the bitter blame game
I've been following the two recent hearings of the 9-11 commission: Nat. Sec. Advisor Rice's last week. Clinton and Gore had afternoon sessions that same day, but that wasn't public and broadcasted.
Yesterday they had an assortment of FBI directors, and Attorney Generals (
Ashcroft Faults Clinton Era at 9/11 Panel). A lot got said, and I mean that in a looser sense of that phrase not a stronger sense. CIA directors go to to-morrow. Three new staff statements have been prepared. Listening to these people talk and trying to make sense of it isn't my day job, just a civic hobby - like a public policy mystery science theater 3000. Condoleeza Rice went up on the hill and stone-walled, dodged, disingenuously misinterpreted, and ran out the clock. You can't argue with her for that, that was her job that day and she did it well. It's like getting mad at Roger Clemens for throwing strikes.
Impressionistically though one thing stuck with me. An apologist for the current administration trying to characterize their attitude toward Bin Ladin versus Richard Clarke's: _we took [bin laden] seriously, but we didn't have our "hair on fire" like him [Clarke]_. That reflexive off hand disparaging dismissal of Clarke and people who shared his view. Clearly a bunch of off message malcontents who can't settle down. That this view comes to them so easily, even today. I don't know what to say. The most surreal moment so far: Rice denying they ever received any indication that Al Qaeda was planning attacks in the U S then being asked to name the document that didn't say this: Bin Ladin determined to strike in U S . That was the now famous 06Aug01 PDB. When I worked in the Chief of Naval Operations intelligence briefing section, he got his briefing from us before he went down to the Joint Chief's room to receive that briefing. The rule was he didn't want to find out anything he didn't already know when he got there. Head of the joint chiefs got the White House briefing, same general rule in effect. The tone and intensity of that PDB was more direct than that type of document normally gets. It clearly was trying to run up some flags, big flags - red ones, especially in the last two paragraphs.
Yes. It didn't say - "Filofax: Tuesday, eleven September 2001, downtown Manhattan. flight *** arriving World Trade Center 9:00am. - Osama." They didn't have specific intelligence on a particular attack. A point that Rice made Thursday, the Presedent made Saturday, Sunday,(
Bush Says Brief on Al Qaeda Threat Was Not Specific)
Monday, and again last night. My though there is: Were they waiting for that?
There's no point in playing a bitter blame game. After Madrid the more important question - concerning mass terrorist actions: has the executive branch addressed the "structural problems" within the White House and between the FBI and CIA that we have some chance of preventing a similar attack.
._._. pb _._
Having waiting another day to finish and post this. I see that CIA Dir. George Tenet testified today
that the country was "in effect, unprotected" at the time of the attacks three years ago. No real surprise there. Also that it will be five years before all the problems connected with this are resolved
BBC NEWS | Americas | US was 'unprotected' on 9/11 . I note the beeb has a direct quote for the "unprotected" line, but paraphrases the five year bit.
5:34:40 PM  ;;
|
|
