Asking Condi the Wrong Questions

[Plaid Adder]

Here's what bothers me about the way the 9/11 commission handled her appearance. Later we'll get into what bugged my partner about it...

From her opening statement all the way through, her line was always, "9/11 happened because we didn't have enough domestic surveillance and because we had this crazy idea that we shouldn't go to war until we'd been attacked." Although there was a lot of bickering about more specific claims, nobody (Kerrey possibly excepted) questioned that basic assumption. In fact, by beating up on her about why she didn't do x y or z to prevent it, they just added support to the argument that more surveillance and more disregard for civil liberties would have saved us. She even mentioned the USA PATRIOT act several times with the implication that had we passed it earlier we'd have been in better shape to prevent things like this. And all the questions about why they didn't go after Al Qaeda more aggressively tend to support the preemptive war doctrine--which, again, Condi wasted no time in pointing out.

So basically the whole 2 1/2 hours involved everyone in the room reiterating their support for what are IMHO the two WORST aspects of this administration's response to 9/11.

That disturbs me.

I called my partner the lawyer at lunch and gave her the summary. Her response was, "Why are they letting her waste time with this bullshit about whether something is a 'historical document' or a warning or not? Why aren't they asking her about facts? I thought these people were lawyers."

Anyway, that's the view from our household,

The Plaid Adder

[Maat]

1. I agree.

And that's very disturbing that they are using these hearings to justify taking away our civil rights.

[saltara]

6. cheerleaders for domestic spy agency

This was the most disturbing part of today's "program" for me too - that noone questioned Rice's cheerleading efforts on behalf of the Patriot Act and her insane idea that our culture and laws should be blamed for terrorism:

"And the legal impediments and the bureaucratic impediments - but I want to emphasize the legal impediments. To keep the FBI and the CIA from functioning really as one, so that there was no seam between domestic and foreign intelligence, was probably the greatest one.

But when it comes right down to it, this country, for reasons of history and culture and therefore law, had an allergy to the notion of domestic intelligence, and we were organized on that basis. And it just made it very hard to have all the pieces come together."

"Clearly, the Patriot Act, which has allowed the kind of sharing, indeed demands the kind of sharing between intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, is a very big step forward."

full transcript, Washington Post, p. 12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61252-2004Apr8?language=printer

If there are bureaucratic problems then do a proper investigation and fix them! Allow the whistleblowers to speak up instead of threatening them! Every unpleasant truth or scandal is covered up by this administration just by invoking the words "national security issue." It's bogus! Don't blame laws which were designed to protect our freedoms and civil liberties and right to dissent! Look at what crimes have been committed and havoc unleashed by CIA covert ops (Vietnam; Latin America; Iran/Contra). So now the Commission (Fielding) says he wants Rice to "provide our commission, if you would with your analysis on the MI-5 issue. As you know, it's something we're going to have to deal with, and we're taking all information aboard that we may."

What, so we can have a CIA/MI-5 agency to do domestic spying because Rice tells us that "Every day now in the Oval Office in the morning, the FBI director and the CIA director sit with the president, sharing information in ways they they would have been prohibited to share that information before... But we also have to be open to see what more needs to be done." Do you really believe this "Oval Office" scenario? Patriot Act II anyone?

[Plaid Adder]

10. Welcome to DU, Saltara!

And you are so right about the whistleblowers. Hey, here's a new plan to improve intelligence: ACCOUNTABILITY!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[saltara]

16. key(s) to accountability

Thanks for hanging out the welcome sign!

Has anyone seen the new, improved Paul Thompson timeline? It certainly has improved my intelligence!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Check out the search engine feature top right. Try this one out, Plaid Adder: Phoenix memo

Citizen researchers, whistleblowers and the 9/11 families are going to be the key to accountability - not the commission. And I think it's important to be ready to defend civil liberties with facts and good arguments as well as passion because I think the "lack of intelligence sharing" thread throughout the hearings is a stunt to win people over to the idea that we must make a tradeoff between security and civil liberties. If that were not the case, then the commission would be asking better and bolder questions. (Don't forget that the administration didn't want an investigation and only relented because of pressure from the 9/11 families and a few members of congress - and then decided that they could do their work to the tune of only $3mm - less than what was spent on a gambling crimes investigation the previous year!)

Another great timeline which shows just how much damage has been done in the name of the "war on terror" and "national security secrets" is listed on the right under Themes: Civil Liberties. Check it out if you haven't already!

[DemBones DemBones]

15. That's very troubling indeed. 9/11 was not caused by our

freedoms. It was not caused because the terrorists hate our freedoms. It was caused by continued irritation of "foreigners" whose affairs we meddle in with a heavy hand, shoddy practices in our Immigration Department, lax airport security, Republicans repudiating the Gore Commission's recommendations on security for airports and airplanes, Republicans castigating every one of Clinton's foreign policy moves, particularly when he was trying to kill or capture Osama, etc.

