The Lichfield Group

Secrecy for the sake of secrecy awakens suspicion.

President William Jefferson Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton blundered by wrapping in secrecy the President’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform chaired by the First Lady, a folly upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton (1993). The health care proposals that ensued shipwrecked in Congress.

At present, little is known of the circumstances which give birth to terrorists. The periodic reports issued by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (National Commission), for instance, are bereft of clues for diminishing terrorist recruits. Until this dearth of knowledge is overcome, the best way to handcuff terrorism is by killing, capturing, and punishing terrorists period, with no commas, semicolons, or question marks. To paraphrase Churchill on democracy, it is a poor counterterrorism policy, except for all others that have been imagined or attempted.

Expert analysts steeped in history and human nature are desperately needed at the Central Intelligence Agency. The prevailing preoccupation with greater clandestine intelligence collection through informants and spies is misplaced. Open source intelligence properly evaluated is characteristically sufficient to provide the President with enlightened national security or foreign policy advice. While both human intelligence and superb analysts are needed, the latter are more needed than the former.

Presidents should eschew great expectations in foreign affairs. Imponderables dwarf certitudes. Knowledge of how to alter political cultures, to inculcate the rule of law, or to spark successful insurgencies against oppressive governments remains embryonic after thousands of years of experience and observation. At its best, the science of international affairs is a science of educated speculation.

Whom do you think is ardently defending an outlandish congressional assault on federalism through an activist interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution? The answer is President George W. Bush, who is customarily an exponent of limited congressional power and State’s rights. Indeed, in supporting, signing and arguing the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PABA) of 2003 in three federal district courts, President Bush is embracing a liberal Democrat theory of congressional power that his judicial nominees and the Rehnquist Court have loudly scorned. He should abandon defense of the act because partial-birth abortions are none of Congress’s business, as confirmed by 40 State laws proscribing the procedure.