Part 6 (2/2)

I had to get the next pick right. While the idea of selecting a woman still appealed to me, I could not find any as qualified as Sam Alito. Sam is as reserved as they come. When we first sat down for the interview, he seemed ill at ease. I tried the old common-ground icebreaker-in this case, baseball. Sam is a huge Philadelphia Phillies fan. As we talked about the game, his body language changed. He opened up a little about his life and the law. He was scholarly, but practical. He had been a federal prosecutor in New Jersey before moving to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. His opinions were well grounded and tightly argued. There was no doubt he would adhere strictly to the Const.i.tution.

With Sam Alito. White House/Paul Morse White House/Paul Morse Four days after Harriet withdrew, I met with Sam in the Oval Office and offered him the job. He accepted. Our supporters were elated. Our critics knew they would not be able to block Sam's confirmation, but they subjected him to a nasty hearing anyway. They tried to paint him as a racist, a radical, a bigot, anything they could think of-all based on zero evidence. I was disgusted by the demagoguery. As one senator recounted the false charges, Sam's wife, Martha Ann, broke into tears. Her reaction was so genuine that even some Democrats realized they had gone too far.

After the Senate confirmed Sam to the Court, I invited him and his family to the White House for his swearing-in. Before we went out for the ceremony, I had a moment alone with Sam. I thanked him for enduring the hearings and wished him well on the Court. Then I said, ”Sam, you ought to thank Harriet Miers for making this possible.” He replied, ”Mr. President, you're exactly right.”

The most emotional personnel decision I had to make was the last one of my presidency. The roots of my dilemma stretched back to the summer of 2003. Our troops in Iraq had not found the weapons of ma.s.s destruction we all expected, and the media's scramble for a scapegoat had commenced. In my 2003 State of the Union address, I had cited a British intelligence report that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. The single sentence in my five-thousand-word speech was not a major point in the case against Saddam. The British stood by the intelligence.*** Yet those sixteen words became a political controversy and a ma.s.sive distraction. Yet those sixteen words became a political controversy and a ma.s.sive distraction.

In July 2003, former amba.s.sador Joseph Wilson Joseph Wilson wrote a wrote a New York Times New York Times column alleging that the administration had ignored his skeptical findings when he traveled to Africa to investigate the Iraq-Niger connection. There were serious questions about the accuracy and thoroughness of Wilson's report, but his charge became a prime talking point for critics of the war. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, longtime Was.h.i.+ngton columnist column alleging that the administration had ignored his skeptical findings when he traveled to Africa to investigate the Iraq-Niger connection. There were serious questions about the accuracy and thoroughness of Wilson's report, but his charge became a prime talking point for critics of the war. Shortly after Wilson's op-ed, longtime Was.h.i.+ngton columnist Bob Novak Bob Novak reported that Wilson had been sent to Niger not by d.i.c.k Cheney or any senior member of the administration, as Wilson had suggested, but on the recommendation of his wife, reported that Wilson had been sent to Niger not by d.i.c.k Cheney or any senior member of the administration, as Wilson had suggested, but on the recommendation of his wife, Valerie Plame Valerie Plame, who worked at the CIA.

Then it came out that Wilson's wife's position was cla.s.sified. Critics alleged that someone in my administration had committed a crime by intentionally leaking the ident.i.ty of a CIA operative. The Justice Department named a special prosecutor to investigate.

I was inherently skeptical of special prosecutors. I remembered how Lawrence Walsh Lawrence Walsh had politicized his investigation of Iran-Contra during the 1992 campaign. But an intelligence leak was a serious matter, and I directed my staff to cooperate fully. U.S. Attorney had politicized his investigation of Iran-Contra during the 1992 campaign. But an intelligence leak was a serious matter, and I directed my staff to cooperate fully. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed most of the team, including me. Early in the process, Deputy Secretary of State interviewed most of the team, including me. Early in the process, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage Richard Armitage informed Fitzgerald that he had provided Novak with the information about Plame. Nevertheless, the special prosecutor continued to investigate. informed Fitzgerald that he had provided Novak with the information about Plame. Nevertheless, the special prosecutor continued to investigate.

Over the course of more than two years, Fitzgerald brought numerous administration officials before a grand jury, including d.i.c.k's chief of staff, Scooter Libby. After two appearances by Scooter, Fitzgerald produced an indictment for perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Scooter went to trial and was convicted. In June 2007 he was sentenced to thirty months in prison.

