Presidents Do What They Must

Re “After a Crisis, Bush Is No Reagan,” Commentary, Feb. 11: Lawrence Korb credits President Reagan with quickly and properly forming a commission to investigate the 1983 terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and likewise to investigate the Iran-Contra mess of 1986. Rightly, he chides President Bush for his failure to do as Reagan did.

The contrast is easily explained. Reagan was faced with a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats asking pertinent questions and with authority to establish its own commission if not satisfied with the answers.

With his own party controlling both the House and Senate, Bush has had no such problem. Thus, he’s free to stonewall any attempts to get information he doesn’t care to reveal.

Finally, he sets up a commission of his choice that conveniently will not have to report until after the November election. Such is the danger of an administration and Congress controlled by the same party.

J.B. Thomas

Arroyo Grande

*

I agree that George W. Bush is no Reagan, but to draw the distinction based on how and when a commission was organized to investigate the administration is weak.

However, I think the mandate Bush gave the commission to investigate not only prewar intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction but North Korea, Iran and Libya as well -- but not the administration’s use or “cooking” of intelligence -- is rational (the time frame given is too long).

Why? Because once the CIA’s motives, raw data and reports to the president are probed, the actions of the president can be inferred based on what information the CIA and Defense Department gave the president, and what the president told all of us.

Jeff Stutz

Las Vegas