Kangaroo Kommission? (Part Two)
By Tom Barrett (04/28/04)
Most of the members of the 9/11 Commission are totally out of control. The Commission is tasked to make its findings public on July 26, 2004. Yet most of the members are scrambling to get on the talk shows as if they were authors promoting a new book. (Actually, I will be very surprised if most of them don’t write books to cash in on this experience.)
This is totally out of keeping with the seriousness of the Commission’s responsibility. They know that most Americans form their opinions from sound bites on the news. So they should realize that, depending on which Commission member is on the news or the talk show on which night, the people will be getting wildly divergent views of what really happened on 9/11. This lack of propriety will dramatically weaken the trust that we as a people place in the resulting findings of the Commission.
Think about it this way. If the members of the jury in a murder trial were allowed to hawk their views on TV during the trial, no one would trust the verdict they rendered. “I think Mr. X was not a credible witness.” “I knew as soon as I looked at the defendant that he was guilty.” “That evidence looked fishy to me.” After the all the evidence is in and the testimony is completed. The jury will deliberate. It is very possible that in discussing all that has taken place during the trial those that made those comments would put the facts into context and come up with a consensus decision that passes the test of reasonable doubt. That’s why the judge would throw any juror who pulled such a stunt into jail!
I realize this is not a trial. But the Commission members should realize that their task is far more important than the deliberations of any trial ever conducted in America. In a murder trial one life hangs in the balance. It is possible that the findings of this Commission could result in either the salvation or the destruction of an entire nation. Morality and good sense dictate that they should KEEP THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT.
But there is a shocking shortage of morality and good sense on this Commission. Whether they just want to be in the limelight, or are paving the way for riches from the books they will write, or whether they are trying to sway public opinion, they are acting like fools. We need to see dignified people that we can trust, taking their responsibilities seriously. Instead we have the unbecoming spectacle of people entrusted with a tremendous responsibility sucking up to talk-show hosts, making stupid jokes on TV, and undercutting one another in the court of public opinion. Just to make sure they understand how I feel, I think they should KEEP THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT. They have no business being on TV. It makes them look small and political. The nation needs to see them as non-partisan wise people whose findings we can trust.
Three final thoughts regarding the political nature of the Commission. The gallery of the Commission hearing room is packed with family members of those who perished in the attacks on 9/11. The fact that the Commissioners allow the spectators to continually interrupt proceedings with applause whenever they feel someone they don’t like has been put down by the Commission is repugnant. The tragedy of 9/11 is owned by all Americans, not just the family members of the deceased. We all lost much that day, and we all stand to lose a lot more if the Commission members continue their grandstanding instead of taking care of business. Yes, it is politically correct to allow these disruptive displays. But it is morally wrong and has the effect of turning the hearings into a political circus.
Second, most Americans are not aware that the Commission has conducted hundreds of hours of private hearings, simply because they were not televised. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testified for hours before the Commission in private session. Then they put tremendous political pressure on President Bush to allow her to testify publicly, something that has never been done before.
Why? Why, when she had already told them all she knew privately, did they insist upon her testifying in public? In my opinion, none of the hearings should be public; the Commission should do its job and make its report to the nation. We are not a jury, and unless we have heard ALL the testimony they have heard (including the private sessions), how can we come to any rational conclusion? That is what we are placing our trust in the Commission to do. Why then was she singled out among all the people who testified privately and made to testify in public? Pure politics. Some on the Commission are so desperate to embarrass the President that they are willing to jeopardize the security of the country to do so.
Second, the very timing of the Commission and the artificial deadline for its final report are purely political. The Democrats are already realizing that they have picked a loser in John Kerry. In any kind of a fair contest Kerry the Waffler comes up far behind Bush the Resolute. The answer? Rush the Commission into completing their job by July 26, 2004.
What is the significance of this date? Absolutely none, except for the fact that it is before the election and the Democrats hope the Commission will come up with some sliver of damaging information they can use against Bush in the election.
I am sure this desperate strategy is going to backfire on them. Clinton was in office for eight years; Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Clinton decimated our military and our intelligence services. He spent fifty times more in money and resources persecuting Bill Gates than he did in pursuing Osama, even after the first World Trade Center bombing. While Clinton was in office, al Qaeda trained five times more terrorists in their camps than graduated from the FBI and CIA academies combined. When terrorists attacked US interests here and abroad, he blew up aspirin factories and tents in the desert. He hardly ever met with George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, forcing him to communicate through the National Security Advisor.
Bush immediately went on the offensive against terrorism when he took office. He told
George Tenet he wanted him in his office every morning. He started hiring the FBI and CIA agents that Clinton had refused to hire. (Louis Freeh testified before the Commission that he asked Clinton for 1895 FBI agents to fight terror; Clinton gave him 76.) He ordered the CIA to stop depending on electronic intelligence, Clinton’s legacy, and to rebuild the human intelligence assets that had suffered under the previous administration. Both the CIA Director of Counter-Terrorism and the Acting Director of the FBI at the time of 9/11 testified before the Commission that, “The US government fully understood the nature of the threat” of terrorism, but that the “…warnings did not indicate method, time or place.
In the words of Thomas Pickard, who headed the FBI in the months leading up to 9/11, “The only tools we had against terrorism were handcuffs,” meaning traditional law enforcement methods. “The Bush Administration gave the nation bombs, bullets and bayonets” with which to fight terror.
The best man at our wedding, Dave Williams has been our houseguest for the last month. A retired State Police Office from Massachusetts (who, by the way, is ashamed of both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry), Dave had this interesting insight on the difficulty of fighting terrorism. “It’s like a hockey game,” he said. “The goalie has to block dozens of pucks. But if even one gets through, the other team scores.” Cofer Black, former CIA Counter-Terrorism Director, put it another way. “We have to get it right thousands of times. The terrorists only have to get t right once.”
So much for the Blame Game this Commission is playing. They need to concentrate on correcting the institutional weaknesses that have existed in our intelligence and defense communities for decades and through many Administrations. And they need to keep politics out of the process. Cofer Black had the guts to put it to the Commission straight during his testimony. He admonished them to “…conduct the investigation without partisan politics in this election year.” Thomas Pickard, Acting Director of the FBI, told them, “You have a solemn and non-political responsibility” to the American people. I hope the Commission was listening.
INTERNET LINKS:
Official Website of the 9/11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
Article: Gorelick’s Conflict
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040414.shtml
Rice: No 'Silver Bullet' Could Have Prevented 9/11
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/april/0409_rice_testimony.shtml
Article: Condi's Day at Court
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/vfiore/2004/vf_0408.shtml
Biographical Information Regarding J. Edgar Hoover
http://www.crimelibrary.com/hoover/hoovermain.htm
Testimony of Dr. Condoleezza Rice before the 9/11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing9/rice_statement.pdf
Biographies of Commission Members
http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
