The king's court

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The American people trust the president by 52 percent to 37 percent to deal with the threat of terrorist acts according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll. This advantage is in large measure due to the Bush administration's strong strategy in dealing with these threats, despite the nuanced critics fumbling all over themselves claiming otherwise. The people of the United States support the White House not only because they see President Bush as strong and dependable, but also because of the capable people the president has appointed to key positions.

During presidential election years, the thinking of a challenger often is kept under wraps in favor of slogans, sound bites and heavily edited foreign-policy and defense speeches. These speeches are filled with such mindless suggestions that the United States "must do more about threats," or "work with the international community" or "have an effective strategy." Well, duh, yes all that would be fine. But what is so often missing is exactly the specific strategy to get there. For example, the Rudman-Hart Commission report on terrorist threats to the United States, released in January 2000, told us all that the United States would be the victim of a major terrorist attack sometime in the next 25 years. Well, wasn't that helpful.

While shifting through the campaign rhetoric of Sen. John Kerry, it has been difficult to figure out exactly where he stands on many defense issues. From his past voting rhetoric and remarks made during congressional hearings, we know he would have eliminated all major Air Force fighter planes, Navy cruisers and destroyers, strategic bombers, land-based missiles and submarines, attack submarines, various air-to-air missiles that allow our fighter pilots to safely patrol airspace over the battlefield, as well as missile defenses designed to protect our troops overseas and our people here at home. And all during the height of the Cold War.

But his subsequent multiple flip-flops on so many key issues leave one empty-handed in terms of determining exactly what the senator might propose if he were -- hypothetically -- running things. One key indicator might be the kind of staff he would choose -- the King's Court so to speak. And here things get a little scary. First, we have Ambassador Joe Wilson advising Mr. Kerry and saying how much nonsense it was that the president -- and British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- described efforts by Saddam Hussein to purchase uranium from certain African countries, specifically Niger. We now know that Mr. Wilson's predilection not to believe in such connections was no doubt influenced by one intelligence official noting how ridiculous such a notion was while recommending that Mr. Wilson be sent on a African tour to determine the facts. Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British Butler report have concluded that Mr. Wilson was telling tall tales and the president and prime minister were telling the truth.

While Mr. Kerry has since cut his ties with Mr. Wilson, as president one cannot "rewind the tape." Hiring fumbling amateurs to make key foreign-policy decisions can lead to real problems. Once made, you can't take them back. But then we have the problem with another Kerry national security adviser, Sandy Berger. It appears the former administration legacy keepers were intent on telling the American people how tough the Clintonistas were on dealing with terrorism, especially the millennium cyber-terrorism challenge. But there were apparently lots of memos from the previous administration saying nothing of the sort. So Mr. Berger shows up at the National Archives, and not having a vacuum cleaner, purports to stuff related classified documents into his trousers. Shortly after this affair was revealed, the Kerry campaign threw overboard this "trusted" aid.

During real-time governance, this would make it tough to keep faith with the American people, given one aide after another falling overboard from the ship of state. But this doesn't appear to be just a coincidence. The Democratic nominee also has made much of the criticism of Richard Clarke, the former assistant on the National Security Council who claimed the Bush administration had been a total failure on counterterrorism policy, in contrast to the robust Clinton policies.

But now documents have come to light that shed a whole new perspective on the issue. It appears that in the summer of 2000, when Mr. Clarke was working for Sandy "Trousers" Berger, he briefed a key House subcommittee chaired by Congressman Chris Shays on what the Clinton administration was doing "to combat terrorism." Following the briefing, Mr. Clarke was asked whether an "integrated assessment" of terrorist "threats" had been considered, and Mr. Clarke noted such an assessment would be too difficult given the large number of them facing the United States.

Mr. Clarke then was asked whether there was a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism. Mr. Clarke replied that it was "silly" to believe a comprehensive strategy could be developed to deal with terrorism, adding that a domestic preparedness plan had yet to be developed, even seven years after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Finally, Mr. Clarke was asked how counterterrorism spending priorities were established, to which Mr. Clarke responded by providing a list of terrorist organizations.

Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis.