NOW with Bill Moyers. Transcript. March 26, 2004 | PBS

MICHELE MITCHELL (NOW correspondent): This is Eugene Hickok, the Undersecretary of Education. He’s got some weight when it comes to who receives that $77 million. And how do you decide what programs are deserving of the investment?

EUGENE HICKOK, UNDERSECRETARY OF EDUCATION: Well, as a matter of fact, it’s called the Fund for the Improvement of Education. It is the only truly discretionary money the Secretary has.

MITCHELL: Discretionary means the secretary can give it to whoever he wants, without having to ask Congress. And the organizations that actually got money had a single goal: to steer public opinion away from public education toward mainly private alternatives, like those school voucher programs, where private academies would be reimbursed for the cost of teaching students who choose to opt out of public school systems.

It’s a tough sell. Vouchers have been consistently voted down in the states for nearly 30 years. But the President hasn’t stopped selling.

BUSH [Milwaukee, July 2, 2002]: You call it whatever you want to call it — vouchers, choice, whatever it is. Freedom for parents is what I call it.

MITCHELL: This push for school vouchers has been a windfall for the President’s campaign buddies. If you are a Republican pal, or you donated money to the party, or you’ve been active in conservative education circles, then your day has arrived. … But remember, this money is going to promote private alternatives to public education. And look at who’s getting that taxpayer funding.

Groups like K-12, a profit-making company run by Bill Bennett. Who’s he? Bill Bennett: Ronald Reagan’s former secretary of education, who has spent decades railing against public education. Here’s his company’s Web site. According to the department’s own numbers, Bennett’s group got 14 million taxpayer dollars to promote “virtual” home schooling.

MITCHELL: The Education Leaders Council was Undersecretary Gene Hickok’s outfit before he joined the administration. Since then, it got nearly $16 million to promote a new program tracking school performance over the Internet.

And that same group started the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, billed as a conservative alternative to teacher certification. Now, Home schoolers can become teachers by taking an Internet exam. This new program got $35 million.

And those numbers don’t include the additional $12 million going to other groups, many with overlapping boards of directors, who are selling the idea of school vouchers to targeted audiences: white suburban soccer moms, African Americans and Hispanics. …

But while taxpayer money for public education is being used to promote privatization, the public schools themselves continue to struggle. Fourteen states are criticizing the administration for underfunding by $8 billion its centerpiece program, No Child Left Behind. And that’s just the tip of it.

PRESIDENT BUSH [February 13, 2004]: No child left behind. I like the sound of that.

MITCHELL: It always sounds great when politicians talk about improving education, But in fact, the 77 million dollars, by promoting private alternatives to public schools may hurt the long term funding for public education.

LARRY NOBLE, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: If you can’t get the money from Congress directly, because there’s a lot of opposition to the school voucher program. A lot of thought that it takes money away from public education, then what do you do? Well, you go to your friends within the administration, you go to your friends within the Department of Education, and you go after the discretionary money. The money that they can give out without having to really answer to Congress, without having to really answer to the American public.

MITCHELL: But remember, this is not just about promoting an agenda Congress never approved. There are serious questions about how this money is being used, or misused, who’s making money, or wasting it.

The Radical Right despises the Department of Education and would do anything to destroy it. In the meantime, they’re happy to take handouts from that same department and use that money to undermine public education. mjh

Rice 9/11 Testimony May Be Released By Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writer

After resisting for months, White House officials worked yesterday to negotiate a compromise that would allow public release of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the independent commission looking into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001[* see very important info at end of this article. mjh], according to administration aides.

These aides said the White House believes Rice’s refusal to testify is becoming a political problem and officials are looking for a way out. The leading possibility is for Rice to submit to another private session with the commissioners and allow them to release a transcript, the aides said.

But officials said commission members insisted anew yesterday that they want Rice to testify under oath and in public. …

*The White House did not allow a recording to be made of what Rice said when she met privately with the commissioners for four hours in February.

Why is it necessary for Rice to testify a second time? Because no transcript of the first was made, at White House insistence. Absolutely shocking! mjh

Bush’s Secret Storm By E. J. Dionne Jr.

President Bush had two big things going for him in this year’s election. He was seen by a majority of Americans as a straight shooter. And he was viewed as the natural leader in the war on terrorism. Now both perceptions are in jeopardy. That explains the ferocity of the White House attack on Richard Clarke.

