The past couple of weeks have not been good for the Administration. Richard Clarke, with his testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission and the release of his book, sent the White House and the GOP into attack mode. This past Friday, Bill Frist thought that he would set things straight by reprimanding Clarke for apologizing to the victim's families of 9/11, saying that it was not his right or privilege or responsibility to offer that.
What does Frist know that we don't? Is or was there an apology forthcoming from Bush? Maybe that is what riled them about that genuine act of forgivness--that Clarke stole the fire away from a possible address at the GOP convention in New York City (Ground Zero)?
Clarke's response yesterday on Meet the Press was that he felt guilty after the tragedy that day and this was that prime opportunity and venue to accomplish that. As I wrote before, that apology will become the hallmark of this investigation because the families who have been waiting for someone in authority to apologize for this happening while on their watch have not heard anything that closely resembles an apology.
Bill Frist also attempted to intimidate Clarke by stating that he was going to declassify his congressional testimony from 2002. But Clarke has been unfazed from Frist's and others attacks. In fact, yesterday, Clarke on the Sunday talk show Meet the Press agreed that Frist should declassify those documents, suggesting that they should declassify numerous others as well--
I would welcome [my ’02 congressional testimony] being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony…
…I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified…
…Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't…
… let's go further. The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press.
Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I've sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of it…as well as her responses.
Karen Hughes is releasing her book this week and she is plugging its release in an interview with Barbara Walters. In the promo for it, I hear her telling the president that she loved him. Sounds like Bush and Company are bringing friends and friends of friends out of the woodwork to give sweet-sound bites about Bush, his character, his leadership, <fill in the blank>. This way, they can continue selling Bush as this package Presidential Ken doll with no faults, just with convenient accessories for any event-- Air Force flight suit for landing on a carrier ship; a black tux for performing at the annual news and journalism dinner; a cowboy outfit complete with a Ford truck to drive around his ranch; and a gray suit with red power-tie with matching gray missiles for playing war in his Oval Office.
Right now, however, Clarke is making life hard especially for Condi Rice. As of today, she is still trying to explain to America that she is unfortunately exempt from appearing before the 9/11 commission. The White House is trying to make a deal that she can meet with them in private and then summarize her comments to the public after the fact. Unfortunately, the media nor the commission is accepting this. I sense the longer she lets this ride, with the support of the White House, the more damaging this will be for all of them. In the words of commission member John Lehman (GOP), as quoted by the AP today, a refusal to testify is "a politcal blunder of the first order."
The Center of American Progress today posted Rice's claims from her interview with 60 Minutes last evening. They also posted the facts that discredit what she said. I'm including those below for your convenience:
RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.
FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.
Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward
Source: Newsweek & vetoed request - http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html
Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer
Source: Only two meetings out of 100 - http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm
RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"
FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."
Source: Slash counterterrorism funding - http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm
Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/111044.shtml
RICE CLAIM:"Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress."
FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress…There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions…There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this." 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying "Our commission is sui generis…the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress." Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.
Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm
RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.
FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."
Source: September 17th directive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer
Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Source: Shifting special forces - http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html
9:10:38 PM  | |
|