I faced an agonizing decision. I could let Scooter go to jail. I could use my power under the Const.i.tution to grant him a pardon. Or I could commute his sentence, meaning his conviction would stand but his prison sentence would not. Some in the White House, led by the vice president, pushed aggressively for a pardon. Their argument was that the investigation should never have proceeded after Fitzgerald had identified Novak's source. On the other hand, most advisers believed that the jury verdict was correct and should remain in place.

I decided it would send a bad message to pardon a former staff member convicted of obstructing justice, especially after I had instructed the staff to cooperate with the investigation. But the punishment Scooter had received did not fit the crime. The protracted investigation and trial had already caused personal, professional, and financial damage for Scooter and his family. In early July 2007, I announced my decision: ”I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.”

The reaction from the left was blistering. ”President Bush's action today tells America that it's okay to lie, mislead, and obstruct justice, as long as you are loyal to his administration,” one congressman said. Another said, ”I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings.” Not everyone in the White House liked the decision, either. d.i.c.k continued to advocate a full pardon.

One of the biggest surprises of my presidency was the flood of pardon requests at the end. I could not believe the number of people who pulled me aside to suggest that a friend or former colleague deserved a pardon. At first I was frustrated. Then I was disgusted. I came to see ma.s.sive injustice in the system. If you had connections to the president, you could insert your case into the last-minute frenzy. Otherwise, you had to wait for the Justice Department to conduct a review and make a recommendation. In my final weeks in office, I resolved that I would not pardon anyone who went outside the formal channels.

In the closing days of the administration, d.i.c.k pressed his case that Scooter should be pardoned. Scooter was a decent man and dedicated public servant, and I understood the ramifications for his family. I asked two trusted lawyers to review the case from top to bottom, including the evidence presented at the trial for and against Scooter. I also authorized them to meet with Scooter to hear his side of the story. After careful a.n.a.lysis, both lawyers told me they could find no justification for overturning the jury's verdict.

I spent our last weekend at Camp David wrestling with the decision. ”Just make up your mind,” Laura told me. ”You're ruining this for everyone.” Ultimately, I reached the same conclusion I had in 2007: The jury verdict should be respected. In one of our final meetings, I informed d.i.c.k that I would not issue a pardon. He stared at me with an intense look. ”I can't believe you're going to leave a soldier on the battlefield,” he said. The comment stung. In eight years, I had never seen d.i.c.k like this, or even close to this. I worried that the friends.h.i.+p we had built was about to be severely strained, at best.

A few days later, I talked to another person about the pardon process. On the ride up Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, I told Barack Obama Barack Obama about my frustrations with the pardon system. I gave him a suggestion: announce a about my frustrations with the pardon system. I gave him a suggestion: announce a pardon policy pardon policy early on, and stick to it. early on, and stick to it.

After President Obama's Inauguration, Laura and I choppered to Andrews Air Force Base. Our final event before boarding the plane home to Texas was a farewell ceremony in front of three thousand friends, family, and former staff. d.i.c.k had agreed to introduce me. He had injured his back moving boxes, so Lynne had to push him onto the stage in a wheelchair. d.i.c.k grabbed the microphone. I had no idea what he would say. I hoped he would be able to get past the disappointment he felt. His words were heartfelt and kind: ”Eight and a half years ago, I began a partners.h.i.+p with George Bush that has truly been a special honor....If I have one regret, it is only that these days have ended and that all the members of this fine team, now, must go their own way.”

The man I picked that hot day in July remained steady to the end. Our friends.h.i.+p had survived.

*Arguably, my home state provided an exception in 1960, when John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. There was no similar benefit in 1988, when chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. There was no similar benefit in 1988, when Michael Dukakis Michael Dukakis tapped Texas Senator tapped Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen Lloyd Bentsen.

**I later heard that General s.h.i.+nseki's staff had not invited Don to attend. I think he should have gone anyway.

***In 2004, the nonpartisan Butler Report concluded that the statement was ”well-founded.”

n the heart of central London sat a thirty-four-story gray building. One floor contained a large, open s.p.a.ce known as the Fertilizing Room. Inside, technicians meticulously mixed eggs and sperm in test tubes to produce the next generation. The hatchery served as the lifeblood of a new world government, which had mastered the formula for engineering a productive and stable society.

