Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

On November 1, 2001, Bush published Executive Order (EO) 13233, the Presidential Records Grab, or more officially, Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act.  By exerting Executive Privilege, Bush claims that only the incumbent President can release a former President's papers, even if the former President wants them released. Worse, the former President has to have a demonstrated, specific need in order to get them.

Most people made the assumption that the EO was published so Bush II could guard the papers of Bush I, and probably his own, if the country survived. However, before those papers could become an issue, George exerted EO 13233 to block Clinton's records from the 911 Commission.

The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways.

Mr. Lindsey (the general counsel of Mr. Clinton's presidential foundation) said that President Clinton and his foundation, which is based in Little Rock, Ark., had given authorization to the National Archives to gather evidence from Mr. Clinton's files that was sought by the independent commission, which was created by Congress in late 2002. But the Bush administration, he said, had final authority to decide what would be turned over.

Mr. Lindsey, who is Mr. Clinton's liaison to the National Archives, said he was surprised to discover from the archives in later months that the Bush administration, after reviewing the Clinton documents gathered by researchers there, had decided not to turn over most of the material.

He said he had read through many of the 10,800 pages that were collected and believed them to be valuable to the work of the panel.
"They involved all of the issues -- Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, all of the areas with the commission's jurisdiction," he said.

The WH agreed the next day to release Clinton's papers.

The Rand Corporation, a research organization that started out in military planning, provides a hospitable climate for neocons.  So it was very surprising to come across this article in their archives, Terrorism -- A Policy Behind the Times:

When Bill Clinton leaves office in January, he can claim credit for having done more than any other president to ensure that the United States is prepared to counter the threat of terrorism. Overall spending on preparedness and response measures nearly doubled, and terrorism was elevated to the top of the list of security threats confronting the United States.

PNAC, The Project for the New American Century, is the neocons new lair.  An article from the September 7, 1998 issue of Weekly Standard with the hopeful title Foreign Policy and the Republican Future, offered this scathing analysis of Bill Clinton...

As for President Clinton's new "w a r" on terrorism, it is becoming less and less clear that the cruise- missle strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan made a dent in the terrorist networks, or that the administration really has the stomach for such a "w a r."

Oh, well, can't please everybody.  Full of disdain and contempt for Clinton's foreign policies, (or neglect thereof), the papers produced by the neocons in PNAC are fascinating because they argue for the same exact war plans that the current administration is executing against Iraq.  This piece of prescient reporting by neocon Gary Schmitt in November 2000, State of Terror, War by any other name, explains why:

The reason is that, as horrific as terrorism can be, its human and material costs have a minimal impact on the American population... Are we willing to face the fact that most terrorism consists of acts of war being waged by identifiable nations? .... focuses on the 1993World Trade Center bombing and the government's apparent willingness to ignore the evidence that pointed toward Iraq's hand in the effort. (p.1 in pdf)

Prior to 9/11, the neocons worshipped at the altars of ballistic missiles as the only road to Superpower for the US.  Donald Rumsfeld chaired the congressionally mandated COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, in 1998.  This bastion of deep thinkers, which included Paul Wolfowitz and Steven Cambone, came to the unsurprising conclusion that:

Ballistic missiles armed with WMD payloads pose a strategic threat to the United States...A new strategic environment now gives emerging ballistic missile powers the capacity, through a combination of domestic development and foreign assistance, to acquire the means to strike the U.S. within about five years of a decision to acquire such a capability (10 years in the case of Iraq).

Now we know that he does not know.

Last is Fourth Generation Warfare, which is defined by the Institute of National Strategic Studies in their 2005 newsletter, The Strategic Forum, as:

The fundamental precept (of insurgency) is that superior political will, when properly employed, can defeat greater economic and military power. Because it is organized to ensure political rather than military success, this type of warfare is difficult to defeat.

Winning, however, requires coherent, patient action that encompasses the full range of political, economic, social, and military activities. The United States cannot force its opponents to fight the short, high technology wars it easily dominates. (p.1 in pdf)

These are major challenges, but a model exists with which to work. Presidential Decision Directive 56 provides an excellent starting point. (The footnote for above:)  Presidential Decision Directive 56 was developed by the Clinton administration to manage complex contingency operations. Although canceled by the Bush administration, it still provides a well-thought-out model for insurgency operations.

This diary is not making any claims that any of the above references are connected.  For instance, how would the Bush administration have known in November of 2001 that Clinton's papers would verify Richard Clarke's accusations of ignored terrorist threats prior to 9/11? Or, for that matter, that Clinton was on the right track and they are just plain stupid?