Daniel Henninger had it right today, when he said the following:
From the moment the September 11 commission was authorized, the only important question was when it would propitiate the media gods. That moment has arrived. We have finally reduced the entire story of September 11, as always, to heroes and villains, winners and losers.The only reason--the only reason--for the call to get Rice to testify in public, even though she's already given hours of private testimony, and even though people in her position sometimes give public testimony but usually don't, is because partisans who hate Bush are looking for any possible slip or embarassment they can use. Anything, anything at all, for it's blood that they want, and nothing less.Richard Clarke divined how our system elevates its heroes. He extruded his long, honorable career through layers of major media--Simon & Schuster, CBS and then the Barnum & Bailey big-top of televised hearings. For a week, he became the man of the moment.
Now in another propitiation, Condoleezza Rice will go before the commission in the role the gods have ordained: Prove in public that neither she nor her colleagues in the Bush presidency are knaves who make policy in cynical disregard of truth or evidence. When this exercise is over, we will know very little important about September 11 that we didn't know on September 12.
That, and the media Gods always demand their high drama--and blood is the best drama.
I'll look forward to watching Dr. Rice thwart the witch-hunters, though. For, no matter what she says, they'll try to parse it and twist it and tear her and especially her boss apart--but will almost certainly look even more like partisan hacks. For nothing genuinely useful can possibly be learned from this exercise, and everyone knows it.
Although it's very ugly to watch, I take a perverse anticipation in expecting them to, once again, shoot themselves in the foot and then blame Bush for their injuries.
One day the Republicans are going to turn into idiots and Democrats will come to their senses and become a majority party again. That's the normal American cycle. It just looks like that's got no chance of that happening this year.
(Cartoon by the amazin Cox & Forkum, who by the way really should have a syndication deal by now. Why haven't they been snatched up yet?)
Message to Condi:
"Oh for crying out loud. Get over yourself."
Far more people have already seen and heard Condi versus those who saw and heard Clarke. Furthermore, polling indicates that the electorate has already moved past this, believing that Clarke is out to line his own pockets.
All she has to do is tell the commission what she's already told the media. What's the big deal?
Pressure from Clarke, Democrats, the media, etc. is probably the reason she's testifying. Its not the reason she should testify, though.
Dean seems forlorn that Democrats will seize upon inconsistancies in Rice's testimony and use them to question her credibility. Um, Dean, isn't this exactly what you're praising Republicans for with Clarke?
For some strange reason, I doubt that Condi needs to "get over herself". This charge should be leveled at the Dems as they continue to turn over rocks, hoping to find the Holy Grail. The only thing is, they don't have a plan, except to find the Grail. What happens if there is none??
Because while the Media is focusing on her, they can't cause trouble in other areas. One day, they will wake up in mid-November and say (a la Eddie Murphy) "He F**king WON?!?!?!"
Max,
What they're not going to get, because Ms. Rice will be completely prepared, is anything which can be used definitively against President Bush - the fact that there is nothing definitive to be found does help Rice out, but even if there was she's had more than enough time to figure out what to say and how to say it - there wont be any surprise questions, because Rice knows what the Comission knows and thus knows what they can possibly ask.
I'm with Dean that this is just a bit of jerking off for the media; but if its done right, it will help President Bush immeasureably by forever laying to rest any charge that he was asleep at the switch in the run-up to 9/11.
Now, not everyone thinks Clarke is just a whiner. At least not according this poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/02/opinion/polls/main609944.shtml.
But maybe they were all Democrats.
Everyone dance around and scream "the sky is falling" and 20 years from now some historians will write about this part of our existence and they still won't have an answer to what is the truth.
Rah, Rah Sis boo bah, cheer for your favorite team, deny the weaknesses of your position, laud the strengths of your position and the weaknesses of the opposition. Type till your fingers are numb, yell till you are hoarse and have some fun.
1. Eveyone is a liar except for me.
2. I am always right and a victim besides.
3. If someone says I am wrong see no. 1.
To quote Jonathan Swift:
"Who can deny that all men are violent lovers of truth when we see them so positive in their errors, which they will maintain out of their zeal to truth, although they contradict themselves every day of their lives?"
j Swift,
Exactly. I've said it much worse, myself.
Yours,
Wince
Forget shooting themselves in the foot, I'm waiting for the head-shot.
"The only reason--the only reason--for the call to get Rice to testify in public, even though she's already given hours of private testimony, and even though people in her position sometimes give public testimony but usually don't, is because partisans who hate Bush are looking for any possible slip or embarassment they can use."
David Broder pointed out in his column yesterday that there was another reason Rice has to testify. He wrote:
“Instead of acting as the man in charge and saying to the commission, "No, you may not put my national security adviser on the mat, but I will answer to the public for what happened," he did just the opposite. [Bush] gave up Rice and then turned on his heel and walked out of the briefing room even as reporters were trying to ask him questions.”
He concluded:
“It is not much of a model of leadership.”
Poor Condi.
“When this exercise is over, we will know very little important about September 11 that we didn't know on September 12.”
