Does Rice really know her role?

[Kooperman]

Does Rice really know her role?

How national security adviser's testimony hurt Bush

ANALYSIS

By Howard Fineman

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 4:04 p.m. ET April 08, 2004WASHINGTON -

Republicans who'd been hoping that Condi Rice would calm the political waters with her testimony to the 9/11 commission have to be disappointed. Stylistically and tactically, she was serviceable. Her voice seemed to quaver at times, but overall she was a confident master of detail, choosing, for the most part, to praise rather than confront the accusatory Richard Clarke. But the larger picture she painted of herself, her president and the administration certainly won't help George W. Bush's re-election chances.

A self-proclaimed expert at understanding "structural" change in large institutions, Rice wasn't aware — may still not be aware — that the nature of her job had changed by the time she took over as national security adviser in January 2001. Reared in the Cold War era, she saw herself following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger. "National security" was largely a matter of global state-to-state diplomacy.

In fact, as her predecessor in effect warned her when he was turning over the keys, the model was no longer so much Kissinger as it was, say, Elliott Ness or J. Edgar Hoover. If, as she said, we had been at war with terrorism for 20 years; if, as she said, the terrorists are determined to attack America, then the NSC chief has to be a ruthless hunter for clues around the world — and on American soil.

Asked at the hearing why she hadn't pressed the FBI more closely about what it knew, or didn't know, about domestic terrorist threats, she acted as though the question was an odd one: It wasn't her job. Well, in retrospect, it was and now certainly is.

Rice identified the chief "structural" problem — that the CIA and FBI don't share information — in a speech she gave in October 2000. She even said that the problem could result in a disastrous domestic terrorist attack. And yet, based on her own testimony, she did little or nothing before 9/11 to break down those walls. The student of bureaucratic change didn't really attempt to foment any, at least not with the kind of urgency we know she needed to have.

And Rice's tone was perhaps too steely: The response to terrorism over the years had been "insufficient," she said. What a bland word when a soothing sense of regret was required. She was a bureaucrat explaining "structure" to a national audience (and a chamber full of family members) that yearned for blunt talk.

Rice, in the end, is just a cog in a machine. The real political question is: How did her testimony enrich the narrative of what the president did — or didn't — know and do about terrorism before 9/11? In an interview with the Bob Woodward, Bush admitted two years ago that he didn't have a sense of "urgency" about al-Qaida. He said he wasn't "on point" — wasn't locked on a target in hunting dog fashion.

That admission caused few ripples when it was published. But now voters may go revisit the remark. Why? Because it's now clear that the president may have had urgent reason to be "on point." Rice was told about al-Qaida cells by Richard Clarke in February of 2001. When, if ever, did she tell the president about them? The president was given the now-famous PDB of Aug. 6, 2001, which suggested not only that Osama bin Laden was "determined " to attack inside the United States, but that the FBI had picked up a pattern that suggested the possibility of hijackings here. Did Bush follow up with the FBI? What did he do in the days immediately after getting that PDB? Rice may insist that it wasn't a "warning," but we'll see soon enough when it's released to the public, as it almost surely will be in the days ahead.

The president in the classroom: On vacation?

Remember the picture of the president in the classroom being told of the attack by Andy Card? The American people thought they were seeing a man suddenly thrust into a grave challenge no one could have anticipated. That won him enormous sympathy and patience from the voters. But what if he was literally on vacation — at the ranch in Crawford — when he should have been making sure that someone was ringing alarm bells throughout the bureaucracy?

Already on the defensive for his leadership in the post 9/11 world — the war in Iraq grows less popular by the day — Bush now finds himself with questions to answer about his pre-9/11 leadership. He says he's running for re-election as a "war president." But by Rice's own standards, the war was well under way by the time he took office. He was a "war president" the moment he took the oath. But did he act like one? The election may hinge on the answer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4695313/

[DudeAsInCool]

Rice sounded like a robot today--but with a bit of nervousness in her voice. Worse yet, her answer that 'there was no silver bullet, nothing that could be done to stop the terrorists' was pathetic...she acknowledged absolutely no responsiblitily.culpability for what happened. I didnt find her very reassuring about the future either... "it will happen again" mumbo-jumbo.

