Bush Defends Handling of Hijack Threat

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Friday dismissed as “second-guessing” the mounting questions about his administration’s response to information in August that Osama bin Laden’s associates might be planning airline hijackings, as the political harmony surrounding the anti-terrorism war all but shattered.

In his first public comments on the controversy over the August briefing, Bush also felt compelled to defend his actions before Sept. 11, saying he did not know “the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning.”

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer questioned the motivations of the president’s critics, singling out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as a prime offender.

Fleischer also said that any insinuation that the administration may have possessed advance knowledge of the attacks “crosses the lines” of legitimate political comment.

First Lady Laura Bush chimed in from Europe. “It’s sad to play upon the emotions of people--as if there were something we could have done to stop it, because that’s just not the case,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary, her latest stop on a goodwill trip to the continent.

Also Friday, details emerged about an analysis commissioned by the CIA in 1999 warning that operatives of Bin Laden might hijack a plane and crash it into the White House or the Pentagon.

The analysis included a photograph of the World Trade Center and predicted that Bin Laden would “retaliate in a spectacular way” for U.S. missile strikes in 1998 on Al Qaeda-linked compounds.

The burst of partisan acrimony threatened to cloud planned congressional investigations into the workings of the U.S. intelligence community before Sept. 11 and the status of America’s domestic security since then.

And as Republicans and Democrats fiercely wooed public opinion, the furor raised questions about what is fair criticism and what is the proper scope of congressional oversight, post-Sept. 11.

It also signaled a serious breach--and perhaps the end--to the near unanimity with which Democrats have backed the administration’s handling of the terrorist threat.

“The half-year-plus of national unity is officially over and the election season has begun in earnest,” said Larry J. Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst.

The political firestorm stems from the disclosure earlier this week that senior intelligence officials had warned Bush on Aug. 6 that Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda supporters might try to hijack American airplanes.

White House officials, including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, have sought to play down that report, insisting that Bush had received only general information about such a threat.

But such explanations have done little to quell demands for investigations by lawmakers, including Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee.

Shelby, like others, questioned why the administration had not previously disclosed the general warning of a possible hijacking plot.

“The fact that they’ve waited this long to get it out is troubling,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, took umbrage to the heated White Houe response to their call for more information about the August briefing and concerns they expressed about how the warning was handled.

“Our nation is not well served when the charge of ‘partisan politics’ is leveled at those who simply seek information the American people need and deserve to know,” said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).

Cracks in the bipartisanship that had marked the response to Sept. 11 actually had begun to surface earlier this week amid publicity over a Republican fund-raising technique. The party’s Senate and House campaign committees offered for $150 a series of three photographs of Bush that includes one of him talking on the telephone with Vice President Dick Cheney just hours after the attacks.

Democrats blasted the use of the photo as an attempt to capitalize on the national tragedy; the GOP defended it as simply part of a depiction of the president at work.

As part of the White House effort Friday to defuse the flap over the August briefing, Bush addressed the issue head-on during a Rose Garden ceremony honoring the Air Force Academy football team.

After a few introductory pleasantries, Bush said, “I want the troops here to know that I take my job as the commander in chief very seriously, that my most important job is to protect America and to protect her homeland.”

The comment was a clear reference to any suggestion that the administration had failed to give proper weight to the hijack warning.

Seeking to turn the tables on those who have raised that possibility, he said, “You know what is interesting about Washington? It’s a town, unfortunately ... where second-guessing has become second nature.”

He then added, enunciating slowly and carefully: “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people.”

The language was significant because, in the scores of speeches Bush has made since Sept. 11, he never considered it necessary to even broach that issue.

Fleischer, at a White House briefing with reporters, suggested that, even before Sept. 11, worries about possible terrorist strikes were widespread, including on Capitol Hill.

He recited remarks by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on CNN in July 2001, in which she cited “a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months.”

Fleischer added: “If Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat on the intelligence committee, was aware of this, the question arises, what did the Democrats know and why weren’t they talking to each other?”

Feinstein responded that she had “no specific data” and was merely expressing her doubts about whether “our house was in order to prevent a terrorist attack.”

She added: “Despite repeated efforts by myself and my staff, the White House did not address my request.”

Fleischer had even harsher words for Sen. Clinton, saying that in remarks Thursday she had spoken without bothering to learn the facts.

In a Senate speech following disclosure of the August briefing, Clinton said questions raised by it were “worthy of [congressional] exploration.” She called on Bush to “answer the questions so many New Yorkers and Americans are asking.”

Fleischer charged that Clinton’s comments were in the same vein as the New York Post front-page headline Thursday: “9/11 Bombshell: Bush Knew.”

Fleischer said Clinton “immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I’m sorry to say that she followed that headline” and sought to divide the country.

In New York City on Friday, Sen. Clinton said, “I am only seeking answers and information. I am not looking to point fingers or place blame on anybody.”

Other Democrats continued to call for a congressional inquiry into questions raised by the August briefing.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) disputed Bush’s “second-guessing” characterization. “We’re simply trying to ensure that [Sept. 11] never happens again.”

Fleischer said the White House supports a congressional investigation “so long as it was done in a responsible way.” He added that the administration would seek to avoid “a fishing expedition or another endless waste of taxpayer money in an open-ended congressional investigation.”

The bickering is unlikely to abate soon, said Sabato, the political analyst.

“The shift was inevitable and may actually be healthy,” he said.

“Presidents and vice presidents are not royalty, and they are not supposed to be insulated from sharp criticism, especially about legitimate and important topics,” Sabato added.