Washington Looks for a September 11 Scapegoat

May 22 - Like the ancient Aztecs, Washingtonians believe in the cleansing power (and entertainment value) of ritual executions. Usually in the summer, they stage “hearings” on the Hill, solemn ceremonies aimed at propitiating the gods (voters) they fear. The Aztecs ended their observances by ripping hearts from the chests of their human offerings. Washingtonians, of course, are far more humane, befitting their status as an advanced culture. They merely ruin careers.

WELL, ANOTHER summer approaches, and I see the sticks being gathered for another bonfire. If you think about it, it had to happen: Eight months after 9/11, in what is probably a momentary lull in the war on terror, the locals here are beginning to look for someone to blame for our collective failure—of almost a decade’s standing—to anticipate the risks of the hate our power creates.

It isn’t clear, in this case, that the American people outside the Beltway are interested in watching a bloody ritual this time. The Newsweek poll showed that voters want a probe into the conduct of the FBI and the CIA. But President Bush is vastly popular and, based on what we know, blameless for failing to anticipate 9/11. When the guy at the top isn’t in danger, that takes the drama out of the proceedings. Americans hate traditional political infighting, and view a wider probe of the Bush administration as an attempt at headline grabbing and payback.

LOOKING FOR VICTIMS

But, inside the Beltway, the priests nevertheless are looking for celebrity victims. Someone is going to have to pay, politically, for the shortcomings of the war on terror before and after 9/11. The only question in Washington is: Who?

InsertArt(1494841) As the search begins, the Bush administration is being shaken. For its first 16 months here it was an astonishingly disciplined, leak-proof vessel. Now it’s practically a Sieve of State, dripping with leaks designed to protect the leakers. And these days the airwaves are full of dire warnings of every imaginable kind. Why? Because officials, caught flatfooted last time, want to be able to say, if the dread day arrives, “We Told You So.” There’s more butt-covering going on than at any time since Adam and Eve left the Garden.

Negotiations have begun over the nature of this summer’s ceremony. (Precedents include the Nixon Watergate hearings, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Ollie North and Iran-Contra, even the various commissions that investigated Pearl Harbor.) Senate Democrats, eager to avoid the charge that they are seeking political advantage, have decided to back the creation of a blue-ribbon commission of outside experts, the model being the commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren that investigated the assassination of President Kennedy. White House officials, publicly and privately, hate the idea.

POSITIONS HAVE SHIFTED

Just a few months ago, the argument was over whether the Senate and House Intelligence Committees would lead such an investigation. At the time—last winter—the White House was vehemently opposed. I happened to be in Sen. Tom Daschle’s office when Vice President Dick Cheney called to try to head off the committees. The veep told Daschle that leaders of the war on terror would be too busy to get bogged down in preparing for and testifying in front of the committees. The strong implication: If you insist, we’ll say you’re interfering with the war effort.

Now, ironically, the White House is in favor of testifying (largely behind closed doors) to a joint House-Senate special committee that Daschle and his counterparts set up. And Daschle, with the support of some Republicans, including (importantly) Sen. John McCain, now backs the idea of an outside commission.

The type of inquiry matters. Administration insiders who are personal presidential appointees (not subject to confirmation) don’t have to testify before a Congressional committee. If the president were to agree to a blue-ribbon commission, those aides, presumably, would have to appear, at least behind closed doors.

In the meantime, who are the candidates for blame taking? Here’s the list, in approximate ascending order of probability that they will be the celebrity scapegoat:

CONGRESS—The real “Pearl Harbor” event in the new war took place nearly 10 years ago, when the World Trade Center was first attacked by truck bombers. Members of Congress have lamented their lost role in the leadership of national security for years, but they were hardly Paul Reveres on this issue. Some issued warnings from time to time, but there was little sense of urgency as a whole. Yet they are the ones who (with the media) will conduct the ritual exorcisms. Their specialty is building pyres, not climbing on them.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION—For the ritual to be satisfying, it has to involve the torture of someone actually in office. The Republicans can argue all they want that Clinton & Co. are to blame, and try to resurrect the old days by highlighting the political role of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now. It won’t work.

