Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Big problem for Bush

Saturday, April 3, 2004 | 6:49 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THE ONLY MAN who can defeat President George W. Bush for re-election is George W. Bush.

That is an enviable position for the incumbent to be in as he heads toward the long hot summer of presidential politics. And as much as Americans have come to believe that this year's race between the president and Sen. John Kerry will be a barn burner in much the same way that the 2000 election turned out to be, the fact remains that it is tough to beat an incumbent and doubly tough to beat a wartime incumbent.

But, hope springs eternal and President Bush keeps springing election-year doozies on the American people in such a way as to make what should have been a runaway re-election bid a too-close-to-call contest.

His latest and greatest is the Condoleeza Rice affair in which the White House national security adviser has become the front and center bull's-eye for all direct hits on the president's anti-terrorism policy pre- and post 9-11. It didn't have to be this way, of course, but it was destined to be once a certain arrogance overtook the White House, which caused those who work within it to believe that the only people undeserving of the truth about what happened before 9-11 are the American people.

How else can one explain the bizarre turn of events that caused President Bush to stand absolutely pat on the unwavering principle of executive privilege in not letting Rice testify before the 9-11 Commission and then, at the first sign of public unrest, gave principle away to politics?

Presidents, as we know, jealously guard the prerogatives of the office so that Congress and the judicial branch do not "encroach" on the powers of the executive branch. It has ever been thus and so it shall forever remain that way.

That is the principle that required President Bush, a man of principle, to snub the commission, which is charged with finding out the truth about how Osama bin Laden managed to hit us when we weren't looking. That is the same principle that was thrown to the wolves when the political hounds were baying at the White House moon.

Once Richard Clarke testified under oath about what President Bush knew and just when he knew it, the American public figured it out. And what they figured was that President Bush ought to step forward and tell us all right away what happened and why that mean Mr. Clarke was saying all those bad things.

The bad things, by the way, had everything to do with the kind of vigilance a government is supposed to have with regard to such things as national security and terrorism. Clarke's testimony seemed to poke a few holes in the "impenetrable shield" erected around the president that causes anyone who questions his diligence on our behalf to be branded some kind of traitor.

That's why the White House, in an effort to quell widespread public critcism and bewilderment, made a deal with the commission to allow Rice to testify under oath. In an election year, it would not do to have the president's national security diligence on our behalf questioned in the slightest. After all, a wartime president cannot win re-election if the reason we are at war might be laid somewhere near his doorstep.

It is in President Bush's interest, therefore, to get Condi in and out of that hearing room and this issue of who knew what when and who did or did not do what, when and why, resolved as quickly as possible. I know that is all clear to you but what muddies the water even further is the deal the White House made to allow all this to happen.

The American people aren't stupid. It is precisely because they "got" what was happening that the president capitulated and gave up on principle in favor of political advantage. So what makes all President Bush's men think that the people aren't going to figure out this latest mess and conclude that there is even more to hide?

How can, for example, President Bush expect any reasonable American to accept a deal that allows Rice to testify only once under oath? Is it not reasonable to expect that her answers may give rise to further questions by the bipartisan members of the commission? What happens then? Are the people out of luck because time is up?

And what about that part of the deal that says the only person in the White House the American people get to have answer questions is Rice? What if we learn that other people knew something or have something to add to this fact-finding inquiry? Are they lost forever to posterity? Is that any way to investigate and report to the voters what happened and how to make sure it doesn't happen again?

And what could the commission members possibly have been thinking when they agreed to let President Bush and Vice President Cheney not talk under oath? It takes most people that long just to say hello and by that time the hour is up and the American people may never know what the President knew, when he knew it and what he did about what he did know.

This is the kind of situation that will make President Bush ripe for all kind of speculation, much of which might be unfair, but all of which will be justified because the people will have no facts from which to draw any other conclusions. This is exactly the kind of situation that President Bush's advisers should avoid at all costs and, yet, they seem determined to put him in the way of election year harm.

Personally, I don't get it. Why would the president allow the American people to believe he has something to hide throughout this election year when all he has to do is answer the commission's questions the same way every other witness has done: In public, under oath and for as long as it takes for the members of the commission to satisfy themselves that they know all there is to know in order to report to the people what happened on 9-11 and why it did happen.

If President Bush is the only man who can beat President Bush this coming November, the big question remains: Why is he doing this to himself?

And not knowing any more, millions of voters may have to just guess at the answer come Election Day. That is how sure things are lost.

archive