Print Friendly and PDF
only search openDemocracy.net

Bush besieged

About the author
Sidney Blumenthal is an author and journalist. He is former assistant and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton.

The rise and fall of the Bush presidency has had four phases: the befuddled period of steady political decline during the president's first nine months; the high tide of hubris from 11 September 2001, through the 2004 election; the self-destructive overreaching to consolidate a one-party state from 2005 to 2006, culminating in the repudiation of the Republican Congress; and, now, the terminal stage, the great unravelling, as the Democratic Congress works to uncover the abuses of the previous six years.

Richard M Nixon and George W Bush both invoked secrecy for national security. Both insisted war - the war in Vietnam, the war on terror - justified impunity. And both offered the reason of secrecy to cover political power-grabs.

In Watergate, "Deep Throat" counselled that the royal road to the scandal's source was to "follow the money." In the proliferating scandals of the Bush presidency, Congress is searching down a trail of records that did not exist in the time of Nixon: follow the emails.

The discovery of a hitherto unknown treasure-trove of emails buried by the Bush White House may prove to be as informative as Nixon's secret White House tapes. On 23 March 2007 the National Journal disclosed that Karl Rove does "about 95 percent" of his emails outside the White House system, instead using a Republican National Committee (RNC) account. What's more, Rove doesn't tap most of his messages on a White House computer, but rather on a BlackBerry provided by the RNC.

By this method, Rove and other White House aides evade the legally required archiving of official emails. The first glimmer of this dodge appeared in a small item buried in a January 2004 issue of U.S. News & World Report: "'I don't want my E-mail made public,' said one insider. As a result, many aides have shifted to Internet E-mail instead of the White House system. 'It's Yahoo!, baby,' says a Bushie."

The offshoring of White House records via RNC emails became apparent when an RNC domain, gwb43.com (referring to George W Bush, 43rd president), turned up in a batch of emails the White House gave to House and Senate committees in mid-March. Rove's deputy, Scott Jennings, former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers and her deputies strangely had used gwb43.com as an email domain.

The production of these emails to Congress was a kind of slip. In its tense negotiations with lawmakers, the White House has steadfastly refused to give Congress emails other than those between the White House and the justice department or the White House and Congress. Emails among presidential aides have been withheld under the claim of executive privilege.

When I worked in the Clinton White House, people brought in their personal computers if they were engaged in any campaign work, but all official transactions had to be done within the White House system as stipulated by the Presidential Records Act of 1978. (The PRA requires that "the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records.") Having forsaken the use of executive office of the president email, executive privilege has been sacrificed. Moreover, Rove's and the others' practice may not be legal.

Sidney Blumenthal is a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. He is the author of 'How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime' (Princeton University Press, 2006). He writes a column for Salon and the Guardian.

Among Sidney Blumenthal's recent articles in openDemocracy:

"The rule of law vs the war paradigm"
(12 July 2006)

"A pattern of calamity: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq"
(6 September 2006)

"The Bob Woodward version"
(18 October 2006)

"Bush's choice, Baker's move"
(1 November 2006)

"Bush's bunker of dreams"
(13 December 2006)

"Jeane Kirkpatrick, shadow of the present" (20 December 2006)

"Washington’s political cleansing"
(17 January 2007)

The Libby trial: contortions of power
(7 February 2007)

"The United States vs I Lewis Libby" (20 February 2007)

A maze of cyber-secrecy

The revelation of the gwb43 emails illuminates the widespread exploitation of non-governmental email by Bush White House officials, which initially surfaced in the investigations and trial of convicted Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Susan Ralston, Abramoff's former personal assistant and then executive assistant to Rove, who served as the liaison between the two men in their constant dealings, used "georgewbush.com" and "rnchq.org" email accounts to communicate with Abramoff between 2001 and 2003. In one of her emails, Ralston cautioned that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] ... email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us, especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." Abramoff replied: "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her rnc pager and was not supposed to go into the WH system."

The Ralston emails were not fully appreciated as a clue to the vast cache of hidden emails at the time the justice department's inspector-general (IG) conducted a probe into whether Abramoff had been involved in the firing of the US attorney in Guam in 2002. That prosecutor, Frederick Black, who had been appointed by George HW Bush and served for ten years, had opened an investigation into the $324,000 in secret payments Abramoff received from the Guam superior court to lobby in Washington against court reform. The day after Black subpoenaed Abramoff's contract, he was fired. In a 2006 report, the IG found no criminal wrongdoing - but he did not have access to the non-governmental e-mails (i.e., those sent outside the official White House system). Now, the IG may have cause to reopen his case.

Under the RNC's gwb43.com domain a myriad of email accounts flourish, including the ones used by Rove's office to conduct his business with Abramoff. Among these accounts are ones for Republican Senate campaigns, for RepublicanVictoryTeam.com and the like, and, curiously, for ScooterLibby.com. The latter email account serves the website of the defence fund of vice-president Cheney's former chief-of-staff, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. ScooterLibby.com amounts to an in-kind contribution from the RNC.

On 26 March, Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee on oversight and government reform, sent letters to RNC officials demanding that they preserve the White House emails sent on RNC accounts. "The e-mail exchanges reviewed by the Committee provide evidence that in some instances, White House officials were using the non-governmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications", he wrote. "What assurance can the RNC provide the Committee", he asked, "that no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered?"