Everyone who's flown in and out of other countries from the US knows the vast difference in airport security between the US and abroad that existed prior to 9/11. I was personally hassled in Brussels once in the mid-nineties because the name on my boarding pass was not identical to the name on my passport (same middle and last names, neither of them common names, but the boarding pass had a shortened form of my first name, not really a nick name but a diminutive.) I hadn't even really noticed it, being accustomed to answering to both forms of my first name, but you can bet I always made sure my boarding pass matched my passport exactly from that day on. Trying to explain this discrepancy to a female security officer with icy eyes and a bit of a Nazi attitude was not pleasant.

That said, the intense scrutiny of passports, serious attitude toward screening bags and passengers, and the armed guards (rifle at the ready, held in both hands, not as if they were in a parade), and dogs sniffing for bombs and/or drugs seen in airports in Italy and the UK, all combined to create far more secure sytems than the American "system" of the time. We still need much better security in the US, after all the talk and all the money put into it since 9/11. Instead, we have people randomly and arbitrarily screened, a color-coded threat warning system, "free speech zones" (that existed pre-9/11), and an administration wanting more and more power for themselves, less freedom for us. :eyes:

[Veggie Meathead]

2. I am even more disturbed by It does notthe deferential treatment shown to

a known liar and enabler of this Administration, just as Ollie North was given a pass by the Iran-Contra hearing honchos. I guess this is to be expected with Lee Hamilton on this panel just as he was on the Iran Contra panel.It does not seem to have occurred to these panel members that Condi Rice's incompetence has directly contributed to the deaths of 3000 lives on 9/11 and based on Clarke's testimony
even more deaths in Iraq.In a more sane and just world, Condi Rice would be prosecution instead of being treated with the deference that I found so nauseating, especially with Kristen Breitweiser and her
friends sitting in the audience.

[Ekova]

3. The misdirection going on is bordering on surreal.

I've never been able to understand how the window of opportunity that presented itself in the days and hours after 9-11 was by and large passed on. Regardless of good intel or not, who acted on what or who didn't, in my view a critical error was that the hijacker's actions were viewed only in terms of cause. "Cause" in that the "effect" of their actions was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it not possible that 9-11 was effect?

Nobody in Jar Jar's administration seems willing to admit an ounce of culpability. Is anybody in the commission really addressing the why of this situation? They didn't fly planes into the towers because they hate freedom. It's the most obtuse, LCD response that in no way helps us understand that horrible day.

[Redleg]

4. The commission agreed to go easy on Condi.

This at the Daily Howler

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040804.shtml

[Warpy]

5. There wee a few questions she should have been asked.

First, who issued the order to halt the FBI's investigation into suspected sleeper cells here in the US? The order came fromt the top down, and has been confirmed by investigators in the field.

Second, who authorized the flight of all bin Laden relatives in the US to staging areas where they could be whisked out of the country as soon as commercial flights were resumed?

Third, who issued the stand down order for the Air Force on 9/11 and why?

This whole thing was just a dog and pony show. I'm just hoping that the rubes recognize that this woman came into the job ignorant of the real problems the country faced and that she was unmotivated to alleviate that ignorance. She was a cold warrior, and was clearly incompetent to be anything but an ideological echo chamber for the PNAC.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. As we haven't watched the entire 2 1/2 hours yet,

I am curious as to whether you, Plaidie, or anyone here who'd care to respond, thought that any good will come of today's spectacle. I knew they would go easy on her, as the chair and co-chair had both said they wanted commission members not to "go after" Condi the way they did some other witnesses. I had no illusions that this would be terribly informative; too many people want to avoid airing certain facts.

I have hoped that some information would get out that would impact a sizable part of the population that has preferred not to think ill of the Bush* administration. I do not mean those who support Bush* 100%, as they say with nasuseating frequency on C-SPAN, reminding me of "Horton Hears the Who." (If you'll recall, Horton was an elephants, 100%. The "Who" that these elephants hear is perhaps named Limbaugh, but there are other likely suspects named Coulter, Hannity, O'Riley, etc.)

Instead, I mean the many people who don't want to make the paradigm shift to think about those in power being incapable of responding properly to the pre-9/11 warnings, or, worse, unwilling to respond. I think there are many trusting Americans who don't like to think the worst of anyone. Thus, they don't want to think about incompetence in the White House, much less that there is validity to the LIHOP suggestion that they Let It Happen On Purpose to give them the "Pearl Harbor" that PNAC said would be necessary to get Americans to accept the wars to be fought for Empire.

