Posted by Karen on August 01, 2003 at 16:34:13:
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
Daily News (NY)
August 1, 2003, Friday
SECTION: COMMENTARY
HEADLINE: Blacked-out pages a gift to Democrats
BYLINE: By Zev Chafets
The Democratic Party has been given an unexpected gift by the Bush
administration: A guidebook for returning to power.
The book consists of 28 blacked-out pages, material from the recently
published congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. The administration has censored this information for what it
claims are reasons of national security.
Officially, nobody knows what's in the 28 pages. Off the record,
everyone is aware that they discuss the deep involvement of Saudi
Arabia with 9/11 terrorists.
The decision to censor this material looks to me like a cover-up. This
isn't a partisan charge. Republican senators who have seen the
redacted parts, including Richard Shelby of Alabama and Pat Roberts of
Kansas, acknowledge that they don't reveal much about national
security. What the censored material evidently does do is severely
embarrass the government of Saudi Arabia.
Why should President Bush care? Why would he want to protect a regime
that, at the very least, is the chief incubator of anti-American
terrorism?
These are, from the Democrats' perspective, golden questions. They
raise an issue that is neither trivial nor transparently political,
unlike the furor over the Nigerian uranium. More, they hit Bush where
he is vulnerable: the charge that he and his family are entangled in a
conflict of interest with the Saudis.
The Bushes (and many of their major contributors) are, after all, in
the oil business. In the past, they have had dealings with the bin
Laden clan, as well as the Saudi royal family. The Saudi ambassador,
Prince Bandar _ whose wife, Princess Haifa, indirectly funded at least
two of the 9/11 terrorists _ is an honorary member of the Bush family,
known fondly as Bandar Bush.
These connections could be harmless _ or sinister. By blacking out the
pages, Bush encourages the latter interpretation and raises questions
about his judgment, motives and even his personal integrity.
Putting Bush in bed with the Saudis would be a bonanza for the
Democrats, who have tried unsuccessfully to establish their
anti-terrorist credentials. It also would be pain-free. The Saudi
royal family _ theocratic, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic,
anti-labor and filthy rich _is unpopular with most Democratic core
constituencies.
Oddly, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida is the only Democratic contender for
president who so far has grasped the opportunity at hand. As
co-chairman of the 9/11 inquiry, he knows what's in those 28 pages,
and he says it has nothing to do with security. On Tuesday, on "Good
Morning America," he said Bush is censoring the report "for political
reasons, a key political reason being not to disturb the relationship
between the United States and some foreign governments."
The White House responded to this charge by announcing that it won't
declassify the 28 pages. This puts the president in an impossible
position. As long as he stonewalls, he stands accused of covering up
for his Saudi friends (despite the fact that the Saudis themselves
claim they want the full report made public). If he changes his mind,
it will be clear that the initial effort at censorship had nothing to
do with national security. Which brings us back to the question: Whom
is the president protecting, and why?
Graham is too flaky to follow the political guidebook he has been
handed all the way to the White House. But a more adept politician
just might.
As for the president, it would be a sad irony if, having sidestepped a
quagmire in Iraq, he allows himself to sink into a Saudi cesspool of
his own making.