[Kooperman]

I think she was throwing herself on the sword protecting the President's lack of curiosity and initiative about Presidential responsibilities regarding national security.

In doing so she made herself look amateurish in her job performance.

[Wolfie]

Can anyone say, "Ollie North"?

[desdemona]

you know, even a high school student knows the national security advisor co-ordinates with the FBI and CIA, as part of the job, but to not include the chief director of terrorism in these days and times seems a little negligent.

[CTC Command]

Funny how even the PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA was briefed that there were impending terrorist attacks against the US on the days before 9/11, yet W was somehow blissfully unaware. Tied his father's record for the longest presidential vacation before ambling back up to DC--he was still vacationing less than 2 weeks before the most devastating terrorist attack against Americans took place.

The one thing you will never see this administration do is ever admit they were wrong. They insist they didn't have proper intelligence prior to 9/11, they insist they were not mistaken about the WMD's in Iraq (again, bad intelligence), or even that Iraq was really a pre-9/11 agenda item that got moved to the top of the list before the second plane hit.

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that Clinton wanted to take out Bin Laden and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan in November or December of 2000, but it would start something that Bush would obviously have to finish, and it never got the green light from the Bushies waiting the wings. Had W and the Supremes not stolen the election from Al 2x4, chances are Osama would have been taking a dirt nap long before 911, but we'll never know now, will we?

[Kooperman]

Article & Essay: Rice Filibusters 9/11 Commission

To the tune of “Don’t Blame Me,” Bush’s National Security Adviser claimed there was no silver bullet to stop 9/11.

By Regis T. Sabol

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice finally testified under oath before the 9/11 Commission Thursday. And what did we get? An attempt to filibuster commission members’ questions with variations on an old standard, “Don’t Blame Me.”

Rice also juggled a mélange of bureaucratic gobbledygook. She took great pains, for example, to parse the distinctions of historic briefings, warning briefings, and threat briefings. And she did so over and over and over and over. She used the same redundant technique in throwing around distinctions between tactical responses and strategic responses.

What Rice appeared incapable of giving was a yes or no answer to any question, even when a simple yes or no was called for. Here’s one good example of an exchange with Commissioner Richard Ben-Viniste:

BEN-VINISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al Qaida cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain....

It went on like that for three hours. At one point Commissioner Bob Kerrey had enough of Rice’s roundabout responses. “Please don't filibuster me,” he admonished her. “It's not fair. It is not fair. I have been polite. I have been courteous. It is not fair to me.”

Speaking for an administration that touts the importance of individual responsibility, Rice’s testimony boiled down to this: Don’t blame us; blame the system.

Rice repeatedly attempted to excuse the greatest intelligence failure in the nation’s history by claiming that regulations prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information. She repeatedly referred to “systemic and structural” failures, another way of saying it was the system’s fault. “In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States--something made very difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.”

And, yet again, we heard the same tired metaphor of not being able to connect the dots. “We weren’t able to connect the dots,” she said more times than I could count.

The Buck Stops Where?

Fortunately, Commissioner Timothy Roemer put Rice’s version of “Don’t Blame Me” into its proper perspective. “You're the national security advisor to the president of the United States,” Roemer pointed out. “The buck may stop with the president; the buck certainly goes directly through you as the principal advisor to the president on these issues. And it really seems to me that there were failures and mistakes, structural problems, all kinds of issues here leading up to September 11th that could have and should have been done better. Doesn't that beg that there should have been more accountability? That there should have been a resignation or two? That there should have been you or the president saying to the rest of the administration, somehow, somewhere, that this was not done well enough?”

Roemer followed up these rhetorical questions by asking about the now notorious August 6, 2001 briefing at the Crawford Ranch, during which Bush was told something “really, really big” was going to happen. Why didn’t Bush call his “principals” (bureaucratic jargon for responsible cabinet members) together? The title of this “background memorandum,” by the way, was “Osama bin Laden Plans Attacks Inside the United States.” Let me repeat that key phrase, “Inside the United States.”

