washingtonpost.com: Bush Edict on Briefings Irks Hill

Bush Edict on Briefings Irks Hill
White House Stems Information Flow

By Dana Milbank and Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 10, 2001; Page A01

A dispute over the Bush administration's control of information since the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes erupted into an angry exchange between the White House and Congress yesterday after President Bush moved to restrict intelligence shared with lawmakers.

Members from both parties objected strongly to Bush's highly unusual step of ordering that briefings with sensitive information be limited to eight of the 535 members of Congress. The memo cuts off numerous lawmakers cleared to receive classified information; it was signed by Bush on Friday following a report in The Washington Post that intelligence officials told lawmakers there was a "100 percent" likelihood of further terrorist strikes.

"To put out a public document telling the world he doesn't trust the Congress and we leak everything, I'm not sure that helps develop unanimity and comradeship," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who is on the Foreign Relations Committee. Said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "We have to have classified briefings if we're going to do our oversight role."

Bush, appearing in the Rose Garden with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, gave Congress a stern lecture. "I understand there may be some heartburn on Capitol Hill," he said. "But I suggest if they want to relieve that heartburn, that they take their positions very seriously and that they take any information they've been given by our government very seriously."

He continued: "I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk."

The intragovernmental dispute was the latest instance of the extraordinary controls the administration has placed on government information since the terrorist strikes. In some ways, the crisis has reinforced a trend toward secrecy that characterized Bush's government from the start.

Long before Sept. 11, the White House battled to keep Congress from overseeing its decisions on energy and environmental policy; the congressional investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, is contemplating a lawsuit against Vice President Cheney over a refusal to hand over information. The White House moved three times to delay the scheduled release of papers from the Reagan administration.

Stephen Hess, who served in the Nixon and Eisenhower administrations, said the Bush administration was already the "most closed" he had seen in peacetime.

But during the current crisis, the administration secrecy has exceeded allies' standards. Last Thursday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair divulged to the House of Commons and a worldwide television audience details about the terrorists, their ties and their travels. Yet, when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was asked about Blair's disclosure, on which U.S. officials were consulted, he told reporters that he would not verify "allegations like that."

Across the government, information has been more restricted. The Department of Health and Human Services this week said it could not disclose which antibiotics were being used to treat anthrax in Florida or where the drugs came from "for security reasons." Private pharmaceutical companies said they cannot discuss vaccines or antidotes as they have in the past because the administration told them not to. Many U.S. troops in the conflict have been told by the military not to have their last names published or broadcast.

The Environmental Protection Agency has taken down a Web site with information about emergency plans and chemicals used at 15,000 sites nationwide. The Transportation Department has removed pipeline maps from its Web site. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed a report that noted security at chemical plants "ranged from fair to very poor," although it provided little information about individual plants.

"The attack on Sept. 11 did change things in terms of how we're responding," HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said. "I have to be very careful here."

The government declines to say how many sky marshals there will be or the program's budget. Officials won't say who is under detention in the investigation or why. Under orders from senior administration officials, White House aides, even those whose duties have nothing to do with national security, said they have been forbidden to communicate with journalists. To limit those with access to information, the White House reduced the number of participants in its media strategy meetings from about 30 to about a dozen.

The quarrel over Bush's memo restricting information to Congress has taken on the most significance, though, because of Congress's power to oversee the executive branch.

Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the House intelligence committee, said Bush's memo contradicted requirements under the 1947 National Security Act that the president inform Congress on current and pending intelligence activities. "This is directly confronting the advise-and-consent role of Congress in a situation of war, and the administration quickly needs to rework this decision," Roemer said.

Bush and lawmakers will discuss the issue this morning over breakfast. A top aide to one senior legislator said Bush's dictum was unlikely to survive.

"I think the White House is going to walk this back," the aide said. "Now that they've made the point they wanted to make, they'll realize that the policy might be too narrowly drawn."

The tension between the two branches of government began last month, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that those who divulged classified information could endanger the lives of American troops. The remarks were an apparent rebuke of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who said he had permission to reveal the information. At the same time, intelligence committee members were complaining that the administration's briefings were inadequate.

But while Congress has constitutional power to demand information, legal experts say the government may limit the flow of information to the public, particularly in areas where national security is an issue.

The question is complicated when the public interest in knowing a piece of information competes with the national security interest in keeping information private.

During the Vietnam War, for example, the government sought to keep secret the true number of Americans killed -- information that might have been useful to the enemy but was perhaps more useful to the American public.

"The government has to be careful not to deprive our citizens of significant information relating to their very safety and security," said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer.

Abrams pointed to the case of last week's briefing, in which lawmakers were told there was a "100 percent" likelihood of retaliation in the event of a U.S. strike on Osama bin Laden. The administration refused to confirm what it told Congress and then issued its memo restricting briefings. Abrams said that response "was all wrong. If they're prepared to tell congressmen that there is sure to be retaliation in this country, they should be prepared to tell the public."

Within the administration, there has been some debate over how much information to provide. Officials have contradicted each other on subjects such as the opening of Reagan National Airport and whether evidence against bin Laden should be made public. After the White House announced that 350 aircraft and 30,000 troops had been sent to Central Asia, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke made clear her displeasure that the White House had "offered up" the information.

Generally, the administration has kept public disclosure of information to daily briefings by Cabinet officials coordinated by the White House, and to written statements describing military and diplomatic efforts. Occasionally the government will channel information to reporters without attribution through orchestrated leaks.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the administration has put senior officials -- Bush, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld -- in the public eye more often since Sept. 11, and they are responding to more questions from reporters.

"The press and the public are getting more information than ever before," he said. While a few senior aides are free to speak to media organizations if they alert the press office, others "should not talk to the press without authorization -- it's not their job," Fleischer said.

The spokesman said that policy predates Sept. 11, but it has more urgency now. "In a time of war, people are more concerned about nobody making mistakes," he said.

In the White House, there have been e-mails and meetings in recent days, invoking Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.'s name, warning staff members that they are not to speak to the press under any circumstance.

Closely held information about the investigation into the terrorist attacks, which has led to 580 detentions, demonstrates the administration's ambition for secrecy.

Law enforcement officials are not releasing customary paperwork and are keeping virtually all information sealed. Defense lawyers report trouble in contacting clients and learning about the government's interest in the detainees. Only in rare cases has the administration announced who are behind bars, where they are being held, or why.

Some usually talkative law enforcement officials have changed habits. An FBI agent who had traded information with journalists in the past told an inquiring reporter, "I cannot say anything to you. I'm retiring soon. If they give me a polygraph, I have to be able to say I did not talk to you."

Staff writers Ceci Connolly, Juliet Eilperin, Karen DeYoung and Lois Romano contributed to this report.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 10, 2001

Good one Cherri!

-- (Cleanup@here.xxx), October 11, 2001.

Loose lips sink ships.

-- the (shoe@fits.com), October 11, 2001.

"He [White House spokesman Fleischer] said the administration would hold back information on details of military operations and 'information that does not need to be known'."

So the White House believes it has carte blanche in determining whether to make information public. And apparently, "the likelihood of retaliatory attacks against Americans" was judged as too sensitive to have shared, as if the enemy doesn't know its own plans.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 11, 2001.