Finally it comes out. The CIA did give secret, detailed warnings to the White House about imminent terrorist attacks in the weeks before 9/11. Everybody involved, along with those told about it afterwards -- the Bush Administration, the Agency, the 9/11 Commission -- kept that fact hidden from the public for five years. Why?
Of course, Dr. Rice still says she can't recall being briefed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/2/114456/850 But, it's Condi's word against George Tenet, Cofer Black, Richard Ben-Veniste and records kept by the White House and the 9/11 Commission. The New York Times isn't buying Condi's story, and now says that not only was she briefed about the threat on July 20, 2001, she then recommended the Agency also brief Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ashcroft got briefed, Rummie ain't talking. Game, set, match.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03rivals.html?hp&ex=1159934400&en=a8d116e7a90c4c5f&ei=5094&partner=homepage After a slew of contradictory statements, denials, and some clumsy efforts to weasel out of the issue, one thing is apparent:
The 9/11 Commission Report is filled with lies, omissions and distortions. It's time for a Special Prosecutor.
Problem is, there's a long line of lies and resulting issues to be resolved:
All the public testimony given the 9/11 Commission and the earlier Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee hearings was under oath. There was a lot of perjury. This raises some difficult legal and procedural issues:
* Where public testimony by officials omitted, obscured or distorted many things, did contradictory private testimony given to key figures behind closed doors "cure" appararent misrepresentations made for the public record?
* If witnesses were allowed to publicly lie in this way, what was the point of swearing them in before Congress and the Commission?
* Who decides whether any lies to Congress and the Commission should be prosecuted? Alberto Gonzalez? Philip Zelikow? Lee Hamilton? Speaker Hastert? Chairman Spectre? State prosecutors in the various locales where testimony was taken?
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGSThe legal issues attached to this thing could be tied up in the courts until long after January 10, 2009 -- which is exactly the White House game plan.
So, what do we do? First, and as soon as possible after the new Congressional session begins, the Democrats will have subpoena power, if they win back the House and/or Senate. Topic A of hearings:
Why were the threat assessments given George W. Bush and his aides before 9/11 covered-up for so long?
That part has to be explained to the American people, under oath, under the lights before the TV cameras, live and unedited, with no closed classified briefings or grants of immunity to ranking officials. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tell any lies or hold anything back, and the Chairman will have the Sergeant-at-Arms seize the witness, and whisk that person straight to DC Jail to be held pending trial for perjury and Contempt of Congress. Start the hearings immediately when the new Congress comes back.
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONSThen, America can move on to prosecute the meat of the matter: 3,000 counts of negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, and manslaughter for criminal acts of commission or omission that resulted in the 9/11 attacks.
______________________________
2006. Mark G. Levey