Claritin Nation: Old and Allergic in America

"...when it came right down to it, this country, for reasons of history and culture and therefore law, had an allergy to the notion of domestic intelligence, and we were organized on that basis." --Condoleezza Rice, April 8, 2004

Admittedly, I have not read all of the commentary on Rice’s testimony at the 911 Commission hearings, but most of what I have read seems to deal with her refusal to apologize, her composure and unflappability and how aside from her exchange with Bob Kerrey, it was predictable. Nevertheless, there are four things I have to say about her testimony.

(1) Despite having asked herself "a thousand times what more [she] could have done," the way that Dr. Rice describes her actions, reactions and inactions, prior to September 11 seems just a tad passive. She says numerous times that this person didn't tell her to do this, that person didn't tell her that she had to do that, no one asked her to tell anyone anything. Realizing that most times it's easier to escape blame by not having done something than by having done so, it still seemed strange to me that she and others in the rush-to-judgment administration would think this portrayal of her conduct acceptable as a matter of fact. Perhaps this is because...

(2) Rice—and one assumes President Bush—“does not seem to believe” that there is even one thing that they might have done or done differently that might have brought about a different result on September 11. I realize that, as I said above, the Bush administration might be apprehensive about allowing the slightest opening for attack, but this strikes me as presumptuous and pretty arrogant for a Bush administration spokesperson—especially given the the number of times that this high level advisor said that she either didn’t know, didn’t recall, didn’t believe (or didn’t believe she knew, recalled or believed). (See list of frequently uttered words)

(3) Bush et al should not worry about the 911 Commission digging up any real dirt, any real intelligence, about its handling of 911 issues before the election. Well, at least not if one shares Dr. Rice’s view about what can get done during just seven months+ on the job. One of Dr. Rice’s key assertions is that not very much can get done, or can be expected to get done, in just 233 days. And here we are less than 208 days from the election. So, what’s to worry about? Besides even though the Commission's report is due July 26, it is subject to the White House's security review, which can take as long as George wants. Like, say, until November 8, 2004?

(4) Bush et al seem to be trying to drag the responsibility for the entire tragedy to the feet of Congress, by “tasking them” (as Condi likes to say, 11 times in fact during her testimony) with fixing these structural problems. This is the most distressing to me. When given a chance to say what she thought may have gone wrong (as well as what any possible solutions might be)—and she was given an opportunity to do this more than once—Rice consistently stated, to the exclusion of anything else, that there were systemic and structural problems, impediments, etc. Call me paranoid (you have my blessing), but most of her testimony sounded like an advertisement for renewing the Patriot Act, which is due to expire at the end of 2005. Congress, of course, has control whether it will be allowed to expire at that time or at all.

This harping on “structural,” “legal” “impediments can serve a number of purposes. It can attempt to justify the stubborn resistance to accepting any responsibility. It can be used to criticize the Clinton administration and its strategies: “Operation Infinite Resolve” (military actions against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network), etc. It discourages people from scrutinizing too closely the actions and lapses of individual actors. But it seemed to me, as I listened, that it was laying the foundation for something a great deal broader and more comprehensive.

Why do I think this? Aside from the Patriot Act being my pet peeve, that is? Well, Rice takes care to reference and emphasize on several occasions the Bush administrations position, or purported belief about the following:

(a) The U.S. had/has an aversion to Patriot Act-type changes to our system of government. We have “allergies” and “fears” of domestic intelligence.

(b) Patriot Act-type changes are the only things that could have prevented the tragedy of September 11.

(c) September 11 was America’s wake up call that we should have the Patriot Act or even more stringent legislation.

Rather than make this post even longer than it already is, I have created separate files for testimony that I believe supports this idea. These are links to Dr. Rice’s opening remarks and exchanges between her and the following Commission members: Lee Hamilton, James R. Thompson, Richard Ben-Veniste, Fred F. Fielding, Jamie S. Gorelick.

