[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5370-5372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ATTACKING THE MESSENGER

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when you cannot attack a man's ideas, attack 
the man. Sadly, that is what we have seen over the last few days in the 
case of Richard Clarke, a dedicated public servant.
  Before this week, few Americans knew who Mr. Clarke was. But now, 
according to this morning's Washington Post, 9 out of 10 people in 
America know who Richard Clarke is.
  Those who did know Mr. Clarke knew him as a person who has devoted 
his entire adult life to serving his country and keeping our country 
safe.
  As a distinguished Senator, Bob Kerrey said yesterday--and he knows a 
thing or two about patriotism--Clarke did many things to keep this 
country safe, that none of us will ever know about. That is the nature 
of counterterrorism.
  Mr. Clarke has served four Presidents--three Republicans and one 
Democrat. In fact, he called the first President Bush the best national 
security professional he had ever worked for. That goes to the very 
basic knowledge

[[Page 5371]]

that President Bush, among his other assets, was also head of the 
Central Intelligence Agency.
  Mr. Clarke worked in the State Department, and then led the 
counterterrorism effort in the White House for more than 10 years.
  This is how important he was and how much confidence everyone had in 
his abilities: On the day of the tragedy of September 11, he was put in 
charge--I repeat, put in charge--of coordinating the White House 
response. Even today, after he retired from public service, Mr. Clarke 
continues to make a contribution to our national security.
  Mr. Clarke has raised a few questions, important questions, such as: 
Was fighting terrorism a real priority for the Bush administration 
prior to September 11, or was it down the list of national security 
concerns, behind things such as missile defense?
  According to an Associated Press story, President Bush's national 
security team met almost 100 times prior to September 11, but terrorism 
was the topic of only 2 of these sessions.
  The next question: What actions were we taking to knock out Osama bin 
Laden and his henchmen, who had already successfully attacked several 
U.S. targets overseas?
  Mr. Clarke says President Clinton was obsessed with this.
  What were we doing in the first part of 2001, after President Clinton 
left office and was no longer there, obsessed in some way to get rid of 
Osama bin Laden? As you know, President Clinton ordered a missile 
launch in an attempt to get Osama bin Laden.
  The next question deals with the Predators, unmanned aerial vehicles. 
These vehicles were developed 36 miles from Las Vegas in Indian 
Springs. These vehicles were and are an essential part of the weapons 
complex that is in Nevada. People do not realize that 40 percent of the 
airspace of this very large State of Nevada is restricted military 
airspace. One of the reasons is you can test the Predator, and what it 
can do and what it cannot do, because of the vast amount of airspace we 
have in Nevada. So I have a special interest in the Predator because of 
its basing in Nevada.
  Question: Were we following Mr. Clarke's recommendations to utilize 
this tremendous tool more effectively in the fight against terror?
  How much has the war in Iraq helped or hindered our war on terrorism?
  Finally, one of the questions Richard Clarke asks: There were at 
least two of the September 11 hijackers in our country, if terrorism 
was a top priority, why weren't airport personnel on the lookout for 
these known terrorists?
  These are questions Richard Clarke has asked, reasonable questions.
  I refer to today's Washington Post, a front-page story, written by 
Mike Allen. Among other things, this newspaper article says--similar 
articles are being run all over America. After Clarke asked these 
questions, here is what Mike Allen said:

       So this week, his aides--

  President Bush's aides--

     turned the full power of the executive branch on Richard A. 
     Clarke, formerly the administration's top counterterrorism 
     official, who charges in his new book that Bush responded 
     lackadaisically in 2001 to repeated warnings on an impending 
     terrorist attack.

  When you cannot attack a man's ideas, or even his questions, you 
attack the man.
  Allen goes on further to say:

       They questioned the truthfulness of Clarke's claims, his 
     competence as an employee, the motives behind the book's 
     timing, and even the sincerity of the pleasantries in his 
     resignation letter and [his] farewell photo session with 
     Bush.

  Just a few others things out of this long article:

       James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional 
     and Presidential Studies of American University, said he was 
     stunned by the ferocity of the White House campaign [against] 
     Clarke.

