|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Sept. 28, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
Tuesday, Sept. 11, in a horrific series of events, hijacked planes hit
and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center and crashed into
the Pentagon in what's being described as the single worst act of
terrorism on U.S. soil. The Bush administration and law enforcement
officials are actively seeking those responsible and have declared war
on terrorism.
Charles Babington, chief political
correspondent for washingtonpost.com, was online to discuss President Bush's handling of the terrorist crisis and other political news from the past week.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live
Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts;
guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Boston, Mass.:
I understand that in war, truth is the first casualty. And I respect Secretary Rumsfeld's comments on the matter.
But, the White House communications team has engaged in what I would characterize as a highly cynical (and wholly unnecessary) pattern of duplicitous behavior designed to polish the President's image during this crisis.
What can we take from the fact that these folks spent the second day of the crisis (while fires were still smoldering) to plant a bogus story on threats to the President? Now comes Big Brother Ari Fleischer warning us to watch what we say and sanitizing his comments in the transcript. Transcription errors again?!
Seems to me that the administration that promised us new integrity in the White House has more than once placed their own political standing above the truth.
So with that, don't we deserve to have a press that holds this administration to the same standard of veracity as they did Clinton (I'm no fan of his)? Especially now that more than family values are at stake?
Charles Babington: Well, slow down a minute. On the story about a possible threat to Air Force One, there's no proof that the White House "planted'' the tale. Officials do now concede that they can't find a record of a phone call threatening AF1, and it's quite possible no such call was made. But that doesn't prove it was a deliberate deception. There was a lot of confusion on that terrible day, and it's possible that honest mistakes were made in relaying information to and from those who guard the president. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
As for WH press secretary Fleischer allegedly changing quotes in a transcript: The White House says the error was made by the transcription service (which is a private, non-government contractor), and I've seen no info to refute that.
Hartford, Conn.:
At a time of major terrorist action, isn't it unfair for people to keep making such a big deal about Bush going to Nebraska before coming to Washington right away? Even if there weren't credible threats, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? At this point it seems like a non-issue.
Charles Babington: I think the issue has largely faded from the news. In retrospect, White House officials didn't help themselves (or their boss) by making a big issue of the alleged threat on the day after the terrorist attacks. Now it seems there was no threatening phone call after all, and their actions -- in hindsight -- look questionable. But given the scope of the tragedy, I doubt it'll go down in history as a big deal.
Tucson, Ariz.:
Could there be any connection between the attacks on Sept. 11 and the breached computer security by former CIA Chief John Deutsh?
Charles Babington: None that I've heard a single soul suggest.
Alexandria, Va.:
The terrorists think that we will bend to their will. Do you think that will happen?
Charles Babington: No.
Washington, D.C.:
In today's Post, page 18 has the pictures of all the hijackers. For better or worse, this page, if found by readers, will be viewed intensively. My stereotyping of DC's major newspapers led me to correctly guess that the Washington Times would put the pictures on the front page. I realize you can't speak for the editors, but wanted to know whether you thought the discrepancy was "political." It seems to me, these men are probably the worst criminals in American history. Why bury them on page 18?
-sbm
Charles Babington: These are mug shots of 19 dead men -- mass murderers, to be sure. We already knew their ages, their names, their national origins. How much, in terms of newsworthiness, do the mug shots add? Are you startled to find that any of them looked vastly different from what you expected? Will the photos help you identify potential threats (no, obviously, because they're all dead). You're right, I don't speak for the Post editors, but I think they played it right.
Herndon, Va.:
A full "truce" seems to be in effect now -- but when do you think partisan politics will begin to return? As it should, I might add.
Charles Babington: You make a good point. Partisan politics is not a terrible thing, regardless of some recent rhetoric. Yes, we have to be especially restrained at times of war or potential war. When U.S. troops' lives are directly on the line, it's vital that criticisms of the president's policy be based strictly on nonpartisan, unselfish convictions.
Charles Babington: oops, I hit the "send' button before I meant to. To continue... Partisan politics play an important role in our government system, especially on domestic issues such as the budget. It's vital that we have vigorous debates in Congress and elsewhere before important decisions are made. Our main parties, Republican and Democrat, are essentially the way we organize such debates along roughly conservative and liberal lines. You're already seeing a bit of partisan debate on the issue of whether the government should supply benefits to the many thousands of airlines workers being laid off because of repercussions from the terrorist attacks. When Congress reconvenes in January, I suspect many of the old partisan disagreements will re-emerge.
