|
Washington - After months of refusing to make his National Security Advisor available for public testimony under oath before the 9/11 Commission, President Bush finally reversed himself under mounting pressure. White House-imposed time constraints on Condoleezza Rice's testimony left many questions unasked; Dr. Rice's tactics of filibuster, evasion and deflection left asked questions unanswered. But her testimony did shed some additional light on the stance of the Bush Administration toward the threat posed by al Qaeda prior to the September 11th attacks. This fresh illumination was far from reassuring.
For all the Bush Administration's claims that the president wanted an al Qaeda policy that was more robust than President Clinton's, it is clear that this White House took no action against al Qaeda until after September 11th, despite numerous high-level warnings about the terrorist network from people inside and outside the administration.
During the transition and the early days of his administration, President Bush's security advisors were repeatedly warned that al Qaeda should be their highest priority. Still, it was not until September 4th that a cabinet-level meeting was held on the matter. Rice relegated the matter to a group of subordinates, saying she didn't think cabinet-level meetings were the most efficient way of addressing the threat. This was part of her pattern of sending the issue of al Qaeda down the chain of command instead of up, a clear indication of the low priority it held in the White House.
Rice claims that the Bush Administration continued pursuing the Clinton Administration's efforts against al Qaeda. Yet when presented with a threat alert as bad or worse than one successfully addressed under Clinton, the Bush team declined to follow the Clinton model.
When confronted by a spike in intelligence indicating possible terrorist attacks in Los Angeles at the turn of the millennium, the Clinton Cabinet began meeting every morning to share new developments. These cabinet secretaries began "shaking the trees," in the words of Richard Clarke, searching for the slightest bit of information that might be helpful. The result was that the terrorist plot was foiled.
The threat alert in the summer of 2001 was even greater than the millennium alert. The administration was informed that al Qaeda cells were operating in the United States; that individuals had enrolled in flight schools expressing the desire to learn to fly, but not to land or take off; and that al Qaeda had been considering plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The fact that two individuals with ties to al Qaeda had entered the United States was known by the FBI, but never reached the bureau's highest levels. That is exactly the kind of crucial information that may have helped the White House to connect the dots and that may have come to light if cabinet secretaries had been "shaking the trees."
Rice repeatedly asserted during her testimony that better intelligence, such as the exact target or exact day of the planned attack would have helped. Intelligence that specific is rare. The lack of it should not have prevented us from pursuing the clues we had.
The Bush Administration came into office to promote its neo-conservative ideology. Fighting terrorism did not fit in with their plans. Iraq, Russia and missile defense were much higher priorities. Even after the al Qaeda attacks, President Bush refused to let go of Iraq. Indeed, in Thursday's testimony Rice maintained the deception that the terrorists were somehow allied with Iraq, making that country a suitable target.
The full story on how the September 11th attacks were allowed to happen is just now beginning to unfold. The White House, the 9/11 Commission, Congress and the American public need to continue asking questions until we have the whole truth. |
