Replies

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/020516_warning-statement.html

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
On The Need For An Independent Commission To Examine Events Leading Up To 9/ll
On The Floor Of The United States Senate

Mr. President, I rise today out of respect for, and to speak on behalf of, the people of New York. I am especially mindful today of the memory of the people in New York who were lost on September 11, and their family members and loved ones, who grieve for them to this day.

We learn today something we might have learned at least eight months ago: that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a US airliner.

The White House says that the President took all appropriate steps in reaction to that warning.

The White House says that the warning did not include any specific information, such as which airline, which date, or the fact that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile. Those are all important issues, worthy of exploration by the relevant committees of Congress. The goal of such an examination should not be to assign blame, but to find out all the facts.

And I also support the effort by Senators Lieberman and McCain to have an independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in March.

Such a panel can help assure the people of New York and all Americans that every facet of this national tragedy will be fully explored, in hopes that the lessons we learn can prevent disasters in our future.

I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut's remarks on the floor earlier today indicating his desire to offer this proposal as an amendment at the earliest possible convenience. Because we must do all we can to learn the hard lessons of experience from our past and apply them to safeguard our future.

That is why I also support the call by the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, for the release of the Phoenix FBI memorandum and the August intelligence briefing to Congressional investigators, because, as Senator Daschle said this morning, the American people "need to get the facts."

Mr. President, I know some things about the unique challenges faced by the person who assumes the mantle of Commander in Chief. No one but those individuals who have that responsibility can truly know the full scope of the burdens of that office. But I've had the privilege of witnessing such history up close. And I know there is never any shortage of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks, ready to dismantle any comment, or critique any action taken, or not taken.

Having experienced that from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I will not play that game, especially in this circumstance.

I am simply here today, on the floor of this hallowed chamber, to seek answers to questions. Questions being asked by my constituents. Questions raised by our newspapers in New York, such as the one with the headline "Bush Knew." The President knew what? My constituents would like to know the answers to those questions. Not to blame the President or any American. But just to know. To learn from experience. To do all we can to ensure that a 9/ll never happens again.

The pain of 9/ll is revisited every time a scene of the flaming towers appears on the television. It is revisited every time we see a picture of the cleanup at Ground Zero. It is revisited every time the remains of a fallen hero is recovered. And it is revisited today, with the questions about what might have been, had the pieces of the puzzle been put together in a different way before that sad day in September.

I cannot answer the questions my constituents are asking. I cannot answer the concerns raised by the families of the victims.

As agonizing as it is to even think that there was intelligence suggesting the possibility of the tragedy that occurred, particularly for the family members who lost a loved one, it's a subject that we are absolutely required to explore.

As for the President, he may not be in a position to respond to all of those concerns. But he is in a position to answer some of them, including the question of why we know today, May 16, about the warning he received, and why we did not know this on April 16, or March 16, or February 16, or January 16, or December 16, or November 16, or October 16, September 16........or August 16?

And I hope that the President will assume the duty that we know he is capable of fulfilling, exercise the leadership that we know he has, and come before the American people at the earliest possible moment to answer the questions so many Americans are asking today. That will help. My constituents would appreciate it.

After all, it's the not knowing that hurts the most.

I spent 35 years of my life in the media. There was hardly a day in that 35 years that there was not at least one story touting the power of the media.

Even today if one goes to Washington D.C. or any state capital and talks to the elected officials you will find that the vast majority believes in the power of the media. I believe the the only real power the media has is the typical politican's belief that the media does control public opinion. The evidence does not suport that belief.

I grew up in an era when the media hated Democrats and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Time and Life magazines were a huge power in the political world. They had huge circulations and they hated FDR and HST. Time and Life were owned by Henry Luce. Luce's his wife was a Republican Congresswoman. Harry Truman referred to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Luce as "Arsenic and old Luce!"

