Sins of Commission -Behind the effort to blame Bush for September 11

The Wall Street Journal-Opinion Journal ^ | 3/22/04

[MNJohnnie]

Sins of Commission Behind the effort to blame Bush for September 11.

Monday, March 22, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

It was always a terrible idea for the September 11 commission to drop its report in the middle of a Presidential election campaign, and we are now seeing why. That body is turning into a fiasco of partisanship and political score-settling.

To be precise, Democrats are using the commission as a platform to assail the Bush Administration for fumbling the war on terror, implicitly blaming it even for 9/11. That's the clear message of the testimony to be offered this week to the commission by former Clinton officials, who conveniently leaked their opinions to the New York Times in advance. Conveniently, too, former anti-terror aide Richard Clarke has chosen this week to begin the media tour for his new book pushing the same anti-Bush theme. He's also scheduled to meet the commission this week.

If you believe this is all a coincidence, you probably also believe that a reflective, nonpartisan look at the mindset that allowed 9/11 to happen is possible in today's Washington. It would be nice if it were. Democracies are notoriously bad at anticipating crises, and it would help future policy makers to have a thoughtful look at how and why we missed the al Qaeda threat as it was massing in the 1990s. In order to take such a detached view, the Pearl Harbor inquiry waited until after World War II to publish its findings.

The 9/11 Commission has instead been driven from the start by meaner political calculations: To appease the demands of those (few) victims' families looking for someone to blame, and to provide a vehicle to embarrass the Bush Administration. That's the real reason Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell--two men who have acted in the past as statesmen--were hounded out as the original commission leaders on trivial conflict-of-interest grounds. Their replacements are the junior varsity and have been unable to lift the commission above narrow partisan scheming. Republican chairman Tom Kean, a former governor little schooled in defense and foreign affairs, is apparently oblivious to the political hardball being played around him. Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, an ex-member of Congress well-versed in national security, is a better choice.

But Mr. Hamilton has to contend with his fellow Democrats, who include hyper-partisans Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer. These three caucus weekly, reporting back regularly to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for political fine-tuning.

Ms. Gorelick has her own clear conflict of interest: As Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, she had a major law enforcement role in combatting the terror threat. Her Administration's decision to handle the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 as a mere "law-enforcement" problem ought to be central to the commission's probe. She and Mr. Ben-Veniste also wouldn't mind being Attorney General in a Kerry Administration.

Inside the commission, these Members have been pushing the argument that Clinton officials warned the Bush Administration about al Qaeda, only to be ignored by men and women who were too preoccupied with Iraq and missile defense to care. So having failed to contain al Qaeda during its formative decade, and having made almost no mention of this grave threat in the 2000 campaign, these officials now want us to believe that in their final hours they urgently begged the Bushies to act with force and dispatch. Sure.

As for Mr. Clarke, he is now flacking his book by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to capture Osama bin Laden while offering the novel sociological insight (in last week's Time magazine) that "maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us." We'd take Mr. Clarke's words more seriously if, as America's lead anti-terror official from 1998 through Mr. Bush's first two years, he had warned someone that al Qaeda might have a strategy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. He already knew that an Egyptian had flown one plane into the drink and that al Qaeda was interested in flight training. Why didn't Mr. Clarke connect those dots?

The author is also highly critical of both the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. But inside the Clinton and Bush Administrations, his main pre-9/11 counsel was to energize the proxy war in Afghanistan through the Northern Alliance to make life more difficult for the Taliban. This certainly would have helped in the mid-1990s when al Qaeda was massing in that country. But by 2001 it would have done nothing to break up the al Qaeda cells that were already operating in Florida and Germany and that carried out the 9/11 hijackings.

As for Iraq, he and other Bush critics want to claim that the U.S. invasion has only created more terrorists--as if there weren't any before March 2003. And as if those terrorists are only striking at Americans and our allies in Iraq, not also at Turks, and Indonesians, French and Saudis.

Mr. Clarke lambastes the White House for seeking links between Iraq and 9/11, even as he himself asserts that he knew in the immediate aftermatch that there were no such links. How could he have known that? Mr. Clarke fails to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. In our view, a U.S. President who failed to ask questions about Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.

There is a profound contradiction at the heart of this 20-20 hindsight. On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe? We'd guess it is the latter because when these same critics held the reins of government they failed to do much against al Qaeda beyond fire cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away. Their boast that after 9/11 they would have toppled the Taliban, as well as increased pressure on Saddam Hussein, is impossible to credit. Their criticism now, in books and especially through the 9/11 Commission, is a case of blaming the Bush Administration in order to absolve themselves of any and all responsibility.

