Democracy in Peril

By Steve Sebelius

THE BASTARD: Don't fault Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., for questioning former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's credibility, or for demanding that some of his earlier testimony before a joint intelligence panel be declassified. That's normal partisan wrangling, and Clarke should be made to defend his record, if there are really any inconsistencies therein.

Instead, fault Frist for being a heartless son of a bitch.

In a floor speech on Friday, Frist slammed Clarke for--of all things--apologizing to the relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on behalf of himself and the government. "I failed you," Clarke said at one point, as tearful relatives looked on. It was the first time they'd heard those words from anyone in power.

And that, apparently, was unbearable to Frist, a heart surgeon who has forgotten his bedside manner since taking over the Senate's Republican reins. "To apologize on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility," Frist said. "In my view, it was not an act of humility but of supreme arrogance and manipulation. Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct--that is all."

But that gives us more insight into Frist's twisted character than it does into Clarke. It seems Frist and his fellow Republicans are really upset because somebody actually decided to take personal responsibility for failing to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, something neither the president nor his administration has done, and could never do.

Instead, in the wake of Clarke's charges that the administration ignored the threat and then focused, wrongly, on Iraq, the Bush administration has done little but shift blame, point fingers at former President Bill Clinton and justify its Iraqi adventurism. No wonder the contrast is too much for Frist or his fellow Republicans to bear.

Witness the statements of Condoleezza Rice, who only recently agreed to testify under oath to the commission, as Clarke has already done. She declined a chance to take some responsibility herself, and said, "It's important that we keep focused on who did this to us."

And that, of course, was Al-Qaeda, the group the administration lost its focus on in order to invade Iraq.

Clarke certainly has his flaws. But inaccuracy doesn't appear to be one of them. Consider this key paragraph from the Washington Post: "Clarke said that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration built support for Al-Qaeda by

inflaming Islamic opinion, diverted resources from the hunt for Osama

bin Laden and spent money that could have been better used to fortify

domestic security."

It's that kind of dangerous truth-telling that has Republicans all over the Capitol witch-hunting Clarke, who has withstood the scrutiny well. Bush, by contrast, has been left only to deny, change the subject, wave his hand and say it's all in the past, and wonder if we can't we have some unity here. He wants to use the war in soft-focus images in his campaign spots, but can't handle the scrutiny of an insider who knows too much.