This is Part II of a three-part series on Ronald Kessler's exclusive interview with Andy Card, President Bush's former chief of staff. It is Mr. Card's first extensive interview since leaving office. Read Part I, "Bush Wanted Woman on High Court," here. To get Ron Kessler's future stories via email - Click Here Now.
The New York Times and other news media have jeopardized Americans' safety by publishing stories on how the government tracks terrorists, Andrew H. "Andy" Card, Jr., President Bush's former chief of staff, said in his first extensive interview since leaving the White House.
"I think the government is right to do everything it can, understanding that no president wants to violate the Constitution, no president wants to violate your individual rights; in fact he's defending those rights," Card said. "Republican presidents have had a long history of being extremely protective of privacy and your rights. I believe that the media have exposed so many of our national security programs with no justifiable reason."
Asked if the media have jeopardized Americans' safety, Card said, "I believe that they have." He added, "I don't think that any media outlet should have said, 'The president thinks this is important, but we're going to blow the whistle on it.'"
Because the United States is fighting disparate terrorists rather than nation states, "We have to be more flexible with some of the tools necessary for good national defense," Card said. "The president has been very careful about what he's done. And he's also asked tough questions, and he's demanded answers from his advisers. He didn't dictate and make people do things they didn't want to do."
Ridge Failed at Internal Leadership
After 9/11, Card said, Bush asked lawyers and intelligence experts for options for tracking terrorists more effectively. The experts suggested monitoring overseas calls of terrorists talking with people in the United States and tracking terrorists by tracing their international bank transfers.
Story Continues Below
"This was, ‘What should we do, what are the options?'" Card said. "Options were presented, options were challenged, and then recommendations were made. The president accepted or rejected recommendations.
"I can't think of one time where the president came up with something and said ‘Let's do this. I don't care what you say, we're going to do it.' That's just not the way it works." Card explained.
He said that the president has advisers who are smart and competent too, and the president avails himself of their expertise in all situations.
However, Card thinks the rush of events in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001 caused governmental turmoil to the point that the "momentum of the various bureaucracies that were brought together" to form the Department of Homeland Security caused a number of problems.
Card said, "I always think the best solution [is] strong leadership." And while Tom Ridge, the secretary of Homeland Security, was a "very good public relations leader, I don't think that he exercised internal leadership. I wish that he had had a deputy that he had given a little more license to organize the new department."
With the benefit of hindsight, Card feels that some of the decisions made early on in Iraq, when L. Paul Bremmer III was in charge, contributed to the current problems.
Iraq - Victory Too Fast?
In retrospect, "I think maybe a few different models could have been used to find out what would work," Card said.
The very success of the initial invasion contributed to later problems. Just as the momentum after 9/11 brought turmoil to the U.S. government, the same "momentum of the various bureaucracies that were brought together," only this time in Iraq, contributed to its current state of affairs. "We got to Baghdad faster than the pundits predicted," Card said, "which didn't allow for civil society to be built in the wake of our march because the boat moved so fast."
As chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-run occupation agency, Bremmer issued his first order, "De-Baathification of Iraq Society," on May 16, 2003.
"There were open debates," Card said. "How many people do you let through the door to be part of the buildup of the government? Do you keep the Baathists out, or do you let some of them in? Do you keep Saddam's military turned off, or do you say, you know, 'Pledge your loyalty to us'? And those were legitimate questions, and they were debated.
"It wasn't like nobody thought about these things. These were big, serious discussions that took place. How do you treat the Baathists? How do you treat a major in Saddam's army? Do you say come on in and join our army, and we'll make you a major? Or do we say, nope, you're an enemy."
However, Card said, the decision to invade Iraq was the right one, validated by recent events in the Middle East.
Tough Choices for Any President
"Hindsight is always 20-20, and I can think of things in my life, where gee, if I had known what I know now, I wouldn't have done things or I would have done them differently," Card said. "And that would be the case with any president. But good leaders understand that if they are going to have an influence on the outcome of a decision, they have to make a decision and try to make sure that it's implemented well. That's why I look at the president and I say he had very, very tough decisions to make."
Card says he suspects that "if the president had not made the decision that he made with regard to Saddam Hussein, the world would have been saying, ‘Why didn't you get him when you had the chance?'
"He would have been playing in this [Middle East] pot, and we would have been dealing with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and Iraq. And I suspect that Israelis would be even more paranoid about the challenges to their state than they are today.
"So I'm grateful that the president had the courage to do what he did, even in the context of what's happening in this very current event of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah."