Imagine the outrage! Someone, perhaps even someone inside the White House, is saying negative things about President Bush and his policies. Oh what calumny! suggests the president. Will no one rid him of these anonymous sources?
Not likely.
Sure, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but in a time of political woe and penitence, Washington is so much more: It is the haven for the blind quote and the refuge of the anonymous insider.
White House officials say Bush has ”gone ballistic” about recent published comments from unnamed sources complaining about disorganization within the White House and in his re-election campaign.
”Well, I don`t know who they are. If you sometimes would write a story and put a name next to the source it would help me answer a question like that,” the president said the other day, his face puckered as if he were chewing on a fresh lemon.
”Everyday I pick up the paper and read (how he feels about an issue). And I wish you could help me with putting a name next to the sources in a few more of your stories. I don`t want to go into this at every press conference,” Bush said with righteous indignation, ”but you ask me to respond to questions and yet don`t help me by telling me where it`s coming from.”
It may be a bit disingenuous, some dare call it hypocritical, for the president to complain about the very method that everyone in the White House uses to convey public policy and political criticism.
At some point almost every bit of information that appears in the media-whether it`s the themes of upcoming speeches or descriptions of what he had for breakfast and who helped him make a decision about, say, Soviet aid-is given out by White House officials who do not want their names attached to the information.
Bush understands the rules of the Washington game very well; he leaves the background briefings to his aides but he often speaks off the record to journalists.
But for other officials at the White House or on the National Security Council staff, talking on the record could be a real career buster. There`s a paranoia about public speaking except in platitudes.
The Bush-Quayle campaign staff also has to be circumspect. One campaign volunteer said the dangers of talking on the record range from provoking simple jealousy to arousing suspicion that you might be saying much more off the record.
Indeed, when officials current and past were asked to comment about officials who don`t want their names used, all agreed to do so-provided their names were not used.
”I`ll be glad to talk about it,” said one former staffer, ”but only on background.”
Bush, who as CIA director ruled a government agency that prides itself on anonymity, admitted he wasn`t unhappy about the system, only about stories that were factually untrue.
”It offends his sense of fair play,” said the former Bush aide, speaking anonymously, of course. ”It bums the hell out of you when (unnamed) people are taking a whack out of you. It becomes real personal.”
Such practices are among the legacies of Franklin Roosevelt, who wanted
”men with a passion for anonymity” in his White House.
Only the president`s voice should be heard. And even so, John Kennedy often would go on background, with his thoughts and words attributed to ”the highest authority.”
In the past 50 years all the presidents have achieved institutional anonymity to a fare-thee-well, creating a culture of disguised comment and criticism that shields the innocent at times, but more often protects bureaucrats, appointees and those who might be known as the policy toads of Washington.
”Hey, I`m just trying to give you some sort of background,” a senior administration official said last week when questioned why his national security briefing was on background even after the president complained about such sources. After some hemming and hawing, he admitted, ”There is a little bit of contradiction here.”
Bush`s current pique may go back to late February when the president was embarrassed mightily by a Washington Post story that cited two anonymous sources saying Ronald Reagan had complained that Bush ”doesn`t stand for anything.” Reagan denied saying it, but the unofficial version carried more weight.
”The press hides behind anonymous sources,” former Chief of Staff John Sununu said recently in his new public incarnation as a moderator on CNN`s
”Crossfire” talk show. ”It sanctimoniously pretends it never makes a mistake, and it`s comfortable that under the current law no public official can sue it for libel. That`s a formula for abuse of power if I ever saw one.” Asked whether he was ever the source of such information, Sununu replied: ”(I) gave them information on background, but never anonymously.” That distinction is worthy of Bill Clinton, who said that he smoked marijuana once or twice but never inhaled.
Still, anonymous criticism is fundamentally unfair. That`s why the 6th Amendment ensures that defendants can face their accusers. Long before that was written, Shakespeare had his King Richard II declare its value: ”Then call them to our presence-face to face, and frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear the accuser and the accused freely speak . . .”
No one speaks so freely in presidential and political circles, however.
”You can`t really speak your mind if there are more than three people in the room, or allow yourself to think out loud,” said a former White House official who still feels burned by anonymous reports of a particular discussion. He added the internal criticism most often occurs when times are tough, just as they are now for Bush.
Curious about the practice, a new senior official asked, ”Just what makes a senior administration official senior?”
Actually there is no strict rule, and the ”senior administration official” quoted in so many stories could be anyone from Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater to Chief of Staff Sam Skinner or his deputy, W. Henson Moore; from National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, or his new deputy, Adm. Jonathan Howe, to domestic counselor Clayton Yeutter.
But it also could be White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, or one of nearly a dozen others who have the title of assistant to the president. And that`s only inside the White House. Across a narrow roadway, at their offices in the Old Executive Office Building, Vice President Dan Quayle and Budget Director Richard Darman are both well known for being the source of blind quotes.
Down at Foggy Bottom, in the offices of Secretary of State James A. Baker III, officials use anonymity to promote government policy without being bound to it. And during official trips, Baker, like Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, is most often the senior official aboard the airplane quoted anonymously. It also could be his spokeswoman, Margaret Tutwiler, or one of three other close aides who are authorized to speak for Baker.
The rules of official quotations are practiced in government departments from Treasury to Transportation, but in a media-conscious age they are leaking out well beyond Washington.
A few weeks ago when a woman who lived on a farm outside Atchison, Kan., was asked what she thought of the Bush presidency thus far, she looked warily at the questioner and replied: ”Are we on the record?”
