Swatting at flies

townhall.com ^ | 4/10/04 | Debra Saunders

[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.

[inquest]

The Commission on Terrorism's job is not to find guilt.

Well, forgive me for being blunt, but its job ought to be to find whatever guilt is there to be found.

You are ignoring a lot of information (such as the lack of sharing intel by various agencies)

I made specific mention of that. One of the things I hope will come to light is what, if anything, the administration did to combat that problem.

the attitude that comes across in your words is one of presupposition of wrongdoing, especially by the Bush administration.

I presuppose all politicians as guilty until proven innocent - and the more power they have, the more they need to be subject to scrutiny, particularly when something goes wrong. I consider it a very healthy attitude for a free society.

[GailA]

I think this is the anti-accident device that that 9/11 widow from peaceful tomorrows was yapping about when she was on with perky katie, queen of mean after Condi's testimony. I scanned the articles and no where did I find that the device is adaptable to air craft.

http://www.autospeed.com/shop/category_2120/browse.html?ecomsvr=888888478

http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_1695/article.html long article

http://www.pocketgps.co.uk/roadangel.php long article

http://www.premierdirect.co.uk/startroadangel.htm

Road Angel Starter Kit

A simple to use, cost effective, high quality accident prevention device for cars, motorbikes, coaches or trucks, fully programmable by the user to enter their own hazards. Using the latest GPS technology Road Angel constantly monitors speed and direction not only notifying of known accident blackspots, but also to advise drivers of certain speed sensitive areas to reduce accidents. Regular updates of new blackspots and cameras are downloaded via the internet. The Road Angel comes with full technical service support via Internet, Email, Fax and Telephone.

Please note that the Road Angel IS NOT a radar detector, therefore it DOES NOT detect mobile speed cameras

Includes Road Angel, windscreen fitting kit, 12v cigar lighter with straight wire, PC interface lead, 12 power supply (for PC interface) comprehensive Windows Software, User manual and dash-mat. The first year of updates is free of charge with an annual subscription thereafter of $95.

[Bushiefan]

It is of course really important whether you are impressed or not.

[inquest]

Not nearly as important as ensuring that the administration fully cooperate with the commission.

[kattracks]

Sorry, but as far am I'm concerned your "forced to come clean" comment highlighted what your true purpose on this thread is, and it definitly does not have anything to do with the truth.

Spin it as you please, that fact comes shining through.

[inquest]

Assume whatever you like about me. It doesn't alter the fact that the administration has an obligation to cooperate fully with the commission, objections about "partisanship" notwithstanding.

[kattracks]

It doesn't alter the fact that the administration has an obligation to cooperate fully with the commission,....

Which is exactly what the administration is doing, which is obvious to all except those who want the blame for 9/11 to fall squarely on the Bush admin. From your statements I believe you belong to this group.

[inquest]

Which is exactly what the administration is doing

Like I said, if they are, then fine. But from your comment that the commission is a "farce", I gathered that you believe that the commission doesn't deserve the time of day from the administration. If that's not your position, then we're pretty much even at this point.

[Carolinamom]

Something to think about imo: With President Bush and Homeland Security at the helm, to date we have NOT had another 9/ll attack in this country.

[kattracks]

But from your comment that the commission is a "farce", I gathered that you believe that the commission doesn't deserve the time of day from the administration. If that's not your position, then we're pretty much even at this point.

That was never my position. I never indicated that I thought the comnission didn't "deserve the time of day from the administration". I believe this commission is a farce due to the fact that their stated goal of gathering information in order to prevent, if possible, something like 9/11 ever happening again became a partisan witch hunt, whose primary goal was to blame the Bush administration for 9/11.

You say we're pretty much even at this point. Are we? You said, ..."the administration has an obligation to cooperate fully with the commission,....". I responded that was exactly what they were doing. Your respones then was, "Like I said, if they are, then fine".

If they are? Do you believe they aren't?

[inquest]

I never indicated that I thought the comnission didn't "deserve the time of day from the administration". I believe this commission is a farce due to the fact that their stated goal of gathering information in order to prevent, if possible, something like 9/11 ever happening again became a partisan witch hunt, whose primary goal was to blame the Bush administration for 9/11.

So despite the fact that you consider it a farce, you agree with me that the administration is obligated to fully cooperate with it?

Do you believe they aren't?

I haven't seen anything to indicate that they aren't. But that wasn't my point.

[kattracks]

So despite the fact that you consider it a farce, you agree with me that the administration is obligated to fully cooperate with it?

The administration is and has fully cooperated with it. The commission became a farce when it used that cooperation to turn the "investigation" into a partisan witch hunt. There was no interest then in finding the truth, which might protect the secutity of the US in the future. Their only interest was to inflict as much damage as possible on the Bush administration. That's when the commission's investigation became a ridiculous and empty show (farce).

You said, "All I care about right at the moment is seeing the administration forced to come clean on what happened." Then you said you haven't seen any indication that the administration isn't cooperating with the commission.

So, then, you agree that the administration has "come clean" on what happened.

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, did Bob "Swatter' Kerrey ask Richard Clarke while under oath (was he ever?) why he didn't include the warnings issued to Clinton --that prompted his appointing goreghoul to an airline safety commission-- in the August 2001 PDB? Sleazy bastards have been trying to set this administration up from the very start. The democrat 'party' will do ANYTHING to sieze back power, no matter how many Americans die in their efforts. And if anyone doubts that last assertion, remeber that it is the democrat party that has built their entire 'enlightened' politic upon the unfettered use of serial killers to off alive unborn infants.

[inquest]

[So despite the fact that you consider it a farce, you agree with me that the administration is obligated to fully cooperate with it?]

The administration is and has fully cooperated with it.

I guess that kinda sorta answers my question. About the closest to a straight answer I can hope for under the circumstances.

[kattracks]

Me: So, then, you agree that the administration has "come clean" on what happened.

You:

More of an answer than I got from you.

[inquest]

Your statement was phrased more as a conclusion than a question. I didn't contradict it.

[kattracks]

Well, I'm happy to see that you're satisfied that the administration did come clean, and fully cooperated with the commission.

[inquest]

Like I said, make whatever assumptions you like about me.

[kattracks]

I have, in post #38 & #45. Your last response proves that I was correct.

[inquest]

And also like I said, whatever assumptions you make about me, backed up by whatever "proof" you imagine, have no bearing on the subject at hand.