Sins of Commission

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:40 am

Since this will become an even bigger issue as the election nears, let's set the tone now. Here's a pretty good piece on what many of us already guessed; that the 9/11 Commission is a fraud, timed to damage the current administration as close to the election as possible. Wall Street Journal editorial follows:

Sins of Commission
Behind the effort to blame Bush for September 11.

Monday, March 22, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

It was always a terrible idea for the September 11 commission to drop its report in the middle of a Presidential election campaign, and we are now seeing why. That body is turning into a fiasco of partisanship and political score-settling.

To be precise, Democrats are using the commission as a platform to assail the Bush Administration for fumbling the war on terror, implicitly blaming it even for 9/11. That's the clear message of the testimony to be offered this week to the commission by former Clinton officials, who conveniently leaked their opinions to the New York Times in advance. Conveniently, too, former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke has chosen this week to begin the media tour for his new book pushing the same anti-Bush theme. He's also scheduled to meet the commission this week.

If you believe this is all a coincidence, you probably also believe that a reflective, nonpartisan look at the mindset that allowed 9/11 to happen is possible in today's Washington. It would be nice if it were. Democracies are notoriously bad at anticipating crises, and it would help future policy makers to have a thoughtful look at how and why we missed the al Qaeda threat as it was massing in the 1990s. In order to take such a detached view, the Pearl Harbor inquiry waited until after World War II to publish its findings.

The 9/11 Commission has instead been driven from the start by meaner political calculations: To appease the demands of those (few) victims' families looking for someone to blame, and to provide a vehicle to embarrass the Bush Administration. That's the real reason Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell--two men who have acted in the past as statesmen--were hounded out as the original commission leaders on trivial conflict-of-interest grounds.

Their replacements are the junior varsity and have been unable to lift the commission above narrow partisan scheming. Republican chairman Tom Kean, a former governor little schooled in defense and foreign affairs, is apparently oblivious to the political hardball being played around him. Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, an ex-member of Congress well-versed in national security, is a better choice.

But Mr. Hamilton has to contend with his fellow Democrats, who include hyper-partisans Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer. These three caucus weekly, reporting back regularly to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for political fine-tuning.

Ms. Gorelick has her own clear conflict of interest: As Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, she had a major law enforcement role in combatting the terror threat. Her Administration's decision to handle the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 as a mere "law-enforcement" problem ought to be central to the commission's probe. She and Mr. Ben-Veniste also wouldn't mind being Attorney General in a Kerry Administration.

Inside the commission, these Members have been pushing the argument that Clinton officials warned the Bush Administration about al Qaeda, only to be ignored by men and women who were too preoccupied with Iraq and missile defense to care. So having failed to contain al Qaeda during its formative decade, and having made almost no mention of this grave threat in the 2000 campaign, these officials now want us to believe that in their final hours they urgently begged the Bushies to act with force and dispatch. Sure.

As for Mr. Clarke, he is now flacking his book by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to capture Osama bin Laden while offering the novel sociological insight (in last week's Time magazine) that "maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." We'd take Mr. Clarke's words more seriously if, as America's lead anti-terror official from 1998 through Mr. Bush's first two years, he had warned someone that al Qaeda might have a strategy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. He already knew that an Egyptian had flown one plane into the drink and that al Qaeda was interested in flight training. Why didn't Mr. Clarke connect those dots?

The author is also highly critical of both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. But inside the Clinton and Bush Administrations, his main pre-9/11 counsel was to energize the proxy war in Afghanistan through the Northern Alliance to make life more difficult for the Taliban. This certainly would have helped in the mid-1990s when al Qaeda was massing in that country. But by 2001 it would have done nothing to break up the al Qaeda cells that were already operating in Florida and Germany and that carried out the 9/11 hijackings.

As for Iraq, he and other Bush critics want to claim that the U.S. invasion has only created more terrorists--as if there weren't any before March 2003. And as if those terrorists are only striking at Americans and our allies in Iraq, not also at Turks, and Indonesians, French and Saudis.

Mr. Clarke lambastes the White House for seeking links between Iraq and 9/11, even as he himself asserts that he knew in the immediate aftermatch that there were no such links. How could he have known that? Mr. Clarke fails to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. In our view, a U.S. President who failed to ask questions about Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.

There is a profound contradiction at the heart of this 20-20 hindsight. On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe?

We'd guess it is the latter because when these same critics held the reins of government they failed to do much against al Qaeda beyond fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. Their boast that after 9/11 they would have toppled the Taliban, as well as increased pressure on Saddam Hussein, is impossible to credit. Their criticism now, in books and especially through the 9/11 Commission, is a case of blaming the Bush Administration in order to absolve themselves of any and all responsibility.

If the 9/11 Commission members really wanted to make a public contribution, they would shut down and resume their probe after the elections. Their final report is now due on July 26, two months after its original deadline and the same day that the Democratic Party convention begins in Boston. We doubt that's a coincidence either.