That scene was not the creation of Jay Lefkowitz Jay Lefkowitz, the bright lawyer reading aloud to me in the Oval Office in 2001. It came from Aldous Huxley Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, Brave New World Brave New World. With the recent breakthroughs in biotechnology and genetics, the book now seemed chillingly relevant. So did its lesson: For all its efficiency, Huxley's utopian world seemed sterile, joyless, and empty of meaning. The quest to perfect humanity ended in the loss of humanity.

In April of that same year, another piece of writing turned up in the Oval Office. Describing what she called a ”wrenching family journey,” the author urged me to support the ”miracle possibilities” of embryonic stem cell research to provide cures for people like her husband, who was suffering from Alzheimer's. She closed, ”Mr. President, I have some personal experience regarding the many decisions you face each day....I'd be very grateful if you would take my thoughts and prayers into your consideration on this critical issue. Most sincerely, Nancy Reagan Nancy Reagan.”

The juxtaposition of Mrs. Reagan's letter and the Huxley novel framed the decision I faced on stem cell research. Many felt the federal government had a responsibility to fund medical research that might help save the lives of people like President Reagan. Others argued that supporting the destruction of human embryos could take us off a moral cliff toward an uncaring society that devalued life. The contrast was stark, and I faced a difficult decision.

”Sometimes our differences run so deep it seems we share a continent, but not a country,” I said in my Inaugural Address on January 20, 2001. ”We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.”

After a luncheon with dignitaries at the Capitol, Laura and I made our way to the White House as part of the official Inaugural parade. Pennsylvania Avenue was lined by well-wishers, along with a few pockets of protesters. They carried big signs with foul language, hurled eggs at the motorcade, and screamed at the top of their lungs. I spent most of the ride in the presidential limo behind thick gla.s.s windows, so their shouting came across in pantomime. While I couldn't make out their words, their middle fingers spoke loudly: The bitterness of the 2000 election was not going away anytime soon.

Laura and I watched the rest of the parade from the reviewing stand at the White House. We waved to the marchers from every state and were thrilled to see high school bands from Midland and Crawford. After the parade, I went to check out the Oval Office. As I walked over from the residence, the room looked like it was glowing. Its bright lights and gold drapes stood out in vivid contrast from the dark winter sky.

Each president decorates the Oval Office in his own style. I hung several Texas paintings, including Julian Onderdonk Julian Onderdonk's renditions of the Alamo, a West Texas landscape, and a field of bluebonnets-a daily reminder of our ranch in Crawford. I also brought a painting called Rio Grande Rio Grande from an El Paso artist and friend, from an El Paso artist and friend, Tom Lea Tom Lea, and a scene of a horseman charging up a hill by W.H.D. Koerner W.H.D. Koerner. The name of the piece, A Charge to Keep A Charge to Keep, echoed a Methodist hymn by Charles Wesley, which we sang at my first inauguration as governor. Both the painting and hymn reflect the importance of serving a cause larger than oneself.

The Oval Office as it looked during my presidency. White House/Eric Draper White House/Eric Draper I decided to keep the Rembrandt Peale Rembrandt Peale portrait of portrait of George Was.h.i.+ngton George Was.h.i.+ngton that Dad and that Dad and Bill Clinton Bill Clinton had placed over the mantel. I added busts of had placed over the mantel. I added busts of Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill Winston Churchill-a gift on loan from the British government courtesy of Prime Minister Tony Blair Tony Blair. I had told Tony that I admired Churchill's courage, principle, and sense of humor-all of which I thought were necessary for leaders.h.i.+p. (My favorite example of Churchill's wit was his reply when Franklin Roosevelt Franklin Roosevelt caught him coming out of the tub on a visit to the White House in December 1941. ”I have nothing to hide from the president of the United States!” he said.) After 9/11, I realized the three busts had something in common: All depicted wartime leaders. I certainly didn't have that in mind when I chose them. caught him coming out of the tub on a visit to the White House in December 1941. ”I have nothing to hide from the president of the United States!” he said.) After 9/11, I realized the three busts had something in common: All depicted wartime leaders. I certainly didn't have that in mind when I chose them.