So, was anything brought out today that might cause trusting Americans who see the glass as half full to realize there's not a drop left in that glass?

[saltara]

8. good Kerrey debunking of Rice excuses

I think the exchanges between Kerrey and Rice were good for seeing the empty glass or the Emperor's New Clothes. Kerrey brought up the testimony of Agent Kenneth Williams who said that the FBI "should investigate whether al Qaeda operatives are training at U.S. flight schools":

"And the problem we've got with this and the Moussaoui facts, which were revealed on the 15th of August, all it had to do was to be put on Intelink. All it had to do is go out on Intelink, and the game's over. It ends. This conspiracy would have been rolled up."

Instead of a concrete answer to this from Rice, we get this:

"Commissioner, with all due respect, I don't agree that we know that we had somehow a silver bullet here that was going to work. What we do know is that we did have a systemic problem between the FBI and the CIA. It was there because there were legal impediments, as well as bureaucratic impediments. Those needed to be overcome."

I think a lot of people are going to think LIHOP here - with all the warnings coming from foreign governments and FBI field agents (the whistleblowers), why didn't the word go out on Intelink? These kinds of concrete questions are met with nothing but figures of speech and the same old mantras about pre-9/11 "impediments". Rice kept trying to take up Kerrey's question time but added nothing new (or concrete) in defense of the administration. That came across very clearly (page 31 of transcript):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61252-2004Apr8?language-printer

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Very good. Thanks for your fine response, saltara, and

welcome to DU! :hi: Best post from a newbie I've seen in a long time!

Many thanks for links to transcript at the Post, I hadn't even thought about a transcript being available yet.

It seems that Rice is essentially still making statements of the "no one ever dreamed planes would be flown into buildings" sort.

[Plaid Adder]

11. Personally I don't think much changed.

A lot will depend on the follow-up. If they do declassify that PDB, and there's something really inflammatory in it, then it will matter. But I don't think anything came out of Rice's testimony that's going to do much damage one way or the other.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Then you disagree with saltara's take on Bob Kerrey's

inquiries about putting the info out on Intelink? I thought that seemed promising. We can hope for more along that line, at least, coming out from the commission's private questioning of Rice. To be a fly on the wall for that would be quite interesting!

Thanks again for your evaluation and your partner's pithy comment re: what lawyers (are supposed to) do. Good thread.

[Plaid Adder]

14. I missed that particular moment

I was very distracted by what I considered Kerrey's unnecessarily pit-bullish style, which often led to him and Rice getting into an interrupto-match where you couldn't hear exactly what either was saying.

As for the Moussaoui thing...I guess my thing is that I don't believe in LIHOP, nor do I believe that 9/11 was preventable. I totally support grilling Rice and anyone else in the administration they can drag in there; what I hope is that enough will come out about the way these people run their 'government' to provoke permanent public outrage. Nothing that emerged today changed my mind about that, and I doubt anyone else who wasn't already a LIHOP/MIHOPper would come away convinced either.

However, I could be wrong. Maybe I will be. That would be nice.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Ysabel]

12. good points from you...

and your partner - plaid adder...

hello and welcome also - to saltara - you make some good points as well...

i don't really know what good and / or if anything much else - might come of any of the 9/11 hearings though - i'm fairly pessimistic about the whole thing...

[Generator]

17. RE: asking direct questions like in court

about facts. Well, guess what? That's not the way it's done in Washington. That's what Kristen Brietwieser said last week on NOW with Moyers. "We have these very direct questions that we want straight answers on." But she was very frustrated that direct questions are not the way these kind of commissions work in Washington. Which is why most of the questions of the 9/11 steering committee haven't' been asked, much less answered. It makes me nauseous I have to say. And the fact that they are all political beasts makes it impossible for any questions that average human beings (like those they were responsible for protecting and died that day) to ask and get answers.


As far as what good it does it HAS to do something, change one mind, one vote, keep it in the public eye. If BushCo has pushed so hard for this commission to never exist in the first place then you know it's going to hurt them. Truth will out.

[Beetwasher]

18. Wow, Some Terrific Commentary From A Few New Faces!

and of course everyone else. A hearty welcome to all the insightful newbies in this thread!

Yes, the direction they (the admin. through Rice) are trying to take with their testimony, in using it as a defense of the P-ACT and for it's expansion, is incredibly disturbing. My hope is that the fact that these thugs are losing credibility at an incredible rate will mean that this direction and POV will lose credibility right along w/ them...

[G_j]

19. of course never mentioned

are the US policies which have created so much resentment and hatred for the US in the first place.

God forbid we REALLY reviewed a little history.

the war on terror? how about getting the hell out of the ME, and spending all that war money on addressing world hunger?