White House Wag: Putting Talk to the Test

W A S H I N G T O N, Oct. 11, 2001 -- White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's remark that Americans "need to watch what they say" may be the most analyzed comment by a public official since the Sept. 11 attacks.

While some saw it as intimidation, Fleischer says it wasn't intended that way. He says he was simply trying to call for civility in this difficult time. But let's turn Fleischer's exhortation around for a moment, by looking at some of the things President Bush and his top aides have said over the last month.

The Terrorists' Mistake?

The president has declared several times that those who struck Sept. 11 made a "terrible mistake" or "miscalculated." Speaking at the FBI two weeks after the attacks, Bush said, "I believe the evildoers miscalculated when they struck America." A day earlier, he declared of the terrorists: "They made a terrible mistake...They have raised the ire of a great nation."

How they miscalculated is unclear. The hijackers and their supporters certainly did not expect their acts to go unnoticed. They wanted to die for their cause and they were granted that wish. They have cost more than 100,000 Americans their jobs, at least temporarily. They probably didn't expect to topple the Western world in one day, but they certainly got our attention.

Nor can they have had any doubt that the United States would try to engage them militarily. Rather than fearing a fight, they were eager to bring one on. There is little we can do to strike fear into the hearts of people who believe they will receive eternal bliss in another world by incinerating themselves and thousands of others.

Which is not to say that we should not hunt down those responsible for the hijack plot. Here, our interests are oddly aligned with theirs. They wish to die and most Americans would gladly see them granted that wish.

To be sure, some in this plot have made mistakes and miscalculations. They are the ones who sit in various jails across this country and in Europe, having failed to reach their targets. The best revenge might be to deny those and others we capture the martyrdom they seek.

Creed Is No Object

As he called on the world to back America's war on terror, the president highlighted some of the rhetoric spewed forth by Osama bin Laden and his followers.

"The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children," Bush said in his speech to Congress.

Talking to reporters, Fleischer and top Bush adviser Karen Hughes also pointed to bin Laden's call to target Christians and Jews. True enough and certainly reprehensible enough. But the president was also trying to get the Muslim world on board for his battle against terrorism. To that end, it would have been good to mention that bin Laden and his gang have never shown any reluctance to kill Muslims.

The embassy bombings in Africa killed a total of 12 Americans. To kill those 12, al Qaeda operatives ended the lives of more than 200 Africans, many of whom were Muslims. In addition, thousands of people were wounded, not because of their religion but just because they were there. Of the roughly 5,000 who perished in the World Trade Center attacks, dozens if not hundreds must have been Muslims.

It was a point British Prime Minister Tony Blair made in his speech to a Labor Party conference on Oct. 2: "Let no one say this was a blow for Islam, when the blood of innocent Muslims was shed along with those of the Christian, Jewish and other faiths around the world."

Straight Talk

Bush is at his best when he speaks unscripted and from the heart. On Tuesday, when he delivered a blunt warning to Congress about leaks, he exhibited a directness not seen in Washington since the days of President Lyndon B. Johnson. In front of TV cameras, Mr. Bush delivered a very public rebuke of Congress.

"If you receive a briefing of classified information, you have a responsibility. And some members did not accept that responsibility, somebody didn't," the president said, with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder at his side. "I understand there may be some heartburn on Capitol Hill. But I suggest if they want to relieve that heartburn, that they take their positions very seriously, and that they take any information they've been given by our government very seriously. Because this is serious business we're talking about."

If anyone was still confused, the president drove the point home once again: "I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk."

In private conversations with congressional leaders, the president is said to have used even more colorful language to describe his displeasure with leaks from Capitol Hill.Any other president in recent memory would have had aides express "concern" about "inappropriate disclosures." Bush's public message was unmistakable and, in a town renowned for shadow-boxing, refreshing.

Cosmetic Security

The president's Sept. 27 speech at O'Hare Airport rallied workers there, but left something to be desired in the candor department. In fact, many of the security measures he announced are largely cosmetic. He asked governors to send the National Guard into airports, but never really said what the troops are supposed to do.

He promised "visible security measures, so the traveling public will know that we are serious about airline safety in America." Later, an administration official involved in crafting the plan told reporters that the military presence would serve as a deterrent to those looking to make trouble.

A deterrent? To suicide bombers? Unlikely.

During a trip through Boston's Logan Airport recently, I saw at least eight armed, uniformed law enforcement officers and military troops standing near a single checkpoint. Most were chatting with each other. Several were toting M-16s. (Did they plan to use them if there was trouble? Is that a good weapon to use at short range in a crowded airport terminal?)

Meanwhile, the same low-paid security screeners who were at work the morning of Sept. 11 went through my bag looking for nail files and other contraband.If the scene was supposed to be reassuring, it was not. We'd be better served if those law enforcement where out of sight, in the bowels of the airport, watching luggage loaders and catering trucks.

Bending the Truth

The administration is very eager to get its anti-terrorism bill through the Congress quickly, even though critics have pointed out that many of the bill's provisions make no reference to terrorism and would broaden law enforcement authority across the board.

One aspect would strengthen the federal government's right to detain foreigners suspected of terrorist activity. On CBS's Face the Nation recently, Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to reassure the public and members of Congress that the courts would see that new powers over immigrants weren't abused.

"Each of these individuals is the subject of judicial review, so the judicial branch of government oversees," Ashcroft said. "If there are undue infringements, if there are any unconstitutional activities, the courts can remedy them."

Despite Ashcroft's assertion, immigration cases are not customarily heard by judges from the judiciary branch. Challenges to actions by the Immigration and Naturalization Service go before judges who work for the Justice Department.

These judges are not subject to Senate confirmation. Even appeals in immigration cases go to a panel within the executive branch. Immigrants do sometimes appeal beyond that to judges in the judicial branch but rarely get to that stage without a year or more going by.

Another byproduct of immigration cases being handled in the executive branch: most immigration proceedings take place in secret, while most federal court hearings are open to the public. Whatever justice is done behind those closed doors, the public doesn't usually hear about it.