One s.p.a.ce on the wall was reserved for the president's most influential predecessor. I chose Lincoln. He'd had the most trying job of any president, preserving the Union. Some asked why I didn't put Dad's portrait in that spot. ”Number forty-one hangs in my heart,” I said. ”Sixteen is on the wall.”

The centerpiece of the Oval Office was the Resolute desk Resolute desk. I had chosen the desk because of its historical significance. Its story began in 1852, when Queen Victoria Queen Victoria dispatched the HMS dispatched the HMS Resolute Resolute to search for the British explorer John Franklin, who had been lost looking for the Northwest Pa.s.sage. The to search for the British explorer John Franklin, who had been lost looking for the Northwest Pa.s.sage. The Resolute Resolute was trapped in ice near the Arctic and abandoned by its crew. In 1855 it was discovered by an American whaling s.h.i.+p, which sailed the was trapped in ice near the Arctic and abandoned by its crew. In 1855 it was discovered by an American whaling s.h.i.+p, which sailed the Resolute Resolute back to Connecticut. The vessel was purchased by the U.S. government, refitted, and returned to England as a goodwill gift to the queen. When the back to Connecticut. The vessel was purchased by the U.S. government, refitted, and returned to England as a goodwill gift to the queen. When the Resolute Resolute was decommissioned two decades later, Her Majesty had several ornate desks made out of its timbers, one of which she gave to President was decommissioned two decades later, Her Majesty had several ornate desks made out of its timbers, one of which she gave to President Rutherford B. Hayes Rutherford B. Hayes.

Most presidents since Hayes have used the Resolute desk in one capacity or another. Franklin Roosevelt commissioned a front panel door with a carved presidential seal, which some historians believe was intended to hide his wheelchair. Little John F. Kennedy, Jr., poked his head out that door in the most famous Oval Office photo ever taken. Dad had used the Resolute in his upstairs office in the residence, while Bill Clinton returned it to the Oval. Sitting behind the historic desk was a reminder-that first day and every day-that the inst.i.tution of the presidency is more important than the person who holds it.

Andy Card was with me as I took my place at the Resolute for the first time. My first Oval Office decision was to replace the desk chair-a bizarre contraption that vibrated when plugged in-with something more practical. Then the door to the Rose Garden swung open. I looked up and saw Dad.

”Mr. President,” he said. He was wearing a dark suit, his hair still wet from the hot bath he'd taken to thaw out.

”Mr. President,” I replied.

He stepped into the office, and I walked around the desk. We met in the middle of the room. Neither of us said much. We didn't need to. The moment was more moving than either of us could have expressed.

Dad and I together in the Oval Office that day. White House/Eric Draper White House/Eric Draper

On my ninth day as president, my domestic policy team gathered in the Oval Office. Everyone was on time. That was what I expected. Timeliness is important to make sure an organization does not get sloppy. The chief briefer that day was Margaret Spellings Margaret Spellings, a smart and feisty mother of two. Margaret had served with me in Austin and moved to Was.h.i.+ngton as my top domestic policy adviser. She covered a variety of topics that day, including a new initiative for people with disabilities and an election reform commission chaired by former Presidents Ford and Carter. Then she launched into a discussion of embryonic stem cell research. ”The Clinton administration issued new legal guidelines that interpret the d.i.c.key Amendment to permit federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. We have several options going forward-”

With Margaret Spellings. White House/Eric Draper White House/Eric Draper That's as far as she got before I cut her off. ”First of all,” I asked, ”what exactly is a stem cell?” I learn best by asking questions. In some cases, I probe to understand a complex issue. Other times, I deploy questions as a way to test my briefers' knowledge. If they cannot answer concisely and in plain English, it raises a red flag that they may not fully grasp the subject.

As usual, Margaret was well prepared. She started by explaining the science. Embryonic stem cells are a special medical resource because they can transform into a wide variety of different cell types. Just as the stem of a vine grows into many distinct branches, embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow into nerve cells for the brain, muscle tissues for the heart, or other organs. These cells offered a possible way to treat ailments from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's to Parkinson's. The technology was new, and the science was unproven. But the potential was significant. However, the only way to extract embryonic stem cells is to destroy the embryo. This raised a moral dilemma: Could the destruction of one human life be justified by the hopes of saving others?

<script>