But the attack on Clarke, the White House’s former anti-terrorism expert, could prove to be the fatal mistake of the Bush campaign. Instead of undermining Clarke’s credibility, the White House has called its own into question.

It is also calling new attention to the administration’s standard operating procedure since Sept. 11, 2001: Do whatever is necessary to intimidate and undercut all who raise questions about the president’s handling of terrorism, answer as few of those questions as possible and keep as many secrets as you can.

That is why the Clarke story just keeps getting bigger. …

Recall that in May 2002, word leaked that Bush had received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, suggesting that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network was plotting to hijack U.S. airliners. Democrats jumped on the news. … Daschle and Gephardt were trashed. Vice President Cheney denounced ”incendiary” commentary by opposition politicians and declared that such politically incorrect thoughts were ”thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.”

And the questions abated.

This time, the Bush administration pulled the same levers to silence Clarke — and the questions didn’t stop. On the contrary, inconsistencies in the administration’s pre-Sept. 11 story were, finally, big news. …

”Secrecy can confer a form of power without responsibility about which democratic societies must be vigilant.” [declared Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who died a year ago this week.] The bitterness of last week is explained by the mischiefs of partisanship, but even more by the costs of secrecy.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

The Commission held its eighth public hearing, March 23-24, 2004, in Washington, DC. Staff statements from the hearing are available online in PDF format (requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader software).

Remaining hearings:
March 23-24, 2004 Counterterrorism Policy, Washington, DC
April 13-14, 2004 Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community, Washington, DC
May 18-19, 2004 Emergency Response, New York City
The 9-11 Plot, New York City
June 8-9, 2004 National Crisis Management, Washington, DC

Nader’s Image Slips In Survey by Paul Farhi, Washington Post

In 2000, 24 percent of the public had a favorable view of Nader and 24 held an unfavorable view. In 2004, 21 percent like Nader but 37 percent are in the unfavorable camp.

The slippage in Nader’s public image cuts across demographic lines — men, women, white, blacks, Latinos. …

The most negative on Nader? Older folks (the over-65 crowd gives him a 50 percent unfavorable rating). Conversely, their grandkids are still with him; voters ages 18 to 29 were the only segment to show a significant improvement (now 22 percent favorable, vs. 15 percent in 2000).

(according to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey released yesterday)

That’s trend among young voters is an unfortunate one — Democrats need the younger generation. mjh

United Democrats Show Stance behind Kerry to Rout Bush from Office

”[D]on’t risk costing the Democrats the White House as you did four years ago.” — Jimmy Carter [mjh: surprisingly harsh words from JC]

Clarke Book Reignites Debate Over Iraq Invasion By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post

John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the 9/11 commission, put it bluntly to former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke when he testified publicly last week: Why did his earlier, private testimony to the commission not include the harsh criticism leveled at President Bush in his book?

”There’s a very good reason for that,” Clarke replied. ”In the 15 hours of testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president’s invasion of Iraq. And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.”

The furious charge and countercharge between Clarke and the White House last week has largely obscured this central complaint by Clarke. [mjh: which shows the effectiveness of the White House tactics.] …

Clarke depicts the president as tersely demanding that his staff look for links between the Sept. 11 attacks and Iraq. He charges that, for Bush and his advisers, attacking Iraq was ”a rigid belief, received wisdom, a decision already made and one that no fact or event could derail.” In the end, through the Iraq war, ”we delivered to al Qaeda the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable.”

Clarke’s complaint resonates with some other former administration officials. …

Flynt Leverett, a former CIA analyst and Middle East specialist who left Bush’s National Security Council staff a year ago, also agrees.

”Clarke’s critique of administration decision-making and how it did not balance the imperative of finishing the job against al Qaeda versus what they wanted to do in Iraq is absolutely on the money,” Leverett said.

He said that Arabic-speaking Special Forces officers and CIA officers who were doing a good job tracking Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders were pulled out of Afghanistan in March 2002 to begin preparing for the war against Iraq. ”We took the people out who could have caught them,” he said. ”But even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is two years too late. Al Qaeda is a very different organization now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job.” …

Clarke also caused a stir last week by saying that Bush, in his secret directive ordering the strike against Afghanistan six days after Sept. 11, also told the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post had reported on this directive more than a year ago, generating no complaint from the administration.

US News Article

”I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11,” Clarke told CBS. …

”Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, ‘America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country.’ This is part of his propaganda,” Clarke said. ”So what did we do after 9/11? We invade … and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us.

”The result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda, have been greatly strengthened,” he added.