Bush’s evolving standards on security clearances

Think Progress found a real gem that warrants a lot of attention.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, many members of Congress received an administration briefing on the threat of another attack. In fact, about three weeks after 9/11, the Washington Post reported:

Asked whether more terrorist attacks are inevitable if the United States retaliates, [Sen. Richard] Shelby said, “You can bet on that.” … U.S. intelligence officials have told members of Congress there is a high probability that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden will try to launch another major attack on U.S. targets here or abroad.

Immediately after that report, Bush issued an order limiting access to classified intelligence only to 8 members of Congress — the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

In effect, the president yanked security clearances for 96 senators. In a report explaining why this was necessary, Gannett News Service reported on Oct. 1, 2001, that Bush was restricting information because, “The Washington Post reported last week that various lawmakers had been told there would be more terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated.”

That’s all it took. Intelligence officials told lawmakers another attack was likely, a sentor told a reporter, and the White House acted swiftly to protect what it considered classified information. In the president’s words, “We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest.”

If Bush were willing to even consider a similar standard for his own staff, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby would have lost their clearance a long time ago.

Update: The math mistake in the fifth paragraph has been corrected.

Bush is such a hack. He is a spoiled brat who has and always will do whatever he wants. Consequences? None for him. He’s a member of the have-mores

  • Mr. Carpetbagger,

    This issue has another dimension to it, in addition to any “loose lips” implications that you cite. Think about it: the Senators were letting the American people know the possible/likely consequences TO THEM if retaliatory steps were taken by Bush. The Senators were giving information to public that we have a right AND a need to have.

    What did Bush do? The typical thing for these thugs; he shut off the flow of information to those that represent us, and have a sworn duty to protect and defend us. This is SOP — Standard Operating Procedure — for Bush, just like Cheney’s energy task force was kept secret; just like American citizens are locked up without charges or access to family and lawyers; just like the number of documents classified and therefore not subject to public disclosure has quadrupled in his 5 years in office; just like the 12 year rule for release of Presidential papers was tossed out by Bush early in his first term, so we may never see the Iran-Contra and other crap from the Bush I and Reagan Presidencies; just like the 29 redacted pages in the 9/11 Report that related to Saudi Arabia; and on and on and on.

    So, this action by Bush, I submit, had more to do — by far — with controlling the flow of information to “we the people” than it did with protecting national security. In fact, the “national security” rhetoric is just window dressing to keep the curtains closed around what these bastards are doing in our names.

  • What about separation of powers and oversight? Can (well, “should he be able,” since he did) the President strip and or authorize security clearance at-will? Could s/he, for example, bar clearance for Democratic senators, even the minority leader?

    Anyone know anything re: controlling statutes, constitutional implications, etc. on this?

  • Comments are closed.