The most listened to Broadcast Anchor was H.V. Kaltenborn on NBC. In his 1948 election night coverage, which began when the East coast polls closed, started with the statement that it would be a short night because Dewey was going to have a massive victory. According to Kaltenborn the only thing left in suspense was what President Elect Dewey would say in his acceptance announcement and what Truman would say in his concession speech.

At seven O'Clock the next morning with the election hinging on Illinois, Kaltenborn said there was no doubt that once all the votes in Illinois were counted Dewey would be the new president. The Chicago Tribune was so sure of a Dewey victory that they had their first edition printed up before the first votes in Ill. were counted. Id had the words "DEWEY WINS" in eight inch letters on the front page. But Truman won and by 9:00Am on the day after the election even Kaltenborn had to admit it.

By 1972 the media had a new generation in charge and they were very, very, leftist. From the day to day coverage of the election in the spring and summer of 1972 one would have been certain that Nixon was going down to a massive defeat. The polls showed Nixon in line for a massive victory, but the stories on election day were all about can McGovern pull it out... not that Nixon was going to win a massive victory. If you listened, watched, or read the news on election eve and election day, the question on every reporters lips was will McGovern pull it out. It was intended to create the impression that McGovern could still win. He didn't have a chance.

The 1980 bias was incredible. The economy was in shambles with stagflation.. We were suffering a combination of double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. Plus Iran had kicked our rump with the Iran hostage crisis and still had our hostages. The media covered this failure of leadership by saying the presidency had become way too big a job for just one man.. Even a brilliant man like Jimmy Carter. They told us Jimmy was a Nuclear Scientist and was brilliant. And if Jimmy could not do the job, then no one could. The solution on every Sunday talk show was to divide the presidency into two jobs.. for two men. They also painted a picture of total disaster if Reagan were elected. If it was terrible under Carter things would just be 10 times worse under an the so called leadership of an out of work actor who could only read his handlers lines.

If one looks at the 1988 election the media painted George W. Bush as a wimp. A surviver of 35 missions as a naval torpedo plane pilot, Bush was painted as a wimp.

We experienced how the media treated George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. In 2000 was presented as a spoiled rich kid, with no brains and little common sense. And in 2004 as the man who had stolen the election of 2000.

My point in this long diatribe is to give examples of when the media has failed. If you examine the elections since 1932 you will see that the media supported candidate has won 7 of the last 20 races. The media candidate has won 3 of the last 10 races.

That would tend to support the proposal that the media is mostly counter productive. I don't think that is true.

But what I learned from my experience is the following. That if I attacked a politician, those that already supported him attacked me and supported him. Those that did not like the politician supported me and joined the attack. Those that did not have an opinion, tended to stay undecided.

Think about it in your own life. If someone says something nasty about someone you like you defend the person being attacked. If someone says something nasty about someone you dislike you tend to agree. If you have no opinion.. an attack leaves you undecided. The usual reaction of the undecideds is "I would like to hear the other side before I make a decision."

If one wants to persuade a majority of the public, one has to reach those undecideds and cause them to decide. Those undecideds have to believe they have heard both sides and that THEY are making the decision.. not the media.

Roger Ailes pretty much understands persuasion in We Report You decide approach for FOX. Many of us are angry when Fox presents the news from the lefts standpoint. Fox does that. They also present the news from the rights standpoint. Fox does that too. It is for that reason, that they are so influential.

But the stupidity of CNN blows my mind. They put a big X over Chaney.. to put him down. What they do is totally unite the Right, and alienate the Center while pleasing the left. Silly tricks like that are counter productive.

Shows like the Rush and Sean radio programs are good for energizing the base. Base turn out is important. But Rush and Sean preach to the choir they do not make converts.

What the right needs is more media that fairly presents both sides. Given the success of capitalism as economic policy and the success of the Reagan-Bush approach to foreign policy, the right should welcome that sort of coverage. In fact it is an essential coverage. It is by far the best way to win the contest for the hearts and minds of a solid majority of voters.