ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 03/20/2004

Testimony by a National Security Advisor before a congressionally appointed commission is extremely rare, having occurred perhaps two times in the last 60 years. This was a huge concession granted by the Office of the President, in spite many concerns about violating the essential constitutional principle of separation of powers.

It was a magnificent opportunity- an opportunity for the commission, the country and the entire world to experience America's highest principles in action- those of essential fairness and unbiased democracy in action. It was a chance for an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings inside the oval office. And most important, it was an chance for the 911 commission to demonstrate to all the world that it is a completely fair, non-partisan inquiry, interested only in absolute truth for the good of the country.

Unfortunately, several members of the commission including Mr. Richard Ben-Venista and Mr. Bob Kerry decided that political gain and rabid partisanship were far more important than any principles involved, and turned the event into a shameful display of attack-dog politics and disgraceful partisanship for all the world to see. Virtually every question they asked was predicated on some shadowy premise that Dr. Rice must be guilty of something.

It was an embarrassing and appalling spectacle. Here was an elegant, highly intelligent and cultured individual, with intellect, education and credentials far exceeding most of the commission members, who instead of being treated with the respect she so aptly deserved, was badgered, patronized, constantly interrupted and generally treated with an appalling lack of grace or civility. Ben-Venista and Kerrey apparently forgot that Dr Rice was not on trial, and became her self-appointed persecutors. In a disgracefully determined attempt to "get" her, subjected her to extremely rude and aggressive cross-examination, more like a prosecutor examining a murder defendant or hostile witness. To her never-ending credit, Dr Rice stayed calm, and never once returned insult for insult.

One cannot help but make a comparison to when Richard Clarke testified, where he was neither interrupted nor even challenged by Ben-Veniste or Kerrey or any other Democratic member. He was encouraged and allowed to give long, rambling answers unsubstantiated by facts. Only one commissioner asked Clarke a challenging question when he was confronted with statements out of his own mouth, completely contradicting what he was then saying under oath. Conveniently, the other members ignored those glaring inconsistancies, and simply encouraged more Bush bashing.

This unseemly display was at least partially explainable by assuming the commissioners were simply bamboozled by Mr. Clarke, and in that misplaced trust, did not aggressively follow-up with questions. But played against the debacle of their behavior with Dr. Rice, it becomes apparent that their happy embracing of Clarke was no accident. The inescapable conclusion is that they simply liked what Clarke was saying, because it suited their partisan purposes, but Dr. Rice was not so beloved. Therefore, that rendered her eligible for abuse, rudeness and treatment befitting a murder defendant.

It is beyond sad that a commission formed for the express purpose of finding truth and recommending steps to avoid another tragedy, has become a tragedy itself. They have seized upon this most terrible of disasters and perverted to into an instrument of politics, and rendered their "conclusions" irrelevant. Instead of helping to solve the problems that lead to the 911 tragedy, they have amplified the pain and dishonored the lives and the deaths of 3000 American citizens.
Better to die ten thousand deaths, than wound my honour.
Joseph Addison

Most of want Dr. Rice told the commission simply verified what others had already told them. It seems that the only disagreement on anything was that she did not recall Richard Clarke's alleged conversation with President Bush during which Bush was said to have pressured Clarke to find a link between the 9/11 attacks and al Qeada.

There were however several discrepancies between what Rice was saying and what documents were saying. For example, commission member Jamie Gorelick pointed out in response to Rice's claims that the administration had alerted the FAA and other domestic agencies to a raised terrorism threat level including possible high jacking of planes, saying "First of all, while it may be that Dick Clarke was informing you, many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea. Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this." This particular statement is a matter of semantics and reflects poorly upon the FAA and its procedures and precautions.

There was a lot of talk in the discussion about systematic problems with our intelligence community and our law enforcement agencies- namely information sharing between the CIA and the FBI. Rice points out many ways in which this issue has been addressed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, including the Department of Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act. These systematic problems and perhaps the lack of meetings with principals during crisis situations seem to be the primary focus of things the commission might think are possibly needed in helping to assure against future terrorist attacks against our country.

The only really remarkable discourse occurred between Dr. Rice and Mr. Ben-Veniste. Ben-Veniste seemed intent on having Rice only answer his questions only in such a manner that Ben-Veniste wanted. Several times he interrupted while Rice was attempting to respond to his statements. The intention of this public testimony is questionable to say the least. There seemed to be no real justification for it except that it was used by both political parties as a forum to stress their own versions of events.

This particular PDB, a document the 9/11 Commission now requests be given full declassification, was given to the president on August 6, 2001. To her credit, Rice and the majority of the presidential staff were just planning to go on vacation, August being the traditional month in which the president and his administration take their breaks.

Rice spoke at length of the intelligence mismanagement prior to the attacks, and placed the blame for the abhorrent lack of cohesion at the doorstep of policy and legal restrictions. No kidding. To that end, she said, "In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States." Wow. It does not require a doctorate to make an analysis like that.

Regardless of the fact that this commission seems to have only one purpose - to point fingers - it has less effectiveness if the willing participants are hedging their answers to remain political.During her testimony, Dr. Rice made a habit of not answering a question, then going back after her answer to make points "absolutely clear" by re-answering the question, and then made totally irrelevant statements that had nothing to do with what was originally asked. Of course, this was several minutes after the original question had been asked, and, by that time, not even the commission remembered what the commission had said.

So we're left with this useless commission whose point is obfuscated by a total lack of functional relevancy and a witness who makes no real difference in serving whatever purpose can be salvaged from the whole affair. Regardless of its purpose, Rice was right and totally accurate about one thing: The intelligence community was greatly hindered by legal restrictions and difficult policies. If this commission behaves anything like the first one that was exactly like it, it will discover that the intelligence breakdown was widespread and systemic.

Unfortunately for this commission, those conclusions have already been leapt to and those fingers have already been pointed. In fact, things like the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act were supposed to alleviate those problems, making this commission as useless and pointless just like the testimony before it.

Rice, through skillful use of the filibuster, made it clear to those who were unaffected by her grandiose speeches that she was there to fulfill a singular intention: make sure that the president and the administration aren't too badly damaged on the other side of all of this. This intention considered, seems that she didn't do such a bad job.