Obligatory Comments on Sept. 11 Panel

Not only did I not watch the deliberations of the panel investigating September 11, I didn't even know about them until after they were over. Now, you might think that would mean I don't have anything to say about them. But, of course, like every other human being out there, I have to say something about it.
Of course, anybody concerned with complete, accurate reporting would have pulled up the archive, and read through all 224 pages of written testimony. It is at times like these that I am glad that complete, accurate reporting is not my job.

Actually, I did spend about 15 minutes skimming the statements of Madeline Albright, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Clarke. After doing that, I don't recommend it to anyone else. Which is, of course, the reason I provided you with links.

Supposedly, if you are interested in watching 16 hours of grainy, computer video of people saying the same thing over and over, they will in the next few days add video of the hearings. The complete videos of the other seven hearings are already available. I think I've just figured out the real cause of the budget deficit: bandwidth costs.

But on the whole, it wasn't that interesting. Everybody said pretty much exactly what you would expect them to say. You could make up what Rumsfeld would say without even looking at the testimony, and get it completely right. Similarly, if you were to guess what Albright would say, you'd probably be pretty close there too. After those two, I saw the trend. And it goes something like this:

Clinton Administration People: We were doing everything right until the Bush administration messed it up. It's no coincidence that this didn't happen 'till after we left.

Bush Administration People: We were doing everything right, but the Clinton administration had messed it up. It's no coincidence that this happened at the beginning of Bush's term in office.

In fact, as far as I can tell without actually reading it all, the only deviation from this pattern was the guy who worked for both administrations. Presumably with nobody to put the blame on, Clarke's (relatively short, thankfully) testimony pretty much just went through the timeline of what happened. His conclusion, at only three paragraphs, is worth quoting here:

"Although there were people in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, State Department, and White House who worked very hard to destroy al Qida before it did catastrophic damage to the US, there were many others who found the prospect of significant al Qida attacks remote. In both CIA and the military there was reluctance at senior career levels to fully utilize all of the capabilities available. There was risk aversion. FBI was, throughout much of this period, organized, staffed, and equipped in such a way that it was ineffective in dealing with the domestic terrorist threat from al Qida.

"At the senior policy levels in the Clinton Administration, there was an acute understanding of the terrorist threat, particularly al Qida. That understanding resulted in a vigorous program to counter al Qida including lethal covert action, but it did not include a willingness to resume bombing of Afghanistan. Events in the Balkans, Iraq, the Peace Process, and domestic politics occurring at the same time as the anti-terrorism effort played a role.

"The Bush Administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9-11. The difficulty in obtaining the first Cabinet level (Principals) policy meeting on terrorism and the limited Principals’ involvement sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the Administration’s attitude toward the al Qida threat."

Now, the only reason this is worth writing about is because of all of the criticism Clarke is getting right now for this testimony. Some say he only wants to promote his book. Here's my take.

Clarke's book is about Iraq. This isn't. Clarke's testimony to the commission sticks appropriately to the topic of 9/11. It doesn't read like an attack, or like a promotion of a book on a different subject. It's calm and rational, and all of the facts he uses to make his conclusion are there in plain text.

If you read one thing this year, read the ballot in November. If you read two things this year, read this.

No Comments! Be brave and leave the first one!:

Name:
Email:
URL:
Comment:			/ Textile
Enter this code:
( Register your username / Log inChange Settings for )
Notify:		Yes, send me email when someone replies.
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.