|
Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Oct. 26, 2001; 1 p.m. EDT
U.S. and British forces began a series of strikes in Afghanistan targeting al Qaeda training centers and the country's ruling Taliban on Sunday, Oct. 7. President Bush described the strikes as a "sustained, comprehensive and relentless" campaign against 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.
Charles Babington: Welcome. Lots of questions and comments today, obviously, about anthrax and the war in Afghanistan. Let's get started.
Boston, Mass.:
I am really concerned that the White House and Congress are completely clueless on the magnitude of what they are dealing with here and abroad.
Casting the confusion surrounding the administration's response as "communications lapses" sends a chill down my spine. This group appears to believe that getting the message right is more important than solving the problem at hand. Why else would the President be reading to school children as postal workers are reading contamination test results?
I also suspect that history will record that the stimulus package passed by the House as the most cynical piece of legislation in our nation's history. Thousands of working people lost their lives and IBM gets a multi-billion dollar tax break?!
Too bad we aren't in a parliamentary system, support for a no confidence vote would be catching on about now.
Charles Babington: I'll post another, related, question, and then respond.
Washington, D.C.:
Since September 11, President Bush's performance ratings have reached record highs. As a political insider, what particular strengths and weaknesses would you point out when evaluating his leadership in handling this crisis/war?
Charles Babington: To Boston, first: Re your second paragraph:
It's not my job to defend (or attack) the White House. In fairness, though, isn't it clear that the spread of anthrax has caught virtually every public health and medical group by surprise? It's tragic, but we're learning -- in a very hard way -- that anthrax spores apparently can travel more easily via the mail than anyone had previously thought. Part of the difficulty in crafting a "message'' is that the facts are moving and changing so rapidly.
Re Boston's last sentence: Our writer from Washington has it right. President Bush's approval ratings are sky high. If you called a "no confidence'' vote now, you would lose. Big time.
As for Washington's query -- you probably can analyze it as well as I can. The president has appeared, to most people anyway, resolute and steady in pursuing the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
San Antonio, Tex.:
The media has recently been very critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Anthrax issue. Don't you think the criticism is a little too severe given the uniqueness of the situation? Aren't some missteps inevitable?
Charles Babington: I think you just seconded my comments above.
Houston, Tex.:
G.W. Bush is cruising in the polls and rightly so. He has handled this situation impeccably. I know that you liberals are getting really worried about you mid-term outlook, but to try to tie "I don't have anthrax" to "I'm not a crook" (when he was),or "I did not have sex with that woman" (when he did) - is just despicable. More than anything, this event is giving the country a contrast between Democratic and Republican leadership.
Charles Babington: The writer is alluding to my Political Insider column, on our web site today. (And first, the ''you liberals'' tag doesn't apply to me. I assure you, you don't know my political thinking -- if any).
I tried to make clear in the column that Bush's startling statement differs in many important ways from Nixon's and Clinton's startling statements. If you read the column to the end -- and it's not a long column -- I hope you would see that.
Vienna, Va.:
Charles, a response to your column today about the presidential declarations. While you are correct in noting that they all three sound alike, the three of them could not have been more different as a statement of fact and personal integrity. Nixon honestly believed he was not a crook, and he probably wasn't, but he had a habit of stretching the truth sometimes and tried to cover up too many things in Watergate -- and he paid quite a price. Clinton always was a smooth double-talker, a borderline liar, and probably always will be (although at the moment he and Hillary seem to be honest in their support of Bush out of patriotism). I still marvel at how the public fell for his nonsense -- I sure didn't.
Bush, like his father, when he says something, it can generally be believed. Yes, both are politicians, but they are about as honest as any politician I've ever seen at the national level. If Bush says he doesn't have anthrax, you can bet your last penny he doesn't have a single anthrax spore in his body. Yes, his father said "read my lips, no new taxes," and much was made in the media of the bill he signed that did in fact impose some new taxes, but he had no choice. Congress forced it upon him in a critical budget situation, and he did not have the line-item veto to strike it. As far as I'm concerned, he told the truth and kept it to the best of his ability.
washingtonpost.com:
Every Presidential Word Weighs a Ton (washingtonpost.com, Oct. 26)
Charles Babington: You make good points, and I have only two quibbles. You are papering over Nixon's dishonesty. Remember, he deliberately impeded the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in (which itself was a crime, of course). However you define the term "crook,'' Nixon broke the law, and would have been prosecuted had Ford not pardoned him.
