March 23, 2004
9/11 Investigation - Not Good
Testimony today before the 9/11 Investigating Commission was shocking. Among those testifying were Generals, Mr. Armitage, M. Allbright, and C. Powell, D. Rumsfeld, and P. Wolfowitz. Overall, it appears that both administrations, Clinton’s and G.W. Bush’s governed over a history of intelligence from 1991 right up through the summer of 9/11 which gave a host of indications and warnings of airliners to be used as weapons against the U.S. There were even, though not during 2001, intelligence data indicating the Pentagon and World Trade Center may be targets. Despite this intelligence neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration took any steps to beef up security of our airline industry, or to warn Congress that such action might be necessary.
Particularly damning was testimony by Donald Rumsfeld acknowledging heightened intelligence activity warning of possible impending attack throughout the summer preceding 9/11. Mr. Rumsfeld's response was that he was not responsible for domestic security and his focus was on overseas threats. He stated he does not recall being directly informed of a possible threat to the Pentagon, an area of responsibility that was his.
The President, G.W. Bush today also stated very carefully that, had he known there would be an attack on the WTC on Sept. 11, he would have taken action. Note what he did not say. He did not say he was not aware of increased intelligence indicating a possible impending attack. He did not say he was not aware that the WTC was a potential target. He did not say he was not aware the attacks could likely come from hijacked airliners. Testimony by Rumsfeld indicates that our Intelligence officers and head of CIA were aware of all these facts. Rumsfeld stated however, he does not recall if he had been made aware by the intelligence community of this information.
What we can expect from this investigation is tough questions seeking tough answers as the panel appears to be serious in their endeavor to determine what happened, what didn't happen, and why 9/11 occurred at all. What we cannot expect is a confession by anyone that they messed up or were responsible in anyway for allowing 9/11 to occur. Their answers were calculated, and appeared at times rehearsed. Only Wolfowitz however, became defensive and testy when questioned. Cooperative attitudes appear to be the order of the day. We can also not expect to ever hear the whole truth. Their was reference made by one of the panel that certain information specifically about intelligence content would not be disclosed to the public.
The one inescapable fact that came out today, however, was that both administrations reigned over intelligence indicating that something like what occurred on 9/11 was very likely to occur at some point in time, and neither administration took a single step to beef up airline security. The Bush administration is particularly vulnerable on this point since the intelligence community and the head of the CIA were receiving a high volume of indications in the few months preceding 9/11 that something was very likely about to happen against the U.S. resulting from al-Queda actions.
Clark is scheduled to testify tomorrow. There is a very different story to be told between him and Wolfowitz, tomorrow regarding prioritizing Iraq over al Queda. Wolfowitz today denied Clark’s charge that Wolfowitz in a meeting had indicated that Iraq was a greater priority.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 07:33 PMRumsfeld stated however, he does not recall if he had been made aware by the intelligence community of this information.
Yeah, well, he can’t even remember what he himself said, so why would we expect him to remember what others did?
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 23, 2004 09:32 PMPlausible deniability comes to mind. Something of such great import would not be forgotten by most of us regular folks. Selective memory is the only defense of officials under investigation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2004 09:49 PMIt would certainly be nice if, in a dramatic courtroom scene, someone broke under the pressure. I can imagine Clinton weeping regretfully on the stand as he admits his complicity in not only the 9/11 attacks, but also in the murders of those 47 people he had killed.
It is more likely, however, that the jail-time for the people repsonsible for the Plame CIA name-leak will lead to additional information on this whole Administration. It’s a possibility, anyway. Moreso than this commission actually getting anywhere.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 23, 2004 10:43 PMNote to David R. Remer and ceejayoz, what would you do if you were in the shoes of Rumsfeld today?
Everyone can talk the talk but it is burdensome to say that you are responsible for the deaths of 3000 civilians in a non-wartime event.
Lets rewind back to September 1-10 2001, if you found out the some kind of terrorist attack was going to happen, what would you have done?
Closed down everything and told everyone to stay at home?
Hindsight is great, isn’t it?
Posted by: Blue at March 23, 2004 10:45 PMBlue… we never said it would be easy, nor that people will knowingly and willingly indict themselves. But the buck has to stop somewhere, right? It used to stop with the President. And now? Does anyone know?
It’s not like the President is expected to be perfect… mistakes are alright, as long as the overall Administration has a net good track record. But this Administration is so extreme, so divinely mandated that they never admit being wrong about anything. Even when direct refutation is thrown in their face, they don’t back down. Rumsfield and (insert name of that guy that refuted Clarke’s charges on 60 minutes) come to mind as recent examples who had their lies directly refuted and then simply refused to talk about it anymore. Unbelievable.
I’d be able to manage a lot more respect for these people if they descended off of their mountaintops of righteousness and admitted some of their mistakes.
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 23, 2004 11:25 PMWe’re never going to know if 9-11 could have been prevented, and the most important thing is to learn about what happened and try to minimize the chances for a recurrence. We can Monday-morning quarterback 9-11 forever, but just look around at all the security risks in this country today. Buses, trains, the water and food supply, nuclear power plants… an attack could happen tomorrow, and we’d be right back to finger-pointing and wondering where we went wrong.
Hindsight is 20-20—we need to develop more foresight, which so far nobody has much of a corner on. The best solution to the problem out there right now is to recognize you can’t play defense forever and go on offense. It’s a big risky strategy—one just beginning, with many bumps in the road undeniably ahead—but it’s the only thing that stands any chance of working.
Posted by: Martin at March 24, 2004 01:01 AMIt does not look good for the Bush team. I was reading on www.witnessreport.com that Clarke Rebuffs the White House Attacks.
