/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\
THE DREAMERS - IN SELECT CITIES
Set against the turbulent political backdrop of 1968 France
when the voice of youth was reverberating around Europe, THE
DREAMERS is a story of self-discovery as three students test
each other to see just how far they will go. THE DREAMERS
is now playing in select theaters.
for more info:
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thedreamers/index_nyt.html
\----------------------------------------------------------/
Lifting the Shroud
March 23, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote
a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud
of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the
administration's secretiveness knew no limits - Americans,
Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they
say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed
to accept the administration's version of events, not ask
awkward questions.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: more
and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the
truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution - yes,
Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days,
and never mind the science - to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to
impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to
realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about
the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told
Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation
force, that was the end of his military career. When
Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of
the Union speech contained information known to be false,
someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by
revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know
that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary,
was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress
the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug
plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard
Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the
author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously
unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war
president," had "done a terrible job on the war against
terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the
character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to
bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position,"
declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was
"out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was
the administration's top official on counterterrorism.)
It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about
policy," Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's
character because there is plenty of independent evidence
confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings
before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the
Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show
that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop
terrorism as a priority - it wasn't even mentioned in his
list of seven "strategic goals" - just one day before 9/11
he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after
9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for
counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed
this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been
attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut
in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on
American soil, they will find their task made much easier
by the administration's strange reluctance, even after
9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a
bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about
$10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and
nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to
9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of
course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept.
11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group
of people, both inside and outside the administration, who
believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq
first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr.
Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the
hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall,
it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the
assumption by most political pundits, until very recently,
that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely
that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job.
And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing
its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge
personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just
wanted the public to know the truth.
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?ex=1081235647&ei=1&en=05c9c3982fb9f547
---------------------------------
Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page � FREE download! -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