Re Bush the elder: The president did, in fact, have a choice of whether to agree to the tax increase. It wasn't a pleasant choice, and you can very easily argue that he made the right decision for the nation's well-being. His biggest mistake, it seems, was making the 'No New Taxes' pledge in the first place. Such blanket promises -- used in campaigns to help get elected -- often haunt an elected official who needs flexibility in dealing with changing circumstances.
Riverdale, Md.:
So what's the big deal about the president getting tested for anthrax? Is it an admission of weakness or something?
Charles Babington: This is my guess: The president knew that if he said 'yes' when asked if he has been tested for anthrax, the news media would run big headlines saying "Bush tested for Anthrax.'' For understandable reasons, he didn't want those headlines. So he evaded the question as best he could, yet he provided a strong hint in the answer he gave. There's only one way he can be positive he doesn't have anthrax: He was tested.
Tysons Corner, Va.:
This is where I don't think you media guys are getting it. Bush doesn't have a 90 percent approval rating, the war against Osama has a 90 percent approval rating. If I had been polled, I would say, yes I support the actions against Osama and the Taliban so yes, I support Bush's actions. However if an election were held today, I'd vote against him. He's still in the office illegally and I like many others will never forget it.
Charles Babington: Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Westport, Conn.:
I understand that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, both of whom work for the Department of Defense, have been in favor of attacking Iraq from the early days of this campaign. I believe that this strategy would greatly exacerbate feelings of animosity toward the U.S. in the Muslim world and destroy the fragile alliance that the administration has pieced together. What is your opinion?
Charles Babington: My opinion is: The presidency is a tough job, because the president ultimately must make difficult decisions -- often involving life and death -- after getting conflicting advice from smart people he respects. Other high-ranking members of the administration disagree strongly with Wolfowitz and Perle. In the end, only the president can decide which path to take.
Atlanta, Ga.:
Your thoughts on the fiscal "stimulus" package passed narrowly by the House yesterday?
Personally, I found the legislation to be downright offensive to my sensibilities as an American. This is a time to help out our economy and to help those directly affected by the 9/11 attacks. What we don't need is a boondoggle for the 10 richest corporations in America -- which is what was passed yesterday. Shame on the Republican leadership (Delay, Armey et. al)
Something tells me this will come back to haunt the Republicans come election time.
Charles Babington: And something tells me you're a Democrat... Thanks for writing.
London, U.K:
How will American troops avoid the pitfalls of the Russian war experience in Afghanistan?
Rishi. S 11 years old
Charles Babington: Hi, Rishi, thank you for writing.
You are quite right in noting that the Soviets suffered terrible losses in their decade-long war to try to conquer Afghanistan. While it's likely, and tragic, that some U.S. (and British) troops also will die in Aghanistan, the allies plan to employ smaller, quicker, more strategic strikes, using helicopters in many cases to get in and out quickly. The Soviets, by contrast, committed 642,000 soldiers to the effort, and about 15,000 died. The Post has written several good stories on this subject. One, by Moscow-based correspondent Sharon LaFraniere, is on today's page A26. We'll try to post a link to it.
washingtonpost.com:
"Soviet Veterans of Afghanistan Recall a Fearsome Foe: Winter," (Post, Oct. 26)
Austin, Tex.:
Where's Cheney been? I know he's made a few public appearances/statements, but the consensus among those I talk to around the capitol and the doctors' lounge here in Austin is that he's probably been in a hospital bed.
By the way, I liked your column today. It was right on about how presidents, for some odd reason, always try to diffuse an issue by talking about it more. Bush proved in the campaign he could diffuse something (drug rumors) by not talking about it; he could have just stuck to that strategy.
Charles Babington: Thanks for the column comments.
VP Cheney has been quite visible in the past 24 hours. He stood in for President Bush last night at a big GOP fundraiser in Washington. ("It's good to see somebody you know these days,'' he quipped. "We don't get many visitors at the cave.''). And this morning, Cheney was at the president's side when Bush signed the anti-terrorism bill just passed by Congress.
The White House repeatedly has said that it generally keeps the veep in an undisclosed location for security reasons.
