Reviewing the 9/11 Commission

If the 9/11 commission has so far failed to achieve its stated purpose - to shed light on why we we failed to prevent the attack on September 11th, 2001 - it has been more successful in another regard: casting light on the motivation of the administration's accusers. The hearings showed not only the folly of trying to assign blame for preventing a surprise attack, but that the focus of the committee was more on assigning blame and scoring points than on real inquiry (which could best have been achieved in closed committee without the grandstanding). Several columnists comment:

Thomas Sowell points out the silliness of expecting the authorities to predict a specific attack from a generalized warning:

The underlying assumption that an unprecedented surprise attack could succeed only if there was an intelligence failure is one of the signs of the lack of realism in our times. During World War II, the American government knew that the Japanese were likely to attack us somewhere, somehow, during the last months of 1941 -- but that was wholly different from knowing that they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th.

To some today, the fact that the Bush administration had warnings that al-Qaeda was up to something should have told them that terrorists were going to fly planes into the World Trade Center on September 11th.

We already know from Osama bin Laden himself that not even all the terrorists on the hijacked planes that flew into the World Trade Center knew that this was what those in the cockpit were going to do. If hijackers on board the planes didn't know, how could anyone else know?

But we've already seen this particular brand of illogic in the WMD recriminations. Somehow, the intelligence community was supposed to magically discover that Saddam did not have large stockpiles of WMD - something that, by all accounts, even Saddam himself did not know. In other words, our spies were supposed to know more than the top-level insiders of Saddam's regime. Talk about unrealistic expectations - "Holy Intelligence Failure, Batman! We just cannot tolerate any more of these unacceptable lapses - we need more HUMINT!"

And then there was the treatment afforded Dr. Rice, who had already testified in private session, ostensibly satisfying the requirement of the committee for information. But not, apparently the need for a spectacle and a public sacrifice. But this, too, served a purpose as the public saw Dr. Rice behave with dignity and grace under extreme provocation. They also got to see the patronizing way some liberals treat an accomplished black woman. Dennis Prager notes:

This is how Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9-11 Commission and former Democratic senator from Nebraska, opened his questioning of Condoleezza Rice before the Commission last week:

"Thank you, Dr. Rice. Let me say at the beginning I'm very impressed, and indeed I'd go as far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished. It's quite extraordinary."

It is widely believed in universities and in the media that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be racist and sexist. I have long believed that the opposite is true, that most Democratic politicians and most liberal activists, at the very least, do not regard black people as they do all others and, at worst, believe that blacks are inferior. I am similarly convinced that many men who most rail against sexism and advocate feminism hold women in lower esteem.

It is almost inconceivable that Sen. Kerrey would have said anything analogous to any other American (with the possible exception of one from Mexico or Puerto Rico) -- a Japanese, a Jew, a Pole, a German, a Uruguayan -- no matter how impressive their rags to power story.

Here's possible proof. Take the example of another minority individual who rose from worse circumstances than Condoleezza Rice to be the head of American foreign policy -- Dr. Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under President Richard Nixon. His Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany for their lives and brought their teenage son, Henry, to America. In addition to having to adjust to an entirely different culture, a new language and the loss of nearly all the property his family owned, Henry Kissinger grew up aware that many if not all of his Jewish relatives and friends back in Germany were being murdered.

Yet, one cannot imagine a senator beginning a hearing with Henry Kissinger noting how impressed he was with Mr. Kissinger's life story. Why not? Because many liberals and most Democratic leaders do not take blacks and women as seriously as they take whites and men. Blacks and women are regarded more as symbols -- of American and male oppression -- than as real people. Also, whereas a white liberal regards a white male as an individual, the white liberal is more likely to regard blacks and women as groups rather than as individuals. And, of course, they are seen as indispensable votes.

Kerrey's treatment of Dr. Rice was insulting, and she completely outclassed him both as a professional and as a human being. His badgering of her wasn't shocking - that happens all the time during Congressional hearings. It was the patronizing tone that was so insulting and demeaning.

In an April 8th column, Clifford May comments:

Give Condoleezza Rice credit for candor. Testifying before the 9/11 Commission today, President Bush's national-security adviser acknowledged that the United States "simply was not on a war footing" at the time the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 were committed.

When should the U.S. government have taken the threat of radical, ideological Islamism seriously? Perhaps as far back as 1979, when our embassy in Tehran was seized by Iranian theocrats; perhaps as far back as 1983 when Hezbollah suicide terrorists slaughtered hundreds of U.S. Marines and diplomats in Beirut; certainly as far back as the attacks over Lockerbie, at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole.

But that's not what happened. Instead, one American administration after another, Democratic and Republican alike, made gestures, sent signals, and mobilized lawyers armed with subpoenas. The terrorists and their masters could only have been amused. Yes, it would have been brilliant had President Bush entered the Oval Office, looked at this pattern and quickly concluded: "From this moment on, defeating terrorism and the ideologies driving terrorism should be seen as America's top priority. I want these networks rolled up ASAP. Use whatever means necessary."

Actually, President Bush came close to saying that. He asked for a policy review and a comprehensive strategy. But even had Dr. Rice — or counterterrorism "czar" Richard Clarke — come up with such a plan within 24 hours, President Bush could not have implemented it during his first eight months in office. The U.S. government simply did not have the means at its disposal.

Increasingly, it seems the 9/11 Commission is losing its way. Its mission is to learn lessons — not to lay blame. Its mission is to come up with recommendations for a more effective antiterrorism strategy.

Its mission is not to stage a reality-TV show, not to hold an inquisition, not to promote books (and, no doubt, movie deals), not to call scold Rice as though she were a student who claimed her dog had eaten her homework.

But that's what the public is seeing out here in TV-land.

- Cassandra