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
>"MR. RUSSERT: It says they were on high alert for six weeks, canceling vacations, the whole bit. And then, did we let our guard down before September 11th?
MR. KEAN: We did a bit, because the threat level went down. All these tremendous things
that were coming over stopped coming over, and we weren't getting the level of threat that
we got, and as that threat level went down and people had been sort of at the ready all along, they did let down their guard a bit. There's no question about it. We were not at the state of readiness on September 11th that we'd been back in August."<
>"MR. RUSSERT: There's a report in a British newspaper, The Independent, about a former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance, says she's provided information to the panel investigating the attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qaida's plan to
attack the U.S. with aircraft months before the strike happened. Sibel Edmonds is her name.
She said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission and provided information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting an attack using aircraft was months away, that terrorists were in place. Is she credible?
MR. KEAN: We've had all her testimony. It's under investigation. I can't say--we're certainly not there that she's credible or uncredible yet.
MR. HAMILTON: We've talked to her."<
Quotes from.............
MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, April 4, 2004
GUESTS: Former Gov. Thomas Kean (R-N.J.), chair of 9/11 commission; former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), vice chair of 9/11 commission; former Bush adviser Karen Hughes.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4663767/
Democratic senator seeks release of text.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/01/rice.speech/index.html
National security adviser Condoleeza Rice planned to deliver a speech on September 11, 2001, about national security that said nothing about Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalist groups.
A description and excerpts of that undelivered speech were first reported in The Washington Post on Thursday, and the excerpts were confirmed by administration sources.
But the administration disputed suggestions that the speech showed the administration was not focused on terrorism before the deadly attacks.
"What matters is what we were doing on terrorism, not whether there is a speech on terrorism. We were acting on terrorism," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Rice is scheduled to testify next Thursday before an independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, according to a news release from the commission.
Administration sources confirmed the accuracy of leaked excerpts from the prepared text of the speech that were printed in The Washington Post, but would not provide the full text.
Rice was scheduled to deliver the speech at the School of Advance International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, but the plans were scrapped with the 9/11 attacks.
NSC officials said the speech was meant to be a broad look at the administration's efforts to fight terrorism. In it, Rice argued that the United States should build a missile defense system.
One line printed in the Post referred to "the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway" and noted the government spent about twice as much on "counterterrorism efforts" as on missile defense.
"In May the president appointed Vice President Cheney to oversee a coordinated national effort to better protect the U.S. homeland against a terror attack using WMD. But why not missile defenses as well?" she was to have said, the Post reported.
Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications Jim Wilkinson dismissed the suggestion that because al Qaeda and bin Laden were not mentioned in the text that the White House was not focused on the threat they posed.
But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, urged the White House to release the full text of the speech.
"Dr. Rice's speech suggests that at the very least there was a disconnect between the public security message and the policy prescriptions top White House officials were pushing and the private warnings federal agencies were issuing about imminent threats to our homeland," Schumer said in a letter sent to the White House and released by his office.
The question of whether the administration recognized the terrorism threat was raised during public hearings last week by the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks.
Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clark charged the administration did not heed his warnings about the magnitude of the terrorism threat before 9/11, and that the administration undermined the war on terror by invading Iraq.
His assertions have been disputed by the White House. President Bush, who initially refused to let Rice testify publicly before that commission, changed his mind Tuesday, following weeks of public criticism.
Rice is scheduled to testify April 8 in a Capitol Hill office building from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Excerpts From Rice's Speeches.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40579-2004Mar31.html
From the text of a speech White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University:
"And yes these new threats also require us to pay attention to other means of delivery besides missiles. We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway. That is why last year the federal government spent about $11 billion on counter-terrorism efforts, about twice as much as we did on missile defense. That is why we're working closely with friends, allies, and the broader international community on counterterrorism initiatives.
"And that is why in May the president appointed Vice President Cheney to oversee a coordinated national effort to better protect the U.S. homeland against a terror attack using WMD. But why not missile defenses as well?
"Why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open? At the end of the day, do we really want to choose a course of action that gambles with America's security by choosing not to explore the additional measure of security that limited missile defenses could provide?"
From the speech Rice gave at the rescheduled Johns Hopkins engagement on April 29, 2002:
"It's going to take years to understand the long-term effects of September 11th. But even now, we are beginning to recognize that there are certain verities that September 11th reinforced and brought home to us in the most vivid way. First, there has been an end to innocence about international politics and about our own vulnerability. . . .
"Second, the events of September 11th underscored the idea that a sound foreign policy begins at home. We are now engaged in trying to harden the country. That means thinking about airport security, visa requirements, protection of nuclear power plants and other physical and cybersecurity infrastructure. . . .
"The third truth is that we can only do so much to protect ourselves at home. And so the best . . . defense is a good offense. We have to take the fight to the terrorists. And that means that there can be no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. . . .
"A fourth truth . . . the need to deny terrorists and hostile states the opportunity to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The world's most dangerous people simply cannot be permitted to obtain the world's most dangerous weapons. And it is a stubborn and extremely troubling fact that the list of states that sponsor terror and the list of states that are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction overlap substantially. . . . We must use every tool at our disposal to meet this grave global threat, including strengthened nonproliferation regimes and export controls and moving ahead with missile defense to deny any benefit to those who would try and acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . ."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1153&slug=Sept%2011%20Pelosi
Friday, April 2, 2004 · Last updated 12:39 p.m. PT
Planned Bush-Cheney appearance criticized
By ERICA WERNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says it's baffling and embarrassing that President Bush is appearing before the Sept. 11 commission with Vice President Dick Cheney at his side instead of by himself.
"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."
"I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius dismissed Pelosi's comments and said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, had expressed appreciation for Bush and Cheney's planned appearance.
"This has been a development that the commission welcomes and said so in their own statement; so it certainly sets the minority leader apart from the commission," Lisaius said.
Bush and Cheney agreed this week to a single joint private session with all 10 commissioners investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Previously, the administration was offering only private interviews of Bush and Cheney with the commission chairman and vice chairman. The commission agreed to the new plan.
Pelosi made her comments during a discussion with several reporters. She also said it was unfortunate that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is giving her commission testimony next Thursday, when the House won't be in session.
"I think it should've happened much sooner," she said.
cl-nwtreehugger
>" "I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions." "<
In past the few interviews with reporters only set questions are asked. If the news people deviate from those, their enquiries go unanswered.
In place of a script Cheney will be there to
In past the few interviews with reporters only set questions are asked. If the news people deviate from those, their enquiries go unanswered.
Scary, isn't it?
http://www.atimes.com/
This is the link to the front page. Today has several articles about Iraq.
Interesting article, especially the info. prior to 9/11, which is credible IMO.
Some of the info. seems a little on the "conspiracy theory" side although not the first time I've read/heard it.
Thanks for posting. I enjoy getting different
Pages