It's that they should tell the appropriate people so that there can be oversight, so that power can't be abused.

I very much agree with that.

With regard to the report on the terrorist operation, as I said, I believe they'll try to keep our minds on the terrorist threat as much as possible, as it's the only card they have to play.

Well, it IS the only one they have to play. I remember when Bush came into office he had a lot of other things he wanted to address, other than foreign affairs. I can remember him being a bit distainful about "nation building", as a matter of fact. He who is now trying to mold Iraq into something it is not.

9/11 changed everything.

So, yes. The BA is playing that terrorist/national security card repeatedly. Just about all their marbles are in that one basket.

[Impenitent]

I think they are an exceptionally dishonest, manipulative and secretive administration, and they are so very good at playing the American public (the portion that's even paying attention) with the help of the consolidated corporate media.

As an outsider, I don't see this. I see that there hasn't been one administration (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who was, I think, a genuinely good man) that hasn't used tactics like these at some time or another - some have been caught out more, others have been slicker at camouflaging their tracks.

I think this has always been the art of politics, Vinnie, from Caesar onwards (and probably before him too). You dress what facts you have in the most attractive garments, and then add bijoux.

IMO (as an outsider, and as a liberal-leaning person) George W's performance is looks worse because...well, he's on the back foot a little more.

[Cerin]

Imp, what does it mean, 'he's on the back foot'?

[vison]

Awkward.

[anthriel]

I see that there hasn't been one administration (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who was, I think, a genuinely good man) that hasn't used tactics like these at some time or another

Gosh, Imp, this is such a good point, and one I was thinking about yesterday (as I was planting my new ranunculus, and thinking about this thread )

I think Jimmy Carter WAS a very good person, and tried, mightily, to be "above" the level of "political moves".

I think, however, ironically, he was one of the least effective presidents we have had. Perhaps BECAUSE he was unwilling or unable to manipulate the press and others in the manner in which politicians have for so many eons.

Because he was a poor politician, he was a poor president.

Discuss.

[Primula Baggins]

I, of course, agree with Anthy.