DISSECTING A NATIONAL DISGRACE (partisan 9/11 commission hijacked by Dems to attack Pres Bush)

NY POST ^ | April 18, 2004 | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[Liz]

Your editorial exposing the 9/11 commission as a sham was right on the money ("National Disgrace," April 14). Early on, the commission was hijacked by the partisan Democratic members to be used to attack President Bush. The only reason for having Condoleezza Rice repeat her testimony in public and to release the presidential daily briefing was to get that information to the liberal media so it could be misrepresented for political purposes. And don't forget that the commission's report is set to be released to coincide with the start of the Democratic national convention in Boston. William Dillon Brick, N.J.

[Liz]

NATIONAL DISGRACE - Partisan Politics Over Truth

NY Post Editorial

April 14, 2004 -- The national 9/11 commission has been hijacked by political shills -- men and women eager to subordinate truth to partisan advantage; who hold a transitory victory on Election Day more dear than American victory in the war on terror.

Tawdry ambition has eclipsed sacred duty; all Americans are diminished, but none more than the families of the 9/11 victims -- who expect better from the commission, and certainly deserve it.

Unless it is the thousands of young Americans now under arms in Iraq and elsewhere; their bravery and devotion to duty is inspirational. How shameful that the commission attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply.

And John F. Kerry, who presumes to the presidency, acquiesces. What a disgrace.

Yesterday, Democratic shills Richard Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey hectored Attorney General John Ashcroft. They implied he was a coward for travelling on government aircraft at a time of heightened pre-9/11 security - if not, in fact, a scoundrel in possession of advance notice of the attack.

Last week, it was National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in the Democrats' dock; she was a fool, a filibusterer, a liar.

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that [President Bush was] warned against possible attacks in this country?" demanded Ben-Veniste.

Funny thing about that warning. Ben-Veniste was speaking of the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing paper - suggesting that it proved the White House had failed to comprehend al Qaeda's threat to America.

Yesterday, it came out that someone had indeed gotten it right.

George W. Bush, who had directed that the briefing paper be prepared.

In a 13-page report titled "Threats and Responses in 2001," the commission staff paints a picture of alarm bells going off throughout Washington in the months before 9/11 about an imminent "spectacular" terror attack by Osama bin Laden.

But the intelligence reports all talked about attacks occurring against targets overseas.

And the fevered reports, in the summer of 2001, of possible threats "seemed to be focused on Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and possibly Rome, but the danger could be anywhere . . . "

So the CIA prepared the Aug. 6 memo, "summarizing its understanding of the danger."

In sum: The briefing paper was written specifically for the president in direct response to an order from the president!

Obviously, the CIA's "understanding of the danger" was deficient.

But it clearly was not "a fact" that Bush was "warned against possible attacks in this country."

It is clear, now, that the entire briefing-memo "scandal" was sewn from whole cloth. But will there be an apology from Ben-Veniste, Kerrey & Co.?

Not a chance.

Why not.

Because, to the Democrats, the enemy is not just al Qaeda.

It is also the George W. Bush White House.

So they cross the bounds of acceptable political discourse, twisting the truth and bending the facts to produce a product that will advance their political ambitions.

To hell with the 9/11 families.

And to hell with eight young Americans reported killed in action in Iraq just yesterday; to the 65 who died over the past week - and to the hundreds who have laid down their lives for peace and freedom since 9/11.

All to defeat Bush.

John Kerry could shut it down in a heartbeat, simply by saying: "Stop it!"

Kerry needs to do just that. He must state the obvious: that 9/11 was the work of Islamist fanatics, and that the danger will not have passed until those who make war on America are either killed or in captivity.

It is simply disgraceful that he hasn't already done so.

[facedown]

BTTT

[risk]

Take heart, this will backfire. We'll come out stronger for it in the long run. In an open society, the barbs do tend to fly, and it's one disadvantage of our two party system that national interests can suffer while the opposing parties duke it out. But think how Americans would feel if these issues hadn't been addressed at all? I remember just six months ago, there were people I knew who seriously believed that al Qaeda was a CIA/Mossad plot. The Madrid bombings changed that around somewhat, but seeing the inside of our intelligence failures has given everyone in the world a chance to see the obvious: this was a royal screwup (SNAFU would have been used in WWII) and we were just caught in a state of unpreparedness. The Dems are throwing rocks in their own glass houses, and America will understand that sooner or later.

[harpu]

also bttt

[Liz]

Nice deconstruction.

[Liz]

The only reason for having Condoleezza Rice repeat her testimony in public and to release the presidential daily briefing was to get that information to the liberal media so it could be misrepresented for political purposes.

[TomGuy]

National disgrace -- that is a good description for the Commission.

