http://www.hollihan.net/Kerry02.html
Posted on 04/10/2004 5:11:54 AM PDT by kattracks
The National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States ostensibly has been exploring how the deadly Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could have happened and how they could have been prevented. In light of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday, I, like so many others, have figured out an easy answer: Get the panel to construct a time machine so that all those geniuses who now believe that Sept. 11 easily could have been averted can wave a magic wand and reinvent the past.
That's sort of what is going on anyway. Some commissioners seem to have forgotten what life was like before the Sept. 11 attacks. They're ignoring the fact that the security policies made sense and fit the circumstances, until the circumstances changed. And they're ready to point fingers at Rice and President Bush for not pushing for changes that America never would have accepted until after Sept. 11.
Rice began her testimony by citing terrorist incidents that pre-dated the Bush presidency. These included the half-blundered bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, attacks on U.S. installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the 2000 attack on the destroyer Cole. The Clinton administration responded to these attacks by relying on local law enforcement -- New York and Saudi Arabian -- and the occasional aerial bombing.
It is now clear that the Clinton response was inadequate. Law enforcement couldn't stop al Qaeda from plotting more violence. The military didn't get lucky and take out al Qaeda. Instead, feckless bombings contributed to the legend of an Osama bin Laden who could laugh at America's high-tech weaponry.
That's why, Rice testified, President Bush came to dismiss the Clinton approach as "swatting flies." Too bad it turned out that the Bush response to the Cole attack -- to not swat flies while trying to woo Pakistan -- was inadequate, too.
But in the context of the times, it is not realistic to have expected more from either administration. No one with a memory would suggest that President Clinton could have been considerably tougher on al Qaeda. While the losses at the embassies in Africa were deplorable, al Qaeda had not inflicted enough damage to outrage the American public to the point where voters would accept boots on the ground.
Ditto after the Cole. If Bush had called for war within months of taking office, after a bitter election finale, critics would have called him a warmonger and warned darkly that he was only fueling the fires of Muslim martyrdom. The outrage wasn't there. He would have failed.
Simply put, the death toll hadn't hit the tipping point.
Commissioner Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, has been the man to watch during the commission hearings. Kerrey has been tough on both administrations. And unlike almost everyone else in Washington, Kerrey was pushing for a military response to the Cole attack -- against Iraq, no less -- when it wasn't a popular move. You have to respect the man and his convictions.
That said, Kerrey's not being realistic if he thinks Bush could have won support for a military response -- other than ineffective aerial bombings -- to the Cole. It was hard enough for Bush to win support after al Qaeda thugs attacked Washington and New York, killing 3,000 people and leaving a smoking hole in the American landscape.
That's what makes the whole exercise of the commission hearings so revolting.
Critics who fault Bush for being pre-emptive on Iraq do not hesitate to fault Bush for not being pre-emptive when it came to attacks that were unexpected and unimagined. Some behave as if they believe the president is supposed to be a superhero who can smell threats, including risks that intelligence staffers haven't been able to pinpoint.
Kerrey faulted the Bushies for having a phobia about their "m-word" -- mistake. Granted, Bush League has been too slow to release information, too defensive and not very savvy in its refusal to simply say that the administration wishes it had known more and acted on it.
The Bushies also can't come out and say what everyone knows -- that America was too busy, too happy and too peace-loving to pounce on al Qaeda.
It's an old story that a country's strengths are its weaknesses. It is a national strength that Americans are reluctant to go to war. It is right that America has been slow to use its unmatched clout as a club to bend others to our will. It is just and admirable that the world's most powerful nation has to be provoked before it counterattacks.
It was an approach that worked. Until it didn't.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
These partisan buffoons act so smart, especially now that they've been given all the connecting dot information. They really make me sick, and have doubled my determination to support Bush both financially and psychologially right up till the election.
It's been said before, but .... The 9/11 attacks were in planning for five years, since 1996. Why didn't Sandy Berger and buffalo breath Madeline Albright warn us of the time and date of the coming attack??
Grrrrr. These people really make me sick.
That may be Bob Kerrey's complaint, but I believe most critics were focusing on the lack of interagency communication, not on the lack of pre-emptive strikes.
Some behave as if they believe the president is supposed to be a superhero who can smell threats, including risks that intelligence staffers haven't been able to pinpoint.
I don't know who these "some" are, but most of the criticism I've heard doesn't take a solid position on whether the attacks could have been prevented; they only point out where the administration was clearly deficient in being up to the task, such as when Dr. Rice implausibly claimed that no one could have known that terrorists might fly a plane into a building.
Now, if she had known, it doesn't necessarily prove that we would have been able to prevent the attacks, but that's not the point. The point is that the administration needs to keep on top of basic things like this, and they weren't.
9/11 changed everything.
http://www.hollihan.net/Kerry02.html
No, the critics (Democrats) are focusing on what they perceive as the Bush administration's lack of action before 9/11.
I don't know who these "some" are, but most of the criticism I've heard doesn't take a solid position on whether the attacks could have been prevented; they only point out where the administration was clearly deficient in being up to the task, such as when Dr. Rice implausibly claimed that no one could have known that terrorists might fly a plane into a building.
Clearly impling that had the Bush administration not been "defiicient" the attacks could have been prevented.
The point is that the administration needs to keep on top of basic things like this, and they weren't.
They were as on top of the situation as the intelligence at that time allowed them to be.
I don't know how you can divine such an implication. Certainly some of the more rabid partisans would like to make such a suggestion, but the simple fact that someone's criticizing the performance of the administration doesn't mean that they're suggesting that the attacks could definitely have been prevented.
They were as on top of the situation as the intelligence at that time allowed them to be.
Intelligence had documents captured from Ramzi Yousef detailing plans involving using planes as missiles.
Actually what I demand is that their deficiencies be brought to light. Then we can decide whether they were excusable or not.
And I don't particularly care that this is being done out of partisan motivations. Our system of government is designed so that people acting out of partisan motivations can serve the public interest by holding their opponents accountable for their actions or inactions. It's working as intended.
It IS (very much so) looking for a new scandal.(and the media is salivating at the thought of some 'silver bullet' gone unnoticed).
The Commission IS looking for someone to blame.
And doing so while totally ignoring this salient fact...that Islamic Fundamentalists have decided that we all must die.
redrock
Richard Clarke is a symptom of the rot associated with large governments that act to preserve themselves first and take care of business later, if at all.
Damn right. Does anyone think not?
That pretty well sums it up.
5.56mm
They why do you suppose the commissioners are dwelling on what the Bush administration did, in their short time in office, as opposed to what the clinton admin. did in (or didn't do) in 8 years? Why, after all of the testimony showing the lack of preperation of other agencies, are the commissioners dwelling on what the Bush admin. knew? They are not simply criticizing, they, by their tone and questions, are definitely implying that the Bush admin. could have prevented the 9/11 attack. If you don't get that, you are one of the few that don't.
Intelligence had documents captured from Ramzi Yousef detailing plans involving using planes as missiles.
And according to Rice's testimony, this information never made it to the top in the chain. Also I believe, the intelligence pointed to attacks outside of the US.
This commission is a farce. The Democrats sitting on the commission aren't interested in gaing insight which could prevent future attacks. Their main goal is political.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.