Greenville, SC:
Re this quote from MSNBC:
"After Ashcroft finished speaking, committee Democrats called civil liberties
and free-speech advocates to testify, including representatives of the
American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, which have
echoed some of -Rep. John Conyers' (D-Mich.)] concerns.
"But while Ashcroft's testimony was open to television cameras, the
committee's Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave, including those
of C-SPAN, the public interest network available on cable television systems
nationwide, NBC News' Mike Viqueira reported.
"Print reporters and members of the general public were allowed to remain,
meaning the speakers' comments could be reported, but none of them would be
available for Americans to see or hear for themselves." MSNBC, 9/27
______________________________
Does this kind of thing happen often? I thought CSPAN covered all open hearings.
Can any member of a committee order cameras to be removed?
Charles Babington: Hmmm,that's the first I've heard of this.... I don't believe C-SPAN covers all open hearings, because many of them occur simultaneously. (C-SPAN's only obligation, as I understand it, is to show the House and Senate when they are in official session in their chambers).
Perhaps one of our other viewers can enlighten us about what happened at this hearing.
thanks for writing.
Washington, D.C.:
The people who are making a big deal out of President Bush going to Nebraska on Sept. 11 are oddballs who are woefully out of touch with the rest of America. A LA Times poll showed 85 percent of Americans agreed that the President did the right thing by not rushing back to D.C.
On another subject, why was the D.C. bill that approved federal benefits for same-sex partners rushed through the House? That hardly seems like a high priority item during this time.
Charles Babington: Re your first subject: Thanks for sharing your views.
Re your second: The domestic-partners provision has been a controversy for years. I can't imagine it "rushed' through the House.
Baltimore, Md.:
You said in your column that this crisis tends to favor Republicans politically, at least in the short term. Would Democrats be favored politically if Gore were in the White House? Or did you mean that military action like this favor Republicans regardless of who occupies the Oval office, because of thier instant credibility with defense policy?
Charles Babington: You're referring to my Political Insider column from yesterday... I said the crisis helps Republicans, at least in the short run, because it brought a sudden halt to a national debate that was favoring the Democrats: The shrinking of the budget surplus and the return to deficit spending after so much hoopla (during Clinton's term) about getting the budget into the black. If that conversation resumes by early next year, the Democrats might pick up the momentum where they left off.
And if Gore were president? It's impossible to say. He wouldn't have pushed a big tax cut like Bush did, so the debate that was taking place just before the terrorist attacks would have been something else.
Alexandria, Va.:
It seems to me that releasing the photos of the hijackers is a logical and necessary step in both the investigation ("If you saw any of these men, please call and give us any information"; the more dots there are to connect, the clearer the picture becomes) and the healing and support of our country. I don't know that making them a front-page feature is necessarily called for, but the photos shouldn't just be glossed over, either.
Charles Babington: For what it's worth, the photos are on page A18 of today's Post, A8 in USA Today and B4 in the New York Times.
Alexandria, Va.:
Who will be mayor of New York on January 1, 2002?
Charles Babington: You tell me.... And tell me something else: Why are so few people apparently remarking on the fact that Giuliani's proposals fly in the face of the democratic principle that voters' decisions should stand? Wisely or not, NYC voters elected to limit their mayors to two consecutive terms. Wisely or not, they had a system for inaugurating a new mayor on a given date.
Now, perhaps it's the smartest thing in the world to have Rudy Giuliani hang on a bit longer. But in other cases (granted, under vastly different circumstances), when an elected leader says, 'Hey, I'd like to stick around longer than you had planned for,' we get very concerned... I'm struck by a lack of comment on this topic.
Washington, D.C.:
Concerning the "mug shots" - - good point that it serves little purpose in hunting down the suspects since they are already dead. The suspected ringleader is also dead however and he shows up on the front page all the time -- just interested in the Washington Post's duty to curb racial stereotyping.
Charles Babington: Racial stereotyping is a serious subject, and one that the Post (and many other news outlets) don't treat lightly.... Mohamed Atta's photo has appeared quite often because he, more so than any other hijacker, has been the subject of many news stories. That's because we've learned a good bit about him, and because he apparently was a ringleader.
Washington, D.C.:
Hey Charles:
Despite before this terrible event, there was a Mr. Timothy McViegh.
Does this give support to police bringing back (it was never gone really), racial profiling?