After Benveniste gave a 10-minute speech-question, time ran out, Benveniste whined for more time, got it, continued his speech another 4 or 5 minutes, and never did formulate a question, that was a good indication that the Committee members were more interested in giving speeches than eliciting information.

A few sessions earlier, Bob Kerrey spent several minutes orating his opinion on Iraq. Iraq, if the libs/Dems are are to be believed, had little or nothing to do with 9-11. Yet, Kerrey gives a speech on Iraq.

Gorelick. What a joke. In an article this week in the American Standard (IIRC), the reporter quoted a Clinton staffer who said Gorelick was one the Committee for one reason--to protect the Clintons.

National disgrace? Yes. Instead of looking for answers that will help prevent future attacks, the Committee has revealed itself as partisan hacks, seeking a stage. A few even appear to be auditioning for a position with a potential Kerry administration.

The 9-11 Committee members should be ashamed for politicizing this commission. And those 9-11 families who attend the sessions and show their partisanship are no better than the committee members. Those families are not the only ones who suffered losses on 9-11-01.

[ZULU]

Great article.

Unfortuately, it omits the culpability of Chairman Tom Kean of New Jersey, an ostensible Republican but in reality a personal friend of Bill Clinton, egregious RINO, and hater of conservatives and conservativism.

The world was recently treated to the arrogance of this egocentric elitist when he told people to "butt out" when Senator Sensenbrenner and others had the temerity to question the wisdom of having Jamie Gorelick on the Committee.

Mr. Kean's blatant failure to maintain order and decorum in his hearings by not removing obstreperous individuals from the audience, and his failure to control the rudeness of such blatant political partisans as Ben-Veniste in questioning administration officials further illustrate his bias and total lack of suitability for the position he holds on this committee.

I have stated this before and state it again - my suspicion is that Mr. Kean's intent was to play up to the Democrats, expecting a Kerry victory and a reward of his later appointment to the Federal Courts - GOD FORBID!!

Mr. Kean's presiding at this political Inquisition matches and exceeds the performance of Judge Ito at the O.J. Simpson trial.

Appointing this Judas to the 9-11 Committee was one the greatest errors of President Bush's career. Bush apparently is unaware of the depth of distaste by northwestern limousine liberals for the conservative mainstream Republican establishment. He should have been warned by the prima donnaesque behavior of Chrissie Whitman in his administration. He is learning it to his dismay as Mr. Kean's antics continue. Expect further proof of this when the fnal report - guarenteed to be a piece of yellow journalism - is finally released.

[cynicom]

Remember, Kean is the most prominent "democrat" on the commission.

[rrrod]

Mnday morn its time to freep members of congress and shut down this insult!

[Liz]

After Benveniste gave a 10-minute speech-question, time ran out, Benveniste whined for more time, got it, continued his speech another 4 or 5 minutes, and never did formulate a question, that was a good indication that the Committee members were more interested in giving speeches than eliciting information.

Did you notice that RBV has a "Stalin-like" aura about him?

Facing TV cameras, RBV's Gravitas Index spikes to dangerous levels.
Viewers get the uncontrollable urge to throw a shroud over him.

[arasina]

Wonderfully stated!

[Liz]

Gorelick. What a joke. In an article this week in the American Standard (IIRC), the reporter quoted a Clinton staffer who said Gorelick was one the Committee for one reason--to protect the Clintons.

Glad they got what we all knew into print

[RobFromGa]

Everyone should write a letter to the 9-11 Commission and send it today. Here's mine: (sorry I've posted this a few times elsewhere on FR but I hope to move others to action).

April 18, 2004

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Washington Office: Tel: (202) 331-4060 Fax: (202) 296-5545
New York Office: Tel: (212) 264-1505 Fax: (212) 264-1595

To: The Commission Leadership
CC: Ms. Jamie Gorelick, Commission Member (also high-ranking member of previous Administration)

Dear Commissioners:

I have been disturbed by the revelations of this past week that Ms. Gorelick deliberately withheld specific information about her past responsibilities from the people that appointed the people to this commission.

Her job title alone should have been enough to disqualify her, it is apparent that she was in a position of very high power within the Administration just previous to the present one. It is also readily apparent that she is tightly related to many members of the previous Administration—many of whom were held over by the Bush Administration to maintain a level of continuity on these important tasks.

Her letter in the Washington Post this morning raises more questions than it resolves, making it obvious why Ms. Gorelick must not remain on this Commission and must be a Witness. It is readily apparent that:

Ms. Gorelick is unable to impartially judge people that she knew closely and worked with.

Ms. Gorelick will be unable to impartially judge people she worked for.

Ms. Gorelick never belonged on this Commission and does not belong on this commission now.

The fact that she had to write her letter for the Washington Post to defend herself is proof that the Commission is tainted beyond repair by her continued presence. It is also proof that she is under great pressure to do the right thing.

