Presidents all the same when scandal
strikes
Former U.S. congressman Bob Barr
December 28, 2005
Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have
ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush
administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on
American citizens.
First, in the best tradition of former President Bill Clinton's classic,
"it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is" defense, President Bush responded
to a question at a White House news conference about what now appears to be a
clear violation of federal electronic monitoring laws by trying to argue that
he had not ordered the National Security Agency to "monitor" phone and e-mail
communications of American citizens without court order; he had merely ordered
them to "detect" improper communications.
This example of presidential phrase parsing was followed quickly by the
president's press secretary, Scott McLellan, dead-panning to reporters that
when Bush said a couple of years ago that he would never allow the NSA to
monitor Americans without a court order, what he really meant was something
different than what he actually said. If McLellan's last name had been McCurry,
and the topic an illicit relationship with a White House intern rather than
illegal spying on American citizens, I could have easily been listening to a
White House news conference at the height of the Clinton impeachment
scandal.
On foreign policy, domestic issues, relationships with Congress, and even
their selection of White House Christmas cards and china patterns, presidents
are as different as night and day. But when caught with a hand in the cookie
jar and their survival called into question, administrations circle the wagons,
fall back on time-worn but often effective defense mechanisms, and seamlessly
morph into one another.
First, we get a president bobbing and weaving like Muhammad Ali. He knows he
can't really tell the truth and he knows he can't rely only on lies. The
resulting dilemma leads him to veer from unintelligible muttering to attempts
to distract, and then to chest-beating bravado and attacks on his accusers.
Soon, he begins taking trips abroad and appearing at the White House podium
with foreign leaders with minimal command of English, allowing him to duck for
cover whenever scandal questions arise.
Of course, the president can't carry the entire stonewalling burden alone.
The next actors to enter the stage typically are the president's press
secretary and the White House counsel's office. Serious scandals tend to spawn
congressional investigations and independent counsels. As Clinton quickly
learned, and Richard Nixon before him, the best way to short-circuit such
endeavors is to force the investigators and lawyers to fight like dogs for
every inch of ground they get.
By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of
motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an
investigation to the point of exhaustion. By the time the investigation
actually slogs through this legal maze to bring real charges or issue a report,
the courts, public and media are so sick and tired of hearing about it that the
final charges fall stillborn from the press.
A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the
partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels don't
start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative and you
don't let up. If you're always attacking your accusers, the debate becomes one
of Democrat vs. Republican, rather than right vs. wrong. Anyone who questions
the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is
attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to
distract a president at war.
Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid
or at least control pesky oversight investigations. A president's job here is
made far easier if his party maintains a majority in one or both houses. Even
if your party doesn't enjoy control of either the House or the Senate, you can
still achieve your desired goal, as did Clinton — America's master
scandal handler. You've just got to work harder at it.
The signs are everywhere that the Bush White House is busily implementing
all parts of this defense strategy. It would be refreshing if it decided to
clear the air and actually be honest about its post-Sept. 11 surveillance.
However, that's unlikely. The problem this president faces, as did his
predecessors, is that full disclosure would lead to the remedy stage. No
president wants to fight that end-game.
— Former U.S. attorney and congressman Bob Barr practices law in
Atlanta. His Web site: www.bobbarr.org
|