  Thurber goes on also to say:

       They are vulnerable, which is why they are attacking so 
     hard. You have to go back to Vietnam or Watergate to get the 
     same feel about the structure of argument coming out of the 
     White House against Clarke's statements.

  The article states:

       A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the 
     Press, conducted Monday through Wednesday, found significant 
     public interest in Clarke's criticisms, with nearly nine in 
     10 . . . Americans surveyed saying they had heard of them 
     [heard of his ideas]. Of those polled, 42 percent said they 
     had heard ``a lot'' about his claims and 47 percent said they 
     had heard ``a little.''

  Ninety percent of the people in America are aware of what is going on 
with these ferocious attacks.
  Are these legitimate questions? Is it a legitimate question to find 
out why the national security team met 100 times and only twice 
discussed terrorism? It is a legitimate question. It deserves a 
legitimate answer.
  President Clinton was obsessed with taking out Osama bin Laden. Why 
wasn't the President of the United States, George W. Bush, obsessed 
with taking out Osama bin Laden? It is a valid question.
  Why wasn't the Predator aircraft used to find and destroy Osama bin 
Laden and his operations? It is a question Richard Clarke raises. It 
deserves an answer.
  Another question he raises--and America understands this; the people 
in Nevada understand this--how much has the war in Iraq helped or 
hindered the war on terrorism? That is a question that is running 
through the fiber of the American people.
  Finally, Richard Clarke asks:

       Why weren't we doing something to get rid of the terrorists 
     who we already knew were here?

  These are legitimate questions. I think there could be legitimate 
differences about the answers to these questions. We should be debating 
these issues and not whether Clarke's meeting with the President, when 
he left, was sincere, or attacking him personally about his not being a 
good employee. I do not think that is the right way to answer these 
questions.
  When you cannot attack a man's ideas, you attack the man. That is 
wrong.
  The questions that have been raised are legitimate, and they deserve 
answers. We should be debating these issues in a way that reflects the 
gravity and the seriousness of this challenge to our Nation. There is 
not a single one of these questions that has been asked that is not 
serious.
  I think it is sad that, based on what we have seen in the past from 
this administration--I guess I should not be surprised. Any time this 
administration is faced with tough questions they do not want to 
answer, they respond by making personal attacks.
  Here on the floor yesterday I talked about what they have tried to do 
to demonize and damage Senator Tom Daschle. He is the leader of the 
Democratic Senate. He has been the titular head of the Democratic 
Party, and there have been very personal attacks directed toward him, 
questioning his patriotism--a man who served in the U.S. military--
attacking his family, attacking his religiosity--whether he is a proper 
member of his church. These are not proper responses.
  Senator Daschle, as he did today, came to the floor and said he does 
not believe the White House is handling the nominations of statutory 
Democratic nominations; they are rejecting them, and they are rejecting 
them for no cause.
  Why doesn't someone come and defend that, say we are rejecting all 
these 36 people because they are all bad people and not qualified? No, 
they are not willing to do that. They go after Senator Daschle. They 
did it to former Senator Max Cleland, one of the most courageous, 
inspirational, wonderful people I have ever met in my life.
  Senator Cleland went to Vietnam, volunteered to go, a strapping man, 
6 foot 4. You would never know it now because you never see him stand. 
He only has one leg. He has no arms. I am sorry. He has no legs, and he 
has one arm. For him to get dressed every morning is a 2-hour ordeal. A 
man with always a smile on his face, a man who, prior to his serious 
injury, was honored with the Silver Star in Vietnam for his gallantry. 
But that was not enough.
  He was attacked personally for not being patriotic because he did not 
support the President's version of homeland security. With untold 
amounts of money, he was defeated in his reelection bid in Georgia.