This is not a witch-hunt that is bringing her demise even though that is what will be reported by the partisan press. This is a basic question of fairness and conflict of interest. When she is removed, I hope that Commission leaders will keep this in mind as they announce this to the world. To suggest that this was in any way partisan or a political witch hunt or McCarthyism will only serve to further taint the Commission.

Did Ms. Gorelick disclose to any of you that she was so tightly involved in the “Wall” or that she prepared and signed the memo adding to it, or did you find that out from Mr. Ashcroft like the rest of us? Was she forthcoming that she might be an important witness before the Commission? Did she ever object to being named and have to be talked into it?

It is past time for Ms. Gorelick to do the right thing and resign. She should have refused service when asked but she didn’t so now it up to her to fix the situation or have it fixed for her.

Ms. Gorelick is knowledgeable about Conflicts of Interest. It is my understanding that she wrote a book on this very subject. Her continued presence can only mean that she is trying to make sure that the previous Administration is not examined fairly. Or she is afraid of being a witness and this is her best defense.

With her biased perspective removed, maybe the Commission can continue your work to help prevent the next 9-11. That is the important reason to be doing this now (while we are still fighting this War)—isn’t it?

If your purpose is instead to provide political ammunition for campaigning, then I can see why multiple TV appearances on cable and network news and opinion shows by all the members of the Commission would be a wise strategy. But, if you are trying to prevent the next 9-11, as charged, then you should stay away from the TV cameras and the easy sound-bites.

Once Ms. Gorelick resigns, or is forcibly removed from this Commission if she refuses to do the honorable thing, then she needs to be called as a Witness. I would also like to see her explain why she hid her previous activities from the people who appointed her.

All across America, people have seen what a partisan circus many aspects of this Commission have become. In this one area, you need to take steps to reduce this perception—remove Ms. Gorelick and call her to testify.

Sincerely,
A concerned American


Rob Northrup
Norcross, GA

[don-o]

Take heart, this will backfire.

I hope you are right.

However, synce the majority of our fellow Americans form their opinions and beliefs from the idiot box alone, we need some attack dogs of our own. Where is a Lee Atwater type when we need him?

Oh for the good old days, when such statements as the Dems regularly make all day, every day, were seen as besmirching a man's honor; and they would receive a challenge to back it up at sunrise with duelling pistols.

Made folks a little more careful about their words.

[Liz]

Remember, Kean is the most prominent "democrat" on the commission........ my suspicion is that Mr. Kean's intent was to play up to the Democrats, expecting a Kerry victory and a reward of his later appointment to the Federal Courts.....

Kean had the unmitigated gall to tell the rest of us to stay out of the commission's business. He apparently doesn't get it that they are operating on the taxpayers dime. Ergo, the Commission's business is our business.

"For your information, Mr Kean, that's how government works in a republic."

[Liz]

Oh for the good old days, when such statements as the Dems regularly make all day, every day, were seen as besmirching a man's honor; and they would receive a challenge to back it up at sunrise with duelling pistols. Made folks a little more careful about their words.

Amen.

[risk]

We really need an election to give us a sense of what Americans really think. If they're against President Bush we'll find out soon enough. I don't trust the pollsters and the newsmen a bit. They had Bustamante winning hands down out here in Kali. No problemo.

[solo gringo]

These few democrats are trying to do what no democrat candidate can do.This commission is setup to try and destroy President Bush.All Democrats should be foaming at the mouth at the hate their leaders have on other Americans that don't buy in to this crap of accuse and destroy.They have on the commission people that should be answering the ??????????????????[ie Gorelick. ]

[ZULU]

I lived in Jersey when Kean was governor. The man is a perfect example of the kind of elitist which exemplifies those individuals termed "limousine liberals".

Born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and coming from a long line of privileged and wealthy forebearers, they fancy themselves the aristocracy of America and have nothing but contempt for the common man or woman and his/her opinion.

As I also pointed before, Mr. Kean does not believe the Second Amendment protects individual rights to firearm useage and he supports payment of "reparations" to black Americans, among other many other viewpoints which should marginalize his impact on National Republican politics.

Unfortunately, people like Kean, Whitman, Lautenberg and Eisenberg have the kind of wealth which can make an impact on the National Party. His presence on this Committee exemplifies this.

Unfortunately for the people of New Jersey and of the Nation, Mr. Kean has a son who is following his father in his political footsteps. Having succeeded in getting himself elected Assemblyman, Tom Kean Jr. is now a State Senator ( a meteroric rise, obviously based solely on personal merit) and now allegedly has designs on the New Jersey Statehouse or New Jersey Federal Senator's slot.

With friends like RINO Republicans, you don't need enemies.