If the 9/11 Commission members really wanted to make a public contribution, they would shut down and resume their probe after the elections. Their final report is now due on July 26, two months after its original deadline and the same day that the Democratic Party convention begins in Boston. We doubt that's a coincidence either.

[MNJohnnie]

So as expected, the 9-11 Comission is part of the DNC directed smear Bush machine. No wonder they have been so desperate to have their time extended into the midst of the 2004 election campaign. No wonder the 9-11 Comission has pretty much IGNORED the 8 years of the Clinton Admisistration to focus on the 8 MONTHS Bush was in office prior to 9-11! What a bunch of slezy scum the Democrats are. Wailing about 9-11 being politized while THEY are buzy politizing it. Guess I will have to go donate a few hundred more to W. Campaign. The current crop of Democrat leaders cannot be allowed ANY where near the levers of political power!

[muawiyah]

The DNC doesn't care what is discovered about 9-11. They already know the answer ~ they commissioned it!

[DustyMoment]

"9-11 Comission=Democrat directed smear Bush machine"

And, this is a surprise to whom?

[pettifogger]

It's too much to hope, as this WSJ editorial posits, that the Commission will stand down prior to the election. That said, I hope the political wing of the Bush administration is not merely patting itself on the back for last week's successes (driven largely by Kerry's ineptitude). It had better be prepared with the big guns to follow the "leaks" from the testimony before this commission. To borrow a phrase from Carville, "This is WAHR!"

[Ichneumon]

On the one hand, the critics want to blame the Bush Administration for failing to prevent 9/11, but on the other they assail it for acting "pre-emptively" on a needless war in Iraq. Well, which do they really believe?

Bears repeating.

[freeperfromnj]

It's too much to hope, as this WSJ editorial posits, that the Commission will stand down prior to the election.

We the people have to demand that they do. This is a political hit job against the President. There ought to be some law against launching and profiteering from a book as you are about to testify in a crucial hearing such as this - especially in an election year. This Commission has been exposed and should be disassembled. They have zero credibility.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

Who appointed the memebers?

[bayourod]

"Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years."

And OBL would be operating out of Iraq now if Bush had not changed regimes.

[alloysteel]

The Democrats are STILL trying to revise the legacy of the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001". They might as well be building a palace out of pig droppings.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This commission reeked from the moment it was set forth.

[OldFriend]

Will the final report list the democrats who, for eight long years, criticized the first President Bush for not going all the way to Baghdad?

[palmer]

I agree that the timing is suspect with Clarke pushing his book, but he is in a position to criticize since it was his job to deliver the terrorism threat information to the incoming Bush administration. Fact is, they ignored it. Instead they were focussed on "state sponsored" terrorism, missile defense, and other defense priorities. Those were valid then, but with 20/20 hindsight it is easy to second guess them.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Who appointed the memebers?

Actually, Bush appointed the members. The Democrats cried foul.

[Jim Noble]

There ought to be some law against launching and profiteering from a book as you are about to testify in a crucial hearing such as this - especially in an election year

No laws against books.

Try again, your heart's in the right place.

[Calpernia]

Bush did? Do you have a link?

[freeperfromnj]

In business and in law, conflicts of interest apply. It is so obvious that this politically motivated. Why didn't we hear him speak out in over two years?

[Calpernia]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.

You are right, he signed off on it. But I would love to know how it was created.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Maybe he didn't. I can't recall, but I do remember Bush appointed members to the commission to lead the investigation.

[section9]

Get lost, clueless asshat.

Clarke's bailiwick was cyberterrorism.

His description of that first meeting with Rice is comical. Here it was, barely months after the Cole bombing, and the Clinton clowns are coming in and acting as if the news that bin Laden was a threat was tablets down from Sinai. Rice had been briefing Bush on bin Laden during the campaign.

Everyone knew UBL was a threat. You will recall that Bush declared that UBL would have to be dealt with after the Cole bombing during the campaign, didn't you?

(...sound of crickets...)

I didn't think so.

Look, I know that you clowns are trying to cover your asses for a decade of criminal negligence and lost chances, but it ain't gonna sell. Democrats treated terrorism as a crime problem. The Bush Administration had a plan to go to war in Afghanistan as early as September 4th, 2001. That's the difference between us, and you.

Republicans go to war against terrorists. Democrats are busy swearing out subpoenas.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[BigSkyFreeper]

Your link doesn't load, try this one