The Fromson File

WORSE THAN WATERGATE? After the televised hearings of the 9/11 Commission, you might have thought nothing more of the Bush Administration’s plans for the war in Iraq could come as a surprise. You would be wrong. Coming on top of the recent assertions by former anti-terrorist expert, Richard Clarke, a new book out this week would seem to justify a Congressional investigation in order to clear the air. But that's not going to happen in the highly politicized atmosphere of the moment. Senator John Kerrey seems reluctant to take the gloves off; at least not yet. His consultants may be telling him to lie low, but that could be a recipe for disaster. New revelations that bring into question the integrity of the President were aired Sunday night (April 18) in a Sixty Minutes interview by Mike Wallace with Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of the Washington Post. As the author of many “inside” controversial books, Woodward traditionally omits footnotes or identifies sources to document many of his works. The technique amounts to a compact of trust that he expects the reader to accept. Given that, the workings of the Bush White House in the run up to the conflict that he described in his new book, “Plan of Attack” is remarkable, believable and alarming. Published by Simon and Shuster, it is due out this week and in it, here is what he confirmed to Wallace: *In violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Administration transferred without the knowledge of the Congress some $700 million from other accounts to fight the war in Iraq. The Congress legally is required to authorize any such transfers and the White House did not inform either legislative branch. *Months before the war began, the senior military commander for the Iraq operation, General Tommy Frank, carried out secret plans for the invasion of Iraq. Yet, when questioned by the press, Franks blatantly lied when he claimed he had not been told of any plans for such a war. *An irrevocable split and mistrust had developed between Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell so that they were hardly on speaking terms. Powell was not informed of the decision to go to war until after the plan was activated. Powell, a 35-year veteran of military duty, then warned the President that if the U.S. invaded Iraq, “we would own it.” In other words, there would be no easy way out, an assertion that has so far has proven to be right. *CIA Director George Tenet is a total sycophant. He assured the President that the war would be "a slam dunk." Before that, he apparently was duped by a group of hired guns, that is Iraqi spies, who provided U.S. intelligence with inaccurate information about the whereabouts of Sadaam Hussein on March 19th before the war began. Those assertions by a group known as the Rock Stars prompted a U.S.air and rocket attack on the Dura Farms outside of Baghdad that contrary to Tenet's belief did not prove that Hussein actually was ever there. *National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and Communications Director, Karen Hughes were among the few advisors to the President who agreed that the decision on Iraq was the right one. *The President did not consult with his father, former President Bush about his decision on Iraq, betraying a startling contempt for him by telling Woodward “he’s the wrong father to appeal to for advice.” He went on to say “there’s a higher father to appeal to..” *In violation of the law that proscribed foreigners from viewing a secret map of military operations, Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld summoned the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, to the White House. They showed him details, including the classifield map, about the impending conflict that had not yet been shared with Powell. When Bandar insisted on hearing the plan from the lips of President Bush, he was summoned to the Oval Office two days later and was told by him, in reference to Cheney and Rumsfeld, “their word is my word.” *Bandar then allegedly promised that Saudi Arabia would increase the production of oil substantially so that its price at the pump would drop dramatically before the November election, thereby working to favor President Bush’s re-election. Bandar and the Bush family have had a strong personal relationship of long duration. What was intriguing was the President’s view of critics in influential places. He expressed to Woodward his “disdain” for these so-called “elite circles” and “intellectuals,” who he referred to as “fancy pants.” Woodward’s impression after two lengthy interviews with the President is that “he is not a deep thinker.” Most troubling was the inevitable impression that George W. Bush may occupy the Oval Office. But the most powerful man in the White House in all likelihood is Cheney. He always is at the President’s side as he will be when Mr. Bush testifies before the 9/11 Commission in the next week or two. That should give every American pause to wonder about the direction the nation is headed. When a man like Cheney who demonstrates so much contempt for the press and civil liberties, who considers secrecy a perfectly acceptable means of governance and who wields so much power in the shadows of the White House that he seems beyond reproach, it is rather alarming. What is unclear is how the Vice President, the man most fervently committed to the war in Iraq, can be held accountable for the influence he has on a seemingly disengaged President. Even if an attempt was made to remove him from office, there is no assurance that his actions would constitutionally subject him to impeachment. That raises questions that only the people can answer, but probably not before the upcoming election.