Fall gal vs fall guy

Even as the Bush administration withholds evidence that would allow Congress to fulfil its obligation of oversight, administration officials are having difficulty keeping their stories straight. The release of each new batch of e-mails forces them to scramble for new alibis.

On 12 March, attorney-general Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate judiciary committee that he had nothing to do with the dismissal of eight US attorneys in late 2006. How they happened to be removed remained a mystery to him. "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on", he said. But emails released last week show that he was informed of the plan twice in late 2006. In fact, on 27 November 2006, he met with at least five senior justice department officials to finalise a "five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors." With the appearance of the incriminating emails, Gonzales's spokespeople have been sent out to tell the press that there is "no inconsistency", a brazen assertion of the Groucho Marx defence: who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Despite the resignation on 12 March of Gonzales's chief-of-staff and counsellor, Kyle Sampson, another fall-guy has emerged, deputy attorney-general Paul McNulty. On 18 January, Gonzales testified before the Senate judiciary committee, presenting a public explanation that politics had nothing to do with the US attorney firings - "we would never, ever make a change in the U.S. attorney position for political reasons" - and private assurances to Republican senators that they were dismissed for disagreements over policy.

Three weeks later, McNulty appeared before the committee, contradicting his boss, explaining that the US attorneys were fired for "performance-related" reasons. Then he admitted that the US attorney for Arkansas, HE "Bud" Cummins, was being replaced by a Rove protégé, Tim Griffin. McNulty's testimony incited the US attorneys to defend their reputations, agitated the Democrats to ferret out the underlying political motives and forced the administration to react with a spray of excuses.

On 26 March, the administration leaked an email to ABC News in an attempt to blame the entire scandal on McNulty. "McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House email described to ABC News", it reported. "According to that email, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues." The leak fit the administration scenario that the US attorneys' scandal was nothing but a PR mistake - and now McNulty was the one fingered as the culprit. But in trying to shift blame the leaking of the email would seem to undercut the White House's claim of executive privilege that it cannot give internal communications to Congress.

Also on 26 March, Gonzales's senior counsellor and White House liaison, Monica Goodling, invoked the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in her refusal to testify before the Senate. (Goodling, who graduated from law school in 1999, is one of the highest-ranking officials in the department of justice. Her doctor of jurisprudence degree comes from Regent University, founded by the Reverend Pat Robertson. Its website boasts that it has "150 graduates serving in the Bush administration." Perhaps not coincidentally, Kay Coles James, a former Regent University dean, was director of the US office of personnel management from 2001 to 2005.)

Goodling's lawyer's extraordinarily argumentative letter explaining her silence accused "certain members" of the committee of "already" having "reached conclusions about the affair"; stated that the inquiry is "being used to promote a political party" and that it lacks a "legitimate reason ... basic fairness ... objectivity"; and stated that an unnamed "senior Department of Justice official" had told Senator Charles Schumer, that he was "not entirely candid" to the committee because "our client did not inform him of certain pertinent facts."

McNulty, of course, is that official. As Goodling's lawyer's letter reveals, he is refusing to go gently into that good night and declining to cooperate with the latest cover story. Hence, she is taking the fifth amendment, perhaps more because she doesn't know what story to tell than because she might face a perjury trap before the committee. So the fall gal blames the fall guy.

As Congress extends its oversight, President Bush stiffens his resistance. He treats the Democratic Congress as basically illegitimate. He reacts to every assertion of oversight as an invasion of presidential prerogative. Not only does he reject compromise and negotiation, but he also transforms every point of difference into a conflict over first principles, even as every new disclosure reveals his purely political motivation.

A shock to the system

Bush's radicalism becomes more fervent as he becomes more embattled, and separates him from presidents past. Richard Nixon compromised regularly with a Democratic Congress, even as he secretly laid the foundation of an imperial presidency, his unfinished project left in ruins after the Watergate scandal. Ronald Reagan, the old union leader, president of the Screen Actors Guild, stood resolutely on his convictions until the better part of political valour led him to cut a deal, as he did when he abandoned his long-held belief in privatising social security, conceding his supposedly inviolate ground to speaker Tip O'Neill, and happily proclaiming the pact afterward. George HW Bush, a former congressman with many friends across the aisle, famously jettisoned his tenuous conservative bona fides as Reagan's heir, a credo he embraced in his 1988 acceptance speech before the Republican National Convention - "Read my lips: no new taxes" - when, anxious about the expanding deficit, he cut a deal with the Democratic leadership to lower it through tax increases.

The Republican right's excoriation of the elder Bush's betrayal, rather than his overriding sense of responsibility, was the lesson learned by the son. His imperative to avoid making enemies on the right is compounded into his larger notion of an unfettered presidency.

For six years, Bush had a Republican Congress whipped into obedience - and it provided him his only experience in legislative affairs. The rise of the Democratic Congress, reviving the powers of oversight and investigation, is a shock to his system. But he is not without an understanding of his changed circumstances. Bush sees the new Congress as the same beast that ensnared his father in fatal compromise and as a monstrous threat to the imperial presidency he has spent six years carefully building.

As the return of oversight suddenly exposes pervasive corruption throughout the executive branch, Bush struggles against Congress as though it were an alien force. Bush has no sense that the framers, wary of the concentration of power in the executive, deliberately established the powers of the Congress in Article I of the constitution and those of the president in Article II. Once again he straps on his armour and clasps his shield. His defence of secrecy, executive fiat and one-party rule has become his battle of Thermopylae.


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the
oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.