Isn't John Walker a Convenient Distraction?

So there was John Ashcroft, our busy attorney general, sitting on the Today show with Matt and Katie last Wednesday. You'd think he'd be swamped with the duties of cracking open terror cells?not to mention hunting down the domestic right-wing nut who is most likely responsible for the anthrax attacks, or investigating the numerous anthrax hoaxes, one of which has already turned out to have been perpetrated by a seasoned anti-abortion terrorist. We keep hearing how overworked they are at the Justice Dept. these days.

But no, here was Ashcroft on morning tv?after giving countless other interviews and press conferences the day before?focusing with every fiber of his being on our sudden new public enemy number one: skinny little John Walker. Hey, when you can't find Osama or Omar, when few of the hundreds of people you've rounded up turn out to have anything to do with 9/11, and when the Enron press buzzards are flying overhead, you may as well go for whatever you can get?in this case, a feeble, stupid punk from the California suburbs whom the public no less is ready to fry. (I've no doubt that vendors will soon be selling souvenir t-shirts on the street: My country went to Afghanistan...and all we got was a lousy kid from Marin County.) Pretty nifty guy that John Ashcroft, huh? He recuses himself from the Enron investigation?because he, like his boss, took a lot of money from that crooked company?and now he's actually using his office to draw attention away from the Enron scandal.

Pardon me for being ever so cynical, but Ashcroft's performance is pathetic?and transparent. John Walker committed a crime. His youth, his naivete, his stupidity should not excuse that, and he must be prosecuted. But is he so dangerous, has his involvement in Al Qaeda been so crucial, that he requires all the power and visibility of the Bush administration to be focused upon him? Shouldn't a federal prosecutor in the locality in which he will be tried, if anyone, be the person announcing Walker's fate (as has been the case regarding much more dangerous Richard "shoebomber" Reid)? Isn't it rather odd how this all just came down so suddenly? Does Walker really warrant our attorney general holding press conference after press conference about him?

Oh, I forgot: Walker supposedly had meetings with Mr. Evil, supposedly knew of the impending terror attacks and thus, Ashcroft implies, was some sort of major coconspirator against America. Yes, the mastermind bin Laden, a man who has orchestrated elaborate terrorist attacks on several continents with a cabal of seasoned, middle-aged, Arab-born Islamic fundamentalist colleagues with advanced degrees and doctorates?the man who moves constantly and has been able to outsmart U.S. special forces?brought bumbling, 20-year-old John Walker in on the action.

I don't think so. The home video may have shown bin Laden to be more stupid than we thought, but he's not a complete moron. From the complaint the government has filed it appears that bin Laden perhaps graced Walker and other young zealots with his presence a few times?sort of like Rumsfeld visiting the troops?and perhaps gave them a thrill by letting them know there were some impending attacks. That's a far cry from Walker being an equal player and plotter. But from Ashcroft's point of view, that shouldn't stop us from gearing up for a Trial of the Century that will make the O.J. affair look like traffic court. That's particularly true if one of the functions of the Walker trial will be to provide a media circus, a sideshow to distract us from some other realities. One of those realities could be the more insidious military tribunals, held in Guantanamo Bay, where the press will be kept at arm's length. And another is no doubt Enron.

You know that the Bush people are freaking about Enron when they haul out their ballistic missile, Mary Matalin, load up her nuclear mouth and aim it toward the enemy. Out of sight since the Florida recount?currently an aide to Dick Cheney?she hit the Imus show last week to incinerate critics making the Bush/Enron connection. According to Matalin, this story has no "blue dress" and no "fired travel aides," therefore it is going nowhere.

Cute, but we still don't know what went on in all those meetings early last year between currently out-of-sight Cheney and Enron executives when they carved out energy policy together?despite the mantra of conservative pundits that there's "no political scandal" here. (And the Bush administration continues to refuse to turn over the minutes of those meetings to Congress.)Some say that the Democrats need to tread lightly when it comes to connecting the Bush administration. As we keep hearing from the right-wing chorus, the Democrats took money from Enron too. But the Republicans, and George W. Bush, sucked out about three times more money from Enron. And that's all beside the point. It's what Enron got in return for that money that counts. It's what Enron got from Bush and Co. in the months and years before the collapse. It's what Enron got, in the form of benefits from government deregulation led by such Enron beneficiaries as Sen. Phil Gramm and other Republicans, over a long period of time. It's about how Enron has benefited from the lack of campaign finance reform?obstructed by Bush and his cronies. It's also about what people in the Bush administration didn't do after they found out the company was going down the tubes while top executives looted millions of dollars and average employees lost their life savings. While some or all of these issues might not uncover illegal activity by Bush and his pals, they likely will expose unethical and uncomfortable relationships about which the public should be appalled?and which do comprise a political scandal.

For the Democrats this is far different from what Whitewater was for the Republicans because of one simple fact: whether or not the President is directly linked to something illegal, many people care about what happened, as the sad stories about Enron employees losing their nest eggs keep surfacing. This is a national financial scandal, while Whitewater, without Bill Clinton, was a little tale of sleazy business in a backwater state, end of story.

Bush's fears are bubbling to the surface as he tries to distance himself from his buddy, "Kenny Boy" Lay, Enron's CEO, by twisting the truth a bit. Last week he implied that Lay was a big Ann Richards supporter whom he only got to know in recent years, when in fact Lay has been supporting Bush since the 1970s and is a good friend. Why obscure the truth if there's nothing to hide? And just why is Dick Cheney still in a bunker somewhere? And just why won't his administration hand over the Cheney/Enron papers? Is he maybe afraid reporters might ask him to explain a thing or two?

There are a lot of questions to be posed if the Democrats and the media have the guts to proceed. In the meantime, get ready for the John Walker saga 24/7, and lots of other distractions.

Michelangelo Signorile can be reached at [www.signorile.com](http://www.signorile.com).