Thanks. Charles
An American of Color who's given support, blood and tears to my fellow Americans.
Charles Babington: Timothy McVeigh is Exhibit A in the argument AGAINST racial profiling -- that's the point you're making, right?
Dupont Circle:
No one is thinking about presidential politics right now. And 2004 is a long way off and no one can know what conditions will prevail then. Nevertheless ...
Presuming that foreign policy and defense will be more important now, what potential Democratic presidential candidates have the strongest credentials on those issues? Who is most likely to benefit? Who is most likely to suffer?
Charles Babington: Actually, a fair number of people are thinking about the presidential 2004 race. That doesn't mean they're venal or unpatriotic. As long as they're quiet and dignified about it, they're just being realistic.
As for which Democratic candidate might fare well when defense and foreign policy topics are hot, it's hard to say. Sen. John Kerry was a Vietnam War hero, (and became a prominent critic of the war), so he comes quickly to mind. Al Gore steeped himself in issues of nuclear arms control and relations with Russia, etc... I'm sure others can stake their own claims.
Washington, D.C.:
I agree; it is strange that Guilianni's apparent desire to run again or circumvent the eletoral process has gotten virtually no play. It's one thing for the public to say they want him and for him to say he will stay if wanted, but for him to scheme to stay in office is a bit scary. And not very patriotic.
Charles Babington: If NYC weren't still reeling from its horrible disaster, I'm sure there would be more comment on this.
(Of course, it's Giuliani's handling of the crisis that prompted all the hang-on talk in the first place, isn't it?)
Greenville, SC:
Thanks, Charles, for pointing out the anti-democratic position that Giuliani is taking to stay in office. Can you imagine Abe Lincoln suggesting that the presidential election of 1864 not be held because he was busy with a crisis? Shame on Rudy, after all the good will he generated with his handling of the crisis. Do you think the New York Supreme Court will have something to say? Can Rudy really cut a deal with the other candidates and that makes it legal?
Charles Babington: I'm not sure I'd say ''Shame on Rudy.'' All I'm saying is, Look, folks, you should think this thing through -- and think about the possible precedent it sets.
New York:
Re Guiliani:
We meeded a strong leader after the attack and Rudy did an excellent job (The Good Rudy emerged). He could have left on a high note and if we really wanted needed him, they could have appointed him a special commissioner to rebuild downtown.
Now the Bad Rudy is starting to come out. I think he is misguided to strong arm the candidates to allow him an extra three months in power.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing in from NYC.
Washington, D.C.:
Charles:
I'm sorry, yes that is the point I'm making.
McViegh vs. excuse for enforcing or supporting racial profiling.
Charles Babington: OK, thanks for writing back.
wiredog:
Maybe no one is commenting on the keep Rudy manuvering because we don't think it will happen? When his term is up he'll take a nice job in the White House, or maybe Albany, dealing with the reconstruction.
Charles Babington: Well, if you really don't think it will happen, how come it's on the front pages of the NYC papers day after day, on national network news, etc?
Boston, Mass.:
You're proabaly right... the White House probably didn't plant the story on threats to AF-1. I suppose that in the midst of all this, Bill Safire took it upon himself to construct an "insiders" account of what went on in the bunker just three days after the incident.
It's one thing to be fair, but if it smells like rotten fish...
Charles Babington: In retrospect, Saffire's column (which ran in the NYT shortly after the attack, and slightly rebuked the president for not returning to Washington sooner) looks pretty prescient.
Helena, Mont.:
Isn't this the biggest security failure since Pearl Harbor? Won't the CIA and/or FBI just be ripped apart when the inevitable congressional investigations begin?
Charles Babington: Who knows what might come out of congressional inquiries? For now, President Bush has expressed strong support for CIA Director George Tenet (who, you'll recall, was appointed by Clinton).
Woodland Hills:
In a reply to the first question regarding
possible White House "spinning" you
wrote that you'd "give them the benefit of
doubt." Isn't it your job (and responsibility)
as a reporter to actually find out the truth?
Charles Babington: Yep. But if you tell me how to unravel exactly what the president's top aides said or didn't say -- on secure telephones in the White House and Air Force One, about protecting the president's life on the day of the worst terrorist attacks in world history -- well, you're a much better reporter than I'll ever be.
I submit there's not enough subpoena power or sodium pentathol in the world... and I have neither, by the way.
Charles Babington: Well, on that cheerful note we'll call it a day. Thanks for joining in, and hope to see you next week.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