[[Page 5372]]

  He was the original cosponsor of the bill to create a Department of 
Homeland Security, long before President Bush supported such an idea. 
But this was not good enough. They attacked him, not his ideas.
  When the President finally came around and agreed we needed a 
Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Cleland did not agree with him on 
all the details about how the employees should be classified. Fair 
enough. Debate the issues and discuss your differences. But this 
administration condoned campaign TV ads that compared Max Cleland, who 
lost three limbs, to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Can you 
imagine that?
  Zell Miller, my friend--I care a great deal about him--doesn't vote 
with us a lot on issues. He is a Democrat and has been his whole life. 
He doesn't vote with the Democrats as I think he should, but I respect 
his voting in a way that he believes is appropriate for his conscience. 
But Zell Miller, being the patriot he is and knowing the sacrifices Max 
Cleland has made for his country, said:

       My friend Max deserves better than to be slandered like 
     this.

  Congratulations to Zell Miller. I have read his book, his second 
book. He has written one on the Marine Corps I have not read. I 
congratulate him. I have great respect for my friend Zell Miller. I 
appreciate very much his stepping out, doing his very best to protect 
and defend his friend Max Cleland. Every Member of the Senate agrees on 
this side of the aisle with what Zell did.
  Senator Cleland was not the only person. I talked about Senator 
Daschle. If you want to read an interesting book, read Paul O'Neill's 
``The Price of Loyalty.'' Paul O'Neill is one of America's great 
businessmen. He was chief executive officer of Alcoa Corporation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. No one would ever question his business acumen and his 
Republican Party credentials. He, as Secretary of the Treasury, didn't 
think the President conducted his office appropriately. He was asked to 
resign and left and wrote a book about his experiences in the White 
House as Secretary of the Treasury. Rather than trying to factually 
discount his book statements, they went after him. He questioned 
economic policies, foreign policy issues, and was denounced as a person 
who did not know what he was talking about or doing. It is a lot easier 
to attack a man personally than it is to defend the economic policies 
that have controlled our country. It is a lot easier to attack a man 
personally than it is defend the economic policies that have 
contributed to the largest deficit in history, the worst record in jobs 
since Herbert Hoover. It is easier, but that doesn't mean it is right.
  It wasn't right to leak the name of an undercover CIA agent because 
her husband said the President was mistaken about claiming Iraq had 
purchased uranium from Africa. Can you imagine that? An undercover CIA 
operative, someone who could be subject to be killed. Not only could 
that woman be subject to be harmed, but what about all the contacts she 
had. She was an undercover spy for America, and the White House, in an 
effort to disparage this man who disagreed with the administration on 
whether there was uranium that had come to Iraq from Africa, rather 
than questioning whether that was a fact, went after his wife.
  It wasn't right to compare Senator Cleland to a murderer like Osama 
bin Laden, to attack Senator Daschle. These kinds of personal attacks 
are known as ad hominem arguments. That is Latin for ``to the man.'' As 
a logical term, it means instead of refuting the point or argument 
being presented, you attack the person presenting it. In short, if you 
don't like the message, attack the messenger. Aristotle called ad 
hominem arguments a fallacy of logic. They are the last recourse of 
those who can't debate an issue on its merits. The purpose of an ad 
hominem attack is to either convince your opponent to stop arguing or 
to convince the audience to stop listening. Sometimes it works, but it 
hasn't worked here. Nine out of every 10 Americans know of Richard 
Clarke's story. I don't think Richard Clarke is going to be 
intimidated.
  I don't know him. To my knowledge, I have never spoken to him. I 
think the American people want an honest discussion of the questions 
this patriot is raising. This administration is attacking its critics. 
They are firing them, such as Larry Lindsey, or threatening to fire 
them, such as Mr. Foster, for telling the truth.
  Larry Lindsey tried to tell the truth about how much the war was 
going to cost. He said it would cost $100 billion. He got fired. But he 
was way short. Last year alone we appropriated over $150 billion. 
General Shinseki, when he told the truth about how many troops we would 
need, got fired. It is a matter of record. Foster wanted last year to 
tell us how much Medicare would cost. He was told if he said a word, he 
would be fired, if he told the truth about the cost of Medicare.
  This administration does not take questions well. It is too bad. In 
America we have a right to ask questions about what our Government is 
doing. Those questions deserve honest answers and debate, not threats 
and personal attacks.
  I thank my colleagues. I am sorry they had to wait. I usually try not 
to speak very long. No one was here when I started. I certainly 
apologize for using more than my 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak for 15 minutes, and I may yield some time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________