If Congress doesn’t embrace enacting having Patriot Act type legislation as quickly and completely as it did right after September 11, well any future tragedies will be on its conscience. I mean, hey, we now know that Bush has done everything he possibly could and has warned us what will happen if Congress doesn’t do its part to help usher in these new innovations in domestic intelligence and civil liberties. Certainly the very last thing Congress should be contemplating is letting the Patriot Act expire in 2005—without a good solid Patriot II to replace it anyway.

While the Commission is not a congressional committee—as Thompson says, “we are not the congress and we are not a congressional committee.”—it is like a bi-partisan congressional committee and some former Congress people from both parties populate it. I don’t think that that fact is lost on Bush and his advisors. But no matter the composition of the Commission, expect Congress to be "tasked."

What concerns me is that it will have the desired affect on said Congress. This is a classic set up—one that we have allowed the Bush administration to get very good at (See April 7 Post). The set up goes something like this, "I know it sounds drastic, I know lots of people are going to die, I know it goes against everything that this country is supposed to stand for, but if you don't give us authority to do this, why then, it'll be on your head. It's the only viable plan, after all…”

I do not doubt that there are things that could be done prior to September 11 in a better more efficient way. And there are likely things that are structural issues, and not Bush’s fault. But I personally resent (and so should we all), the sweeping and across the board ultimate sidestepping of the question about what Bush et al might possibly, just possibly done even the slightest thing differently. How does Ben-Veniste put it? “Would [Bush pulsing the intelligence community] have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, possibly, possibly” interrupt[ed] the plotters?

No? No, you say? This is the only possible solution? Well, as long as you say so. Have we learned nothing from Iraq? I would hope so and I would hope, for that matter, that we do not forget about the dangers inherent in a hastily approved-under-penalty-of the-risk-of-3000-more-deaths Patriot Act?

As Eisenhower said in his famous “Military Industrial Complex” speech, “Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”

I, for one, would ask that Bush put his idea of miraculous solutions (his are ineffective at best and dangerously reckless at the worst) to all of our current difficulties aside for a day or two and answer some simple questions.

Comments

[John Suter]

JOHN P. SUTER
P. O. Box 670144
Chugiak, AK 99567-0144
(907) 688-3103
suter@gci.net

September 13, 2004

Greetings

Airlines employees and their contractors have a law (www.faa.gov/avr/afs/whistleblower/) that protects them when they speak out on aviation safety/security issues. I would note that local government (city, county, state and municipality) airport maintenance employees who work at America’s 450 FAA towered airports do not have this protection. If they are caught speaking out on such issues they can be retaliated against for doing so. What can be done so that local government airport maintenance workers can have the same protection as airline employees, is to contact the congress to put in an amendment that would include them in this law. In doing so, this would protect them from retaliation. Without this protection local government airport maintenance employees will be afraid to report any unsecured doors, gates or other potential safety violations.

Some of the congressional representatives that you could contact that are in position to put in this amendment are transportation chairman Congressman

Don Young 202-225-5765, Fax 202-225-0425. House or Representatives
2111 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515-0201

Senator on the aviation committee Ted Stevens. 202-224-3004, Fax 202-224-2354. United States Senate 522 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510-0201

Senator Lisa Murkowski who personally told me she could do it and will look into it could use some encouragement 202-224-6665, Fax 202-224-5301. United States Senate 322 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510-0202

Thank you for your prompt and courteous attention.

Sincerely

John Suter

[Shasta]

Wow. You are right. I wonder why no one else is saying this. I does seem obvious now. Of course, it helps that we have now heard from the evil Ashcroft, but I realize you wrote this last week. Even your reference to MI-5, you called it.

[Meg]

Excellent. Well done. Comprehensive and astute. Bloody unfortunate that you are a voice crying in the wilderness.

It amazes me that there is anybody left who intends to vote Republlican this fall, but, alas, unfortunately, I know some.

Remember that saying from a post-WW II speech? "First they came for the Jews and I wasn't a Jew, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Catholics and I wasn't a Catholic, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I wasn't a Trade Unionist, so I said nothing. And then they came for me, and by then there was no one left to say anything."

How much further must our democracy be eroded, our civil liberties undone, before somebody -- everybody -- says something?