GEORGE W. BUSH—As even the most casual observer knows (and the Democrats were reminded last week) the president is a big-league rookie with the longest hitting streak in the history of polling. After questions were raised last week about (“What He Knew”), his numbers went UP, as the American people basically shouted, “Leave him alone!” Why? For one, he’s done a good job so far as war commander, making the right decisions in the days and months after 9/11. But it’s more than that. A quarter of the country (staunch Democrats, mostly) think he was elected illegitimately and is too eager to serve the needs of the rich. But most everyone else (including some Democrats) thinks he’s a straight-shooter and, more important, a rare and precious type to have found his way into the Oval Office: a regular guy with regular guy values and instincts. The argument can be made that he should have had a greater sense of urgency about welding together a new anti-terror apparatus from the moment he took office. But the Democrats aren’t going to make it.

DICK CHENEY —The veep is the master heavyweight, and he plays the heavy in dealing with Congress, which he regularly criticizes as a den of headline-seekers who don’t always think of Country First. The president relies on him for advice, which is wise, since Cheney know more about the history of intelligence-gathering successes and failures than anyone else in the administration. Democrats loathe him, and would love to go after him if they could. But they can’t, because Cheney doesn’t really have any online responsibility. He ran the energy task force, but on this one he’s Yoda in pinstripes.

TOM RIDGE—Congressional leaders keep complaining that the affable former governor of Pennsylvania doesn’t have any power, which is true. So he isn’t important enough to be a satisfying sacrifice.

CONDI RICE—Some White House aides mutter privately that she made things worse for the administration in her recent public briefing. She stoutly insisted that there was no way to anticipate the use of jetliners as missiles—when, it turned out, analysts and intelligence reports had long speculated on just such a thing. Other insiders complained that she didn’t make the right general points. “She didn’t connect the dots,” one aide told me. Before entering the White House, her expertise was Russia, not spies. But she is well-liked personally and well-insulated politically. Even among the most bloodthirsty characters on the Hill, there’s no desire to make an African-American woman take the fall for a decade of failure by middle-aged white males.

FBI DIRECTOR MUELLER—Some Hill leaders (including Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee) think Mueller deserves the blame, and it’s hard to find anything inspiring in the record of what the FBI did or didn’t do before 9/11, especially with the warnings it received from its Phoenix field office. But Mueller didn’t take over command of the bureau until last Labor Day, and, experts tell me, he’s been moving at a fairly furious pace since then to reshape the FBI to fight the war.

CIA DIRECTOR TENET—The knives are out for George Tenet, too, and some experts I talk to are mystified by the president’s willingness to place any faith in him. Much of the war-by-leak under way now consists of a battle between the CIA and FBI to place the onus on the other. When the CIA’s Aug. 6 “briefing memo” to the president surfaced last week, FBI sources were quick to point out that the most important part of the document—the one noting the possibility of domestic hijackings by al-Qaida—was added at the insistence of the FBI. Tenet has strong ties to the Hill from his days as a staffer there, but that can cut two ways: His former colleagues know a lot about him.

INS COMMISSIONER JAMES ZIGLAR—The Immigration and Naturalization Service is a mess and everybody knows it. Ziglar has been in the job since last fall, and was on the job when the INS infamously sent documents to two dead hijackers. Bush was furious, but didn’t fire Ziglar. The former Senate sergeant-at-arms is a good buddy of GOP Senate leader Trent Lott, but that cuts two ways, too. He wasn’t liked by Democrats or media.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT—He’s at the top of the danger list. He’s a former senator who nevertheless had 42 votes cast against him after an unusually brutal confirmation fight. He’s a stout religious conservative whom Democratic liberals would love to oust for a host of reasons. When Bush was running for president, Ashcroft’s decision to drop out of the race and support Bush was enormously helpful. But Bush doesn’t need much help these days securing the religious right; the president is popular enough with the “base” on his own. Ashcroft annoyed White House aides last fall by what some considered grandstanding press conferences and warnings. The FBI and the INS—two of the most troubled precincts in the war on terror—report to him. There is an ambitious and politically attractive replacement available in the White House: counsel Alberto Gonzales. All of which may add up to nothing. But Ashcroft may as well get ready for a long, hot summer.

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.