Great Falls, Va.:
Mr. Babington,
With all due respect, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to get across to your readers, but I'm disappointed to see you present, President George W. Bush, in such an unflattering way. We are in a time where we need to have our media stand behind our Commander in Chief, and NOT put him in a category with the likes of those two crooks (yes, I believe Bill Clinton was the worst case of "crook in the White House" this nation had seen in the 20th century).
You may want to give more thought to your open opinion the next time you sit down at your keyboard. You have a responsibility to the public as writer for one of this nations biggest newspaper, and I think you may have "tripped up" on this one.
And I voted for Clinton -- twice.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing. It is not the news media's job to "stand behind'' the president (or the Congress or the courts). Our job is to report the news as honestly, aggressively and fairly as we can.
Santa Monica, Calif.:
Having learned from and enjoyed your columns very much, I agree with your remarks that your columns don't reflect any particular political viewpoint. But doesn't it strain credulity for a seasoned political reporter like you to suggest -- by your "if any" comment -- that you may not have any political views or thoughts?
Charles Babington: Well, I was being a tad droll, playing off my favorite line from my favorite movie. In the Wizard of Oz, just after Dorothy's house kills the Wicked Witch of the East, a Munchkin declares: "This is a day of independence for all the Munchkins and their descendants -- if any!''
Washington, D.C.:
Just wanted to note that your column left out "I have lusted in my heart" as one of the top 'things I never thought I'd hear my president say.
Any others you can think of? We all need a little lightening up.
Charles Babington: Oh, there's quite a nice list of memorable presidential one-liners, and Carter's is certainly among them. (What about Reagan's off-mike comment, 'The bombing begins in 5 minutes''?). I limited my list, however, to cases in which the prez was trying to halt a certain line of questioning.
Frederick, Md.:
It looks like the media is trying to forget Sept 11. Bin Laden has nuclear capability.
This anthrax thing is merely a diversion.
Lets look at the issues. He killed 6000 people Do you think he will hesitate to kill 60,000?
Charles Babington: There's proof that bin Laden has nukes? I haven't seen it. Here's another missive:
Frederick, Md.:
What about Bin Laden's nuclear capability?
Why wont the post touch that 1?
Did you see the London Times article? washingtonpost.com:
"Bin Laden's Nuclear Threat," (The Times, Oct. 26)
Charles Babington: The Post has written a good bit about the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And there are serious concerns about what might happen to those weapons if Pakistan becomes unstable or dissolves into civil war.
Boston, Mass.:
In defense of my earlier comments, poll ratings are meaningless indicators of future governance when taken in times of national crisis (ask Bush Senior). The president's numbers are up, because there are no other options available.
On the "caught by surprise" aspect of your response, when most experts in this area heard of the compound mix sent to Daschle they immediately saw it as weapons grade, capable of traveling in small air currents. Judging from the press conference performances of Governor Ridge, he was no doubt surprised that it was in the mail system.
My point is that he shouldn't have been.
Charles Babington: Thanks for writing back.
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
Charles, just wanted to let you know that I read your column to the end, understood your point, and thought it was a good one.
And I voted for Bush... and Dole... and the other Bush...
Charles Babington: Thanks, Pittsburgh... Go Steelers!
Boston, Mass.:
Carter was not President when he made the "lust in my heart" comment, he was a candidate.
Charles Babington: Yep... at the end of an interview with Playboy Magazine... when one of Carter's aides warned him that the tape recorder was still running...
Harrisburg, Pa.:
Tom Ridge just made a rambling speech about "Homeland Security" without referring to one specific action which needs to be taken. How long before the press starts grilling him -- and Bush -- about the issues?
Charles Babington: Well, a previous writer said we should stand behind the president, not grill him... You are right, of course, the news media must ask tough, probing questions of our top officials. You don't think that's happening?
Worthington, Minn.:
Bravo to the voices of dissent and inquisitiveness! Time and time again, our nation has undergone crises whose "real" stories were told only years later. For good or bad, our government is going to lie, exaggerate, leave things unsaid, or shade the truth -- sometimes for valid reasons, sometimes not. And for good or bad, it's the job of our free press to bring light to those darknesses. Many have given their lives to defend our right to speak freely, and shame on those who argue that our media "must" support this or that through the offices of that free press in exchange for the privilege to speak.
Charles Babington: Well, said, Worthington! And on that worthy note, I bid all of you adios until next week. Thanks for joining in.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