Draw your own conclusions. But be aware that the 9/11 Commission *report* is coming and I doubt it was ever a sincere or objective effort to unearth the truth about what led to the events of 9/11.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 11:38 am

wow, what a completely unbiased and non partisan look. Jesus bash, if I found things on moveon.org or a democratic site you quickly denounce them. What, if any, kind of actual facts can we gain from something like that?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:23 pm

in terms of absurd bias:

Wall Street Journal != Moveon.org
Wall Street Journal ~= New York Times

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:51 pm

Hah! Zuruck comparing the WSJ to Moveon.org! Classic!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:55 am

the article was immediately biased in two sentences. I didnt say the WSJ was the same as moveon.org. I said you guys immediately dismiss it because it's liberal right off the bat. I immediately dismissed that article but it was obviously biased right off the bat. Same thing.

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:22 am

last time i check ass hole cliton had so maney chances to take out ben ladden but he was to busy putting his little dick in to some intern

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:42 am

Good story on that Warlock on fox news. That's not too liberal right? Fox News is ok right?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114955,00.html

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:35 am

It's on live right now on C-SPAN and I would recommend anyone that can watch it live to do so rather than wait for the media spin. It's actually damn informative as well as entertaining watching all the subtle partisan maneuvering and posturing. Powell/Armitage have just finished up their interrogation and the commission is breaking for lunch and/or sex with Congressional interns. Next up... Rummy! Watch the fur fly.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:49 am

remember bash, the american way, blame in on someone else.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:46 pm

I'll be tuning in for Rumsfeld, he doesn't take crap from stupid people armed with stupid questions.
When you see someone like him stumble for an answer you know the question has hit on something, should be interesting to see if he has to squirm on anything or he hits a grandslam.

He and Cheney are the most capable at bitchslapping agenda driven "reporters".

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:27 pm

Sorry, jumped the gun. Cohen is first and he's busy dissembling and fingerpointing toward Congress for the Clinton failures. Rummy will be after Cohen.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:39 pm

The two tales of Richard Clarke (from Instapundit):

Richard Clarke, the countryâ??s first counter-terrorism czar, told me in an interview at his home in Arlington, Virginia, that he wasnâ??t particularly surprised that the Bush Administrationâ??s efforts to find bin Laden had been stymied by political problems. He had seen such efforts fail before. Clarke, who retired from public service in February and is now a private consultant on security matters, has served every President since Ronald Reagan. He has won a reputation as a tireless advocate for action against Al Qaeda. Clarke emphasized that the C.I.A. director, George Tenet, President Bush, and, before him, President Clinton were all deeply committed to stopping bin Laden; nonetheless, Clarke said, their best efforts had been doomed by bureaucratic clashes, caution, and incessant problems with Pakistan."

--Richard Clarke, per the August 4th 2003 issue of the New Yorker.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

--Richard Clarke, on 60 Minutes, March 21, 2004.

Will the real Richard Clarke please stand up?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:09 am

I don't understand your last comment there index. He said Clinton tried but got messed up in political means, as if that never happens

but he says Bush blew it on terrorism and doesn't know why he's advocating him as being a master of it. Do you guys think Clinton had enough evidence that an actual US court would be able to take care of Bin Laden? Seems Clinton was interested in US law, not putting him in a small box and never letting him see the light of day. Even the bad ones I guess are entitled to a small amount of American practice.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:32 am

"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it.

What a acewipe statement. Does one remember back to the immediate aftermath of the Bush election and how long he (Bush) had to wait to get his cabinet setup due to the Dems trying to delay reality. Is this what Clarke is trying to define as ignore? Would the trashing of the whitehouse by the exiting Clinton party goers also be construed as ignoring (as in Bushs admin had other immediate concerns prior to focusing on terrorism).

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:59 am

Clarke will be up to testify today, btw. He's got some 'splaining to do after the beating his *reputation* (and his self-serving memory) took in yesterday's testimony.

C-SPAN streaming sucks, btw.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:10 pm

I don't understand your last comment there index. He said Clinton tried but got messed up in political means

Read the bold parts closely again Zuruck. In the first statement he includes Bush when describing the "deep committment" to stopping bin Laden. Then, 9 months later, on 60 Minutes he's saying that Bush ignored the problem.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:50 pm

Anyone else watching the C-SPAN 9/11 hearing feel like the gallery has been stacked? Seems even the smallest comment that could be interpreted as anti-Bush elicits near standing ovation from the death-medallioned onlookers, yet some of the more damning testimony, imo, (much of which indicts the Clinton administration) is met by the sound of cickets. It smells suspiciously similar to the Peaceful Tommorrows deception over the Bush campaign's use of WTC imagery.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:42 pm

Well Bash, there were some srtong point made. Such as:

Bob Kerry (D) said he had read Clintons ani-terrorist plan and that basically there was none

George Tenent refutes Clarkes assertion that the CIA "didn't" want armed predator drones.

When Sandy Berger was exclaiming how Clinton wouldn't send troops to Afganistan because the american people would not stand for it, Bob Kerry replies, "Why, it didn't stop him (Clinton) from sending troop to Kosovol".

As an aside, Condilisa Rice (sp?) will be on Hannity & Colmes tonight.