Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Boss should take blame

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WEEKEND EDITION

April 10 - 11, 2004

Where, oh where, will that buck stop?

President Harry Truman, if not during his presidency then certainly in the bright light of hindsight, is revered in this country as one of the great leaders for his time. That's because he never shied away from the tough decisions even though there may have been political peril surrounding him on all sides. It is not uncommon today, in a world full of spin doctors, pollsters and presidential advisors counseling caution at every turn, to hear Americans wish for the good old days of President Truman when everyone knew exactly where they stood with the man in the Oval Office.

That famous sign, "The buck stops here," which adorned his desk during his presidential years has long been a source of pride amongst business folks, educators and practically every parent as they try to teach their charges about responsibility and the desirability of taking ownership in one's decisions. But finger-pointing has supplanted blame-taking in this country in just a few decades since Harry gave 'em hell so many years ago. And it appears that it may have reach a crescendo this past week in Washington.

I am sure millions of other West Coast Americans set their alarm clocks for 6 a.m. Thursday morning so they could catch every word of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. Her unprecedented and under oath answers before the Commission was a direct result of President George W. Bush's feeling the pressure from Americans who just wanted to know the truth about what happened or didn't happen in the months leading up to that fateful day in 2001. After all, not only did thousands of innocent Americans perish when the terrorists flew our own planes into our own buildings but so, too, did this country go to war in Iraq in a direct response to President Bush's declaration of war on all the bad guys. It was important for the people to know the truth and they knew that only the White House could provide the answers.

That's why Rice testified. And, lest people think otherwise, she did a great job. Not necessarily by providing answers to the many unanswered questions raised by the former terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, who testified the week before that the President didn't take his warnings of terrorist threats seriously enough, but by protecting her boss from the unkind scrutiny that could flow his way by countrymen unclear about whether Clarke was right.

Without even a hint of apology in her voice or her testimony, Condi told the Commission and the American people that she was never given a notice of specific threat by Al Qaida, by anyone, that would have led her to believe that an attack was coming our way. In the face of the obvious, that Clarke's memos and warnings had "watch out" written all over them, Rice maintained her position. A position that she must have believed kept her boss, the president, away from any fallout that most certainly must come.

It is not my purpose to cast blame here, there or anywhere. If there is blame, the Commission seems perfectly competent to find it, place it and provide recommendations to the president and Congress that will prevent the unthinkable from happening again on our shores. My purpose is, rather, to talk about leadership and the responsibility of leaders.

Let me say it clearly. Harry Truman would have been front and center explaining to the American people what happened, why it happened and what he was doing to make sure it would never happen again. If there was some blame to be taken, he would have trotted out his famous sign and made sure the buck stopped right where he was standing.

Contrast that to the current president. He allowed Condi Rice to testify before the Commission, explain that in spite of the evidence of warnings, red flags, pleas for help and whatever else her terrorism expert could throw her way, there was never anything that was labeled or looked like a threat so she didn't take any specific action. She did say she alerted the FBI and others to be on guard, although it appears that they and the others have and will dispute that claim.

President Bush has made much of his leadership role since 9-11. And whether you agree or not with his actions, it is fair to say that he has led. One of the questions before the Commission, though, is was he leading before those planes crashed into the World Trade Center. The answer to that question may swing the upcoming presidential election which, at least according to the Bush White House, is the only question upon which this election should turn.

So, did he lead? It appears that it was Rice who determined that what Richard Clarke was telling here did not warrant the president's attention or, one might conclude, she would have brought it immediately to his attention, which I don't think she did. Whether that's because she didn't want to disturb the boss while he was on vacation or she didn't think the information that terrorists were living amongst us with evil intentions was reliable or specific enough to tell someone about it, we may never know.

But, it seems to me that a good leader would have his people trained well enough to bring to his attention anything that may smack of terrorism, regardless of what they may think of the information. After all, he is the person the American people voted into office to protect and defend them against all enemies -- foreign and domestic -- and he is the person whose job will be on the line if the people think he failed them.

The 9-11 attack is the biggest tragedy to hit our country since the Civil War, and that was a war of our own making so it shouldn't count. That makes 9-11 the single worst attack on this country. It is ludicrous to think that the role of the United States and its president in the days, weeks and months prior to that attack turns on the definition of the word "threat" and the sooner the President realizes that the better off he and we will be.

When Richard Clarke testified before the Commission he prefaced his remarks with an apology to the victims. Not that it was his fault but in recognition that it was someone's fault -- perhaps and probably the entire government's. As the leader of that government, it would behoove President Bush to consider making a similar apology.

At least then we would know where the buck stops and just what kind of leader the man really is.

archive