Springing A Trap

Even the Washington Post is admitting that President Bush really caught critics in a carefully crafted trap. By stealing a page from the usual playbook his critics use and "reframing" the argument of terrorist detainees he has actually backed those critics into a corner. Even thought the press is still spinning the speech he gave yesterday as an "admission" about secret prisons, the fact that he has turned the issue around and made it a debate on how to deal with some very dangerous people.

By challenging Congress to immediately give the administration authority to try notorious al-Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed by military commissions, he shifted the argument with Democratic critics of national security policies and competence. As Bush framed the choice, anyone against his proposal would be denying him necessary tools to protect American security.

His success in catching much of Washington by surprise showed that a president who polls show has his political back to the wall still has formidable tools: the ability to make well-timed course corrections on policy, dominate the news and shape the capital's agenda in the weeks before Election Day.

Bush's moves were partly a concession to those who have complained about secret CIA prisons abroad. Even as he acknowledged the existence of the prison program for the first time, Bush could argue that there are no terrorism suspects now in the CIA program.

At the same time, Bush sought to redefine the issue of CIA detentions from one of civil liberties to one of protecting Americans. He asserted that interrogators had reaped an intelligence bonanza from the questioning of top al-Qaeda leaders such as Mohammed — the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — and Osama bin Laden deputy Abu Zubaida, and insisted Congress pass a law that would allow such interrogations to continue without legal jeopardy to soldiers and intelligence officers.

"We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives," he said in his speech in the East Room of the White House.

This is a minefield for his critics. They can appear to be in favor of civil rights for terrorists or they can be in favor of protecting Americans. They got caught out on this one regardless of what spin you read in the press and they have effectively lost control of the debate. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but this was a massive surprise and pretty darned effective.

Just Wow

Talk about working yourself into a frothing rage. The Washington Post is reporting a full court press by Clintonistas against the "docudrama" The Path to 9/11. A lot of them are screeching but especially Sandy "Socks" Berger.

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."

Marc Platt, the film's executive producer, said that although it "does contain composite and conflated scenes and representative characters and dialogue, we've worked very hard to be fair. If individuals feel they're wrongly portrayed, that's obviously of concern. We've portrayed the essence of the truth of these events. Our intention was not in any way to be political or present a point of view."

I am quite sure the email system at ABC is in imminent danger of melting under the onslaught it must be getting. One thing I am very curious about now. What exactly did Berger steal from the National Archives and how incriminating was it? (Anybody who believes his excuse that he mistakenly stuffed documents into his socks and removed them is smoking something pretty powerful).

WordPress Themes