9/11 Commission
The Zelikow Report
In today's New York Times, William Safire comments on the recently released Zelikow Report, an "interim report" issued by the Commission's staff. The report, picked up by news media under headlines that dismiss any Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, has clearly been misconstrued. As Safire clearly demonstrates, the report combines the issues of Iraqi-Qaeda relations (which there were), and an Iraqi connection to 9/11 (which there was none). It attempts to argue on the basis of Iraq's 9/11 involvement (or lack thereof) that no connection between the two entities existed whatsoever.
I think Safire's column is yet another reminder of why the 9/11 commission is nothing but a joke. It was designed to be a bipartisan effort to determine the root causes and failures that led to the terrorist strikes. However, it has been more concerned with assigning blame solely on one party or the other. As current and former top officials were questioned by the commission, the only member to question both sides with equal vigor was Bob Kerry.
The Zelikow report is yet another example of the commission's failure to do its job correctly. Supposedly published without the commissions knowledge, the report seeks to discredit Bush more than uncover the truth.
I do not think you can completely blame either Republicans or Democrats for 9/11. Yes the Bush administration did not fight the terrorist threat with as much zeal as it should have, but at the same time, Clinton had his chance to get Bin Laden in the late 1990's and failed. There are also many other root failures that can be traced back to earlier administrations.
I sympathize with those families that lost relatives in the attacks. However, I do not think it prudent to brand the Bush and Guilianni administrations as a band of murderers. Giulianni had New York City arguably more prepared for a terrorist attack than any other American City. Unfortunately his anti-terror headquarters was destroyed in the bombings. At the same time, the mayor himself admitted that he believed an attack would most likely come in the form of a chemical or biological bomb, not kamikazi Boeings. Yet, in the face of so much chaos, Gulianni's stoic leadership arguably prevented the situation from being much, much worse. As the mayor himself has said, if anyone is to be blamed for the attacks, how about the 19 individuals who actually carried out the attack?
If we truly want to get to the root causes of the 9/11 failures, the commission must do what it was intended to do. As Safire argues, it must show how Clinton's failure to respond to the USS Cole bombings contributed to 9/11. It must demonstrate how Bush's refusal to replace George Tenet as CIA director would be beneficial, and finally it must demonstrate "how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally." Only then, when all parties are criticized equally will the commission regain the credibility it has so shamelessly lost.
2 Comments:
Ed,
The 9/11 Commission has not attempted to blame the Bush Administration for not being prepared for the terror attacks. In fact, they have been very careful to not assign blame.
Connections between Iraq and Al Quada, which may be in the form of conversations and memo exchanges, suggest little. In the 1980s, members of the Reagan administration had contact with Iraq and with Osama bin Laden. In fact, the CIA created Osama bin Laden. Since we have had contact with him, does that mean we should go to war with ourselves. Oh wait! Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves; we don't.
Keep in mind that President Bush first opposed the commission, then supported it, and now finds himself back-pedalling since the commission's findings undermine his justification for war in Iraq. Also, don't be so shorted to miss the fact that the chair of the commission was a Republican.
In his "Misleaders Who Mislead" Jack Balkin also addresses some of the reasons that the Bush Administration has to challenge the commission's findings. Their justification of the war is really all they have left to cling to.
Finally, you seem to base your entries on the New York Times a lot; read the Washington Post, too!
The Commission has at many times been accusatory when searching for lapses in intelligence. But I think that in a number of instances this was because of stonewalling by partisans more concerned with career preservation. The public's lack of awareness is also to blame for the sensationalism of Commission hearings. Why has it taken until 2004 for the general public to know the CIA and FBI don't get along? I learned it by watching CNN in the mid-90s. As for their report, I'm sure the Commission has done some homework. More importantly, however, is what results of it. Will agencies share pertinent information? Will the FAA make airspace safer? Will we learn how to preemptively destroy terrorist cells without massive military incursions? Terrorist attacks are nobody's fault but the terrorists who perform them.
Post a Comment
<< Home