A Great Injustice

A GREAT INJUSTICE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I, too, commend those who were encouraging Condoleezza Rice to come before the 9/11 Commission publicly under oath to tell what she knows about the events leading up to 9/11 and those that followed. The fact she would argue it violated a precedent certainly didn't stand up once we looked at what happened in the past when we had others in her same position testifying before congressional committees.

Now that she has made this decision, along with the White House, to testify, I think it is a positive and good thing. This bipartisan Commission can now ask the hard questions that need to be asked.

I really come to the floor because, frankly, I think it is time for many of us who believe that a great injustice is being committed to speak out. The injustice I speak of is the reaction of this administration to the publication of the book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" by Richard Clarke.

To my knowledge, I have never met Mr. Clark nor worked with him. I know nothing about him personally. But I do know for 30 years Richard Clarke has been trusted by Presidents, Republican and Democrats alike, with some of the most important responsibilities in America.

If you read his book, and I have-at least the beginning of his book-you will find in the first chapter that Richard Clarke was the person America turned to on September 11 when we faced the greatest danger and chaos of modern time. He was the one at the controls in the White House, in the situation room, trying to bring some sense to the confusion that was hitting America. He was the one who was involved in working with the Secretary of Defense, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and all of the agencies of Government, to try to make sure America was safe at one of the most dangerous moments in our history. It is hard to believe this is the same man who has been so roundly discredited now by those in the White House. Those who trusted him on 9/11, who said to him, Use your judgment, your skill, and your experience to keep America safe at our most dangerous moment, are now saying, Richard Clarke cannot be trusted when he speaks out from the heart, from his conscience, about the failures of this administration to prepare for the war on terrorism and to wage that war since 9/11.

Some of the statements that have been made on the floor of the Senate, particularly by the majority leader last week, I couldn't believe as I read the transcript today. I will quote from those statements. In the statement the majority leader said that he is:
. . . equally troubled someone who would sell a book that trades on their former service as a Government insider with access to classified information, our Nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering surrounding what this Nation endured on September 11, 2001.

What is missing from this statement and other references by the majority leader is the fact that before Mr. Clarke published this book, it was submitted to the White House. They saw it in advance. If there were any suspicion of the leak of classified information by any agency, there was ample opportunity for them to weigh in before the publication of the book, and they did not do it. It is a false issue to raise today, that Richard Clarke has somehow violated this Nation's trust and disclosed classified information. That is not a fact that can be proven based on the fact that the White House itself had the ability to review that book in advance and determine whether anything crossed the line. To suggest Mr. Clarke is just doing this for the money is, frankly, to discredit him and to discredit a 30-year career in service to this country.

If we look at what is happening to Richard Clarke by this attack machine out of the White House, we see it is nothing new. The same thing happened to Larry Lindsey, an economic adviser to the President who misspoke by saying the war in Iraq was going to cost far more than the Bush administration ever acknowledged. It turned out Larry Lindsey was right, but because he spoke the truth he is gone.

General Shinseki, who misspoke in the eyes of the administration by telling us about the necessary commitment in American troops in a war in Iraq, was roundly criticized. He was the target of their attack.

In addition, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward with his book, after serving in this administration, talking about some personal experiences he had with this administration and was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has served this country, who has contributed to both Democratic and Republican candidates, had the identity of his wife, who was working for the Central Intelligence Agency, disclosed by Robert Novak, columnist, on a tip from the White House in order to discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson.

In addition, Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services who had the nerve to step forward and say the President's prescription drug program was being sold on false premises and in fact it would cost far more than what the administration was prepared to acknowledge, when he started making that public, they came back at him and said he could lose his job if he spoke the truth.

Then, of course, the Vice President. The Vice President, who wrote an energy bill-and submitted it to Congress-by meeting with special interest groups and basically kowtowing to their interests instead of the interests of America, when put on the spot and asked who were those special interest groups, refused to make that public.

We see not only this effort to attack all critics and debase them and question their motives and their patriotism, but we also find ourselves in a position where this administration has thrown a shroud of secrecy over the most important issues that face their Government. Thank goodness a corner of that shroud has been lifted this morning. Looking under that shroud, we will find Condoleezza Rice coming before this bipartisan commission answering questions, as she should.

What is at stake here is not the reputation of the White House or anyone in the White House. What is at stake here is the security and safety of the United States of America.

Richard Clarke, whether you agree with him or not, stepped forward on a critical issue and was prepared to accept his responsibility for not doing as much as possible. But those who should be joining him in accepting responsibility have instead turned on him and attacked him personally. That is not new in Washington, but it has reached a new depth in this particular instance.

I yield the floor.