BTW, Dean. The best way we learn about September 11 would be if the administration stopped stonewalling on the release of records that don’t reveal sources and methods.
I have to admit, I don't understand this entire affair. People are looking for who is responsible for the failure in policy that lead to 9/11?
Everyone seems to want to find a scapegoat to blame. Democrats claim that Bush, or at least his administration, didn't do enough to stop it and that they should be responsible. Republicans often blame the Clinton administration, claiming that it was their polices for the years prior to 2001 that are to blame.
You want to know the truth. Both of them are right. America, for years, did many wrong things that lead to such an attack. We thought that our wealth, our military power, our good intentions in the world, and our relative isolation would protect us from such an attack. We were wrong.
It's easy to look back and say, "If this had been different..." Anyone can do that. Many peopel can also follow Clark's example and say, "If they had followed my plan.." which is just a slight modification on the same theme.
We could have avoided 9/11 if we had decided to ban all air travel thinking it too dangerous in 2001. Does that mean it should have been done? If someone had suggested we do that in 2000 would hey have been more responsible than those that wanted to keep planes flying? Of course not.
We failed to recognize a growing danger that this country faced. We overestimated the deterrant effect that our military power has on keeping us safe from those who hate us.
9/11 woke most of America up to the fact. It showed us that we were not protected, that we had made a mistake and that something needed to change. Almost no one expected on 9/11/2001 that was the case.
We need to stop looking to point the finger at someone. It is not one person or even one administrations fault. There are many things that could have been done in the past 20 years that could have prevented 9/11, yet almost none of them are steps that Americans would have supported.
I am certain that the Bush Administration could have done more to prevent 9/11. The Clinton administration could have also done many things that would have prevented it. Neither of them could see into the future, and neither of them is perfect. And eve nif they were, it is not certain that taking such action would have been correct. Though it could have prevented one tragedy, what would the price have been? Would we have traded 9/11 for a greater attack? Would we have traded in more of our freedom?
It's easy to look at one even and point out what could have been different, but to truly evaluate things you must also look at how such a change would affect the rest of the picture.
Personally, I blame Al Queda.
Will that be good enough for you the next time, too, Dani?
Certainly not. However, I think it helps to remember that no society should have to defend itself from monsters like these.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
We shouldn't be to the "Shame on me" part already, yet here we are.
I agree with Dani. Al-Qaeda was to blame here.
We were suprised attacked. While two and two could have been put together, from what I've seen, not enough specific information existed to pinpoint the day they planned to do it.
Attempts to blame the administration or the previous administration are short sighted. Could Clinton have done more? Certainly. Could Bush have done something? You bet! But Hindsight is 20/20; these things were harder to see at the time.
P'lus, if the US government had arrested 9 Muslims before 9/11, citing a future terrorist plot, civil rights groups would have cried foul. "Where's the proof?" they would loudly insist. "You can't just arrest these people!" It would have been decried as a sign of what America has become.
Dani:
We shouldn't be to the "Shame on me" part already, yet here we are.
So what do we do, except try to find out what happened and avoid it the next time?
Or is it all unavoidable?
Of course we should try to find out what could have been done better. However, all this partisan sniping is counterproductive. I wish I could say that we're trying to find out what happened, but the truth is, it's become a three-ring circus. Everyone is looking for someone to blame, when the real blame lies with Al Qaeda.
I almost wish the 9/11 Commission's entire investigation were being conducted privately. If all that is being sought is the truth, to prevent a future disaster, then it would be.
It's very much like a poor medical outcome. A trial is just spin from the defendent and the plaintiff. The real story comes out in a peer review of the case- that's when health care providers really focus on what happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again (if anything). Peer review is legally protected from access by almost all outside parties, because the law has recognized that without that protection, the truth will never come out, and preventable problems will go right on happening.
Rice, Clarke, Clinton, Bush and everybody else are on trial here, make no mistake. Finding out the truth seems to be taking a back seat, IMHO.
Dani,
It's very much like a poor medical outcome. A trial is just spin from the defendent and the plaintiff. The real story comes out in a peer review of the case- that's when health care providers really focus on what happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again (if anything).
I appreciate your "peer-review" analogy to the 9/11 Commission. It's an intriguing way of looking at it.
Unfortunately, the analogy isn't totally apt; I suspect there will be no one suing Bill Clinton or George Bush.
Which is, unfortunately, what sometimes happens to physicians. They do get sued. Perhaps you've been there; perhaps that would explain your cynical and corrosive observation about our legal system ("A trial is just spin from the defendent and the plaintiff.")
Dani, your glaring omission of the judge and the jury is laughable. At the very least it shows that you don't understand our system of laws; or perhaps it shows that you just don't care.
Oh, please, Ara. I knew when I posted my prior comment that some legal scholar on this site was going to take a whack at me. Thanks for not letting me down.
I was talking about the 9/11 Commission, okay? My point was, that this investigation, reported on ad nauseum, is more about assigning blame than preventing further occurrences. If you would like to comment from that angle, please do. I am not here to debate the pros and cons of the legal system- I've done that too many times already. I am sorry you don't like my analogy.
Message to Ara: Get over yourself already.