Posted by: Wil at March 24, 2004 01:53 AMGaelen, you’re absolutely right.
It’s not like the President is expected to be perfect… mistakes are alright, as long as the overall Administration has a net good track record.
One of the reasons this administration is under such close scrutiny about 9/11 is because they act like they have something to hide, from refusing to discuss briefings on the threat, to refusing to cooperate fully with the commission.
It’s perfectly fine to admit that they just didn’t take the threat seriously enough at the time, even despite the warnings, and then highlight the measures they’ve taken sense.
Martin is also right that hind-sight is 20/20 (although the argument could be made that based on warnings, it might have been prudent to tighten up visa and immigration checks, and passenger screening on flights). If no one in the administration expected an attack on the scale of 9/11, neither did the American people or even our intelligence services. So who can seriously blame them?
The administration should just accept responsibility, and move on. Again, no one is going to arrest them, or even blame them, for not expecting an attack on that scale. What purpose does it serve to be evasive and misleading? That just makes it look like they’ve got something to hide.
Unless they really do have something to hide… :)
Martin, you are absolutely correct about our present security. Rumsfeld testified today that another 9/11 could happen tomorrow. He said we have made attacking us more difficult for the al-Queda but, we have not eliminated their threat to us by any means. And he admitted their training camps are still in operation and they are still receiving money.
So, going overseas to fight a war on terrorism is doing nothing to protect and defend Americans on American soil from another attack. What I find absolutely incredible is this administration’s total and complete inability or unwillingness to assess a plan for stopping terrorists at or before our borders. They all seem to have the idea it just can’t be done. If we can put ships on Mars and men on the moon, I believe we can apply military, monetary, and technological resources to reduce the risk of another attack to slim at least.
The administration has an obligation to at least develop feasibility studies on securing our borders. But, they are unwilling to even do that. Corporate profits and free trade are more important than defending Americans from terrorist attacks in their homes or workplaces.
Wil, that is an excellent link to CNN’s Inside Politics article, with lots of factual reporting of who has said what to whom in recent days. Thank you for this excellent resource.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 24, 2004 05:06 AMEvery leader is responsible for 9-11. How can you accurately apportion blame when the slow accretion of actions over the years leads to a result? There was no Eureka moment. It was Bush in the 7 1/2 months. It was Clinton in 8 years. It was Congress cutting the budgets. It was the Church commission in the 70’s gutting our intelligence capability so we could never have actionable data. It was a move from people to signal intercepts - et cetera.
The one hoary fact is that the system’s reach will always exceed its grasp. And when somethng goes wrong, people will not look to the structure, they will look to some poor bastard making the exact same decision he did a hundred times before except this time something went wrong. Such is the nature of this govt. People want things but do not want to pay for them. So the duties keep piling on but the ability to accomplish them does not increase. Thankfully, there rarely is a problem, but when there is brother look out.
Does anyone think we can adequately secure the borders, the rails, the ports, the power plants, the water supply? I do not.
We are spending multi billions of dollars on corporate welfare, people welfare, pointless make work projects, farm subsidies, manufacturing subsidies and every other thing Congress can think of. Eliminate farm subsidies and price supports and entitlements. Put that money into safeguarding Americans. However, this will never happen. Dems and the GOP are the same. They just target different freedoms and want to spend money on different things. They argue over how the pie is sliced. I want to get rid of the pie.
I blame both Clinton and Bush for not beefing up the security of our airlines knowing what they knew about the potential for commercial aircraft being used as weapons against targets like the Pentagon and WTC. The 9/11 investigation has and is establishing that the both Presidents were privy to this information and they failed to act on behalf of the security of the American people. That is just plain incompetent. Guess the Peter Principle applies to Presidents too!
David:
The issue that I find many people miss is that our security, economy, public opinion, world popularity etc., are all tied together like a Rubik’s cube. When one area is moved, it affects other areas as well.
Should we find a way to close our borders to terrorism? Of course, but only if it can be done in such a way as to not radically hurt the economy. Because we know what the opposing party will say if the economy goes down!
Clinton got himself in a jam when he thought sending cruise missiles wa sthe right thing to do….it was viewed as a ploy to divert attention from Monica Lewinsky. We know only that he would have been held accountable EITHER way.
Let’s not simplify these issues. You say we should protect our borders, as if anyone is suggesting otherwise. But think of how the Patriot Act has been viewed—even though it is an attempt(lets not get into whether it is misguided or not) to secure our nation. So of course there is the tightrope walk of having security without infringing on rights.
I dont know how we accomplish both at the same time. Perhaps you have valid suggestions that could be implemented, but simply saying we need to have secure borders is not a valid strategy.
Posted by: joebagonuts at March 25, 2004 11:35 AMWhat a difference an independent inquire makes! I watched some of the testimony yesterday.
It has become pretty obvious that both Clinton and Bush were not willing to risk their careers for the safety of this country.
After the Cole attack and the African embassy bombing Clinton did seem to have gotten the message that we were vulnerable. He just wasn’t willing to risk a military action. Considering the mess in Somalia that Bush senior had forced him into this is not surprising.
Bush Jr however seemed to exhibit the personality traits that is so prevalent in the religious right. Namely he showed arrogance and hubris. So convinced that Iraq was the threat he ignored the spike in terrorist “chatter”. He was too arrogant to admit that the Clinton advisers were right about the threat and to obsessed with Saddam to address the problem as anything but a second tier concern.
Sounds like a pretty astute assessment to me, Bob.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2004 04:12 AM
