Op ed: Bush & 9/11: What We Need to Know
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 03-17-2004 - 8:03am |
The investigative panel is getting ready to grill the President. Here's what they should ask.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html
George W. Bush's most memorable day as President was Sept. 14, 2001, when he stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center, holding a bullhorn in one hand, his other arm slung over the shoulder of a veteran fire fighter from central casting. Bush was pitch perfect that day—the common-man President, engaged and resolute. This is the image the Bush campaign is probably saving for the last, emotional moments of the election next fall. It is the memory the Republicans want you to carry into the voting booth. It is why the Republican Convention will be held in New York City this year. And it may also be why the White House has been so reluctant to cooperate with the independent commission investigating the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
The commission, which will finish its work in midsummer, on the eve of the conventions, will soon question the President about his response to the terrorist threat in the months before 9/11. I asked a dozen people last week—some intimate with the commission's thinking, some members of the intelligence community, some members of Congress who have investigated 9/11—what they would ask the President if they could. Their questions fell into three broad categories.
Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001.
Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was. What were President Bush's priorities? Was he aware of the Berger briefing? Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport—which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? Did he have any al-Qaeda strategy at all? Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4. A related question along the same lines: Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? The technology, which might have provided the clearest shot at Osama bin Laden before 9/11, was available early in 2001. But the CIA and the Pentagon squabbled about which agency would be in charge of pulling the trigger. The dispute wasn't resolved until after 9/11. Were you aware of this dispute, Mr. President? Why weren't you able to resolve it?
Indeed, the second category of questions revolves around the President's interest in and awareness of the al-Qaeda threat. As late as Sept. 10, after the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, Bush was asking in his national-security briefing about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban for the head of bin Laden. "If he had studied the problem at all," an intelligence expert told me, "he would have known that was preposterous." As early as Aug. 6, Bush had been told that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the U.S., perhaps using airplanes. What was his response to that? How closely was he following the intelligence reports about al-Qaeda activity, which had taken an extremely urgent tone by late spring? Another intelligence expert proposed this question: "Did he ever ask about the quality of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI?"
Obviously, the President couldn't be responsible for knowing that the FBI was tracking suspicious flight training in Arizona or that the CIA had an informant close to two of the hijackers, but was he aware of the friction between the two agencies? Was he aware that John Ashcroft had opposed increasing counterterrorism funding for the FBI?
Finally, there are the questions about the President's actions immediately after 9/11. Specifically, why did he allow planeloads of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, out of the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks? Who asked him to give the Saudis special treatment? Was he aware that the Saudi Arabian government and members of the royal family gave money to charities that funded al-Qaeda?
It is easy to cast blame in hindsight. Even if Bush had been obsessed with the terrorist threat, 9/11 might not have been prevented. But the President's apparent lack of rigor—his incuriosity about an enemy that had attacked American targets overseas and had attempted an attack at home—raises a basic question about the nature and competence of this Administration. And that is not a question the Republicans want you to take to the polls in November.


Pages
Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Good question....for the Clinton Administration. The question for Bush would be, why didn't you choose to respond to the attack on the USS Cole, after Clinton administration wanted to, but did not.
Was he aware of the Berger briefing? I would like to know the answer to this one from Bush, although Bill Clinton told Bush on innauguration day that he felt that Osama bin Laden was the greatest threat to the US. If he truly believed that, then why did he turn down the Sudanese Gov't three times when they offered bin Laden to the US? (here is the link to the article by Mansoor Ijaz: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)
Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport—which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? These are questions better asked of the Clinton Administration as both ocurred during his Presidency without a response. I agree that perhaps something should have been done in response to the USS Cole by Bush.
Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? This is another good question for Bush to answer. If we are spending money on technology, why are we not using it?
Did he ever ask about the quality of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI? That is an excellent question, because I would like to know when the last Presidential administration was that actually looked at the relationship between the two agencies....it seems like it has been a while.
Was he aware that John Ashcroft had opposed increasing counterterrorism funding for the FBI? Another good question that I, as a Bush suppoter would like the answers to as I was not aware of this fact.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Why does U.S. intelligence believe it was bin Laden? NBC showed the video to William Arkin, a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC. “You see a tall man…. You see him surrounded by or at least protected by a group of guards.”
Bin Laden is 6 foot 5. The man in the video clearly towers over those around him and seems to be treated with great deference.
— William Arkin
NBC military analyst
Another clue: The video was shot at Tarnak Farm, the walled compound where bin Laden is known to live. The layout of the buildings in the Predator video perfectly matches secret U.S. intelligence photos and diagrams of Tarnak Farm obtained by NBC.
“It’s dynamite. It’s putting together all of the pieces, and that doesn’t happen every day.… I guess you could say we’ve done it once, and this is it,” Arkin added.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.
NBC News contacted the three top Clinton national security officials. None would do an on-camera interview. However, they vigorously defend their record and say they disrupted terrorist cells and made al-Qaida a top national security priority.
“We used military force, we used covert operations, we used all of the tools available to us because we realized what a serious threat this was,” said President Clinton’s former national security adviser James Steinberg.
One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”
Wednesday: What more could the Bush administration have done to get bin Laden?
>"some of the same questions can and should have been directed at the former Clinton Administration"<
I agree. Yes this is an interesting op ed. Very interesting questions.
I couldn't get your link to take me to that piece. I got to the
There is enough blame to go all around here is the point that I am making, but it seems that too many in the media want to point the finger at only one person, and that is just not right.
It is hard to differentiate how I view it with the knowledge of all the events happening, and all the direct ties to bin Laden since the 1993 bombing, which did not become factual until 2000.
It is obvious he was being sought, but probably not with the same vigor that he is now.
Do you understand what I am trying to convey? My mind is a bit like mush today.
Blaming anyone for 9/11 is not going to stop the terrorists from trying again. I thank God that we have a President who is looking out for the security of our country. It makes me nuts that people seem to have forgotten the gravity of what happened on 9/11. Our president layed out a plan to take care of the problem. He told us that it was'nt going to be easy, that we should be prepared for a long and difficult fight. 90 some percent of the country was behind him when the wound was fresh. Now that the open sore has scarred over people want to go back to pretending no threat exists, but our Commander in Cheif remains focused. I for one feel safer because of that.
Welcome to the board!
I am don't really want to lay blame all over either, but looking into what caused us NOT to catch this the last time will be a great help to catching it the next time someone attempts to do this.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
I agree, however, the commission has aready uncovered several systemic problems that need to be corrected to be more effective in our deterence. For example: The transition between one administration and another needs to be better coordinated; the walls between
intelligence services need to be more porous. The purpose of this commission should not be to point fingers, but to find solutions to problems.
"It makes me nuts that people seem to have forgotten the gravity of what happened on 9/11."
I don't think anyone has forgotten the gravity of 9/11; however, some of us think Bush went of the rails when he redirected the war to Iraq.
<>
In my opinion the sore has not scarred over: There is a mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Iraq is very tenuous, there is still the probability of civil war. Further, we have not really gotten a handle on effectively coping with terrorism; we are vulnerable at home. Many problems need to be addressed and just telling us we are safer doesn't make it so.
Pages