Condi’s response: “Once again, on the August 6th memorandum to the president, this was not threat-reporting about what was about to happen. This was an analytic piece that stood back and answered questions from the president. But as to the principals meetings…”

Let’s put this response in plain English. When the president was told that something “really, really big” was going to happen and the CIA learned that Osama bin Laden planned to attack the United States, itself, soon, and even though we already knew that Islamic extremists had tried to use commercial airliners in attacks and an Al Qaeda plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport on January 1, 2000 had been foiled, we weren’t telling him the nation faced an imminent threat of attack; we were just giving him some background.

Perhaps if CIA Director George Tenet and Bush’s other advisors had used that kind of language, he might have understood the immediacy of the danger and taken some kind of action other than whacking bushes on his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Maybe he would have called all his top honchos in, asked specific questions, and given direct orders to the Pentagon, the Department of Transportation, the FAA, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and, most importantly, the FBI and CIA. But he didn’t.

Of course, Rice took great pains to praise her boss and our Fearless Leader for the bold steps he has taken to win the War on Terror. Here is what she had to say in her opening statement:

Occupying Iraq Made Us Safer--really?

“Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors, and we have convinced Libya to give up all its weapons-of-mass- destruction-related programs and materials. And as we attack the threat at its source, we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform, we have removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes--sources of violence and fear and instability in the world's most dangerous region.

Today, along with many allies, we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as alternatives to instability and hatred and terror. This work is hard and it is dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East. In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right choices for America to make--the only choices that can ensure the safety of our nation for decades to come.”

Excuse me, but has this woman been sleeping through her morning briefings, not watching television, or reading any newspapers? All hell has broken loose in Iraq. Marine and Army units are fighting Sunni and Shiite insurgents in at least eight cities. At last count, forty-one Americans have been killed in action in just the past five days. And no end to the uprising, now declared an intifada, appears in sight. Insurgents now control three Iraqi cities.

Fortunately, Bob Kerrey pointed out the obvious. Kerrey declared that “as somebody who supported the war in Iraq, I'm not going to get the national security adviser 30 feet away from me very often over the next 90 days, and I've got to tell you, I believe a number of things. I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war itself. Secondly, let me say that I don't think we understand how the Muslim world views us, and I'm terribly worried that the military tactics in Iraq are going to do a number of things, and they're all bad.

“I think we're going to end up with civil war if we continue down the military operation strategies that we have in place. I say that sincerely as someone that supported the war in the first place. Let me say, secondly, that I don't know how it could be otherwise, given the way that we're able to see these military operations, even the restrictions that are imposed upon the press, that this doesn't provide an opportunity for Al Qaida [sic] to have increasing success at recruiting people to attack the United States.

“It worries me. And I wanted to make that declaration. You needn't comment on it, but as I said, I'm not going to have an opportunity to talk to you this closely. And I wanted to tell you that I think the military operations are dangerously off track. And it's largely a U.S. Army--125,000 out of 145,000--largely a Christian army in a Muslim nation. So I take that on board for what it's worth.”

To put the matter succinctly, Rice’s long-winded testimony did not hide the fact that she and the Bush administration refuse to take responsibility for the catastrophe that happened on their watch and that our presence in Iraq has done nothing to win the “War on Terror.” If anything, it has exacerbated that war by creating new anti-American converts throughout the Middle East who have become our sworn enemies. That can’t possibly do us any good.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...article&sid=705

[desdemona]

Condi Lousy

Why Rice is a bad national security adviser

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098499/#ContinueArticle

[Wolfie]

The one thing you will never see this administration do is ever admit they were wrong.

I don't think any administration would admit screwing up (especially on such a gigantic scale) particularly in an election year. Its kinda like the scene from Titanic with classical musicians continuing to play the same tune as the ship went down.

[DudeAsInCool]

I seem to remember hearing somewhere that Clinton wanted to take out Bin Laden and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan in November or December of 2000,

If you recall, the first time Clinton tried to do this, it was in the middle of the Lewinsky mess, and the Republicans cried 'Wag the Dog.' Those insidious impeachment proceedings, which should never have happened in the first place, took everyone's eye of the ball of the terrorist threat... We only have the reactionary Republicans to blame and their evil politics for this mess...

[DudeAsInCool]

I don't think any administration would admit screwing up (especially on such a gigantic scale) particularly in an election year. Its kinda like the scene from Titanic with classical musicians continuing to play the same tune as the ship went down.

I certainly would like to watch this administration drown lol