Centerfield

Like you I think this 'commission' is a waste of time and money. I think that Janet Reno summed it up best when she said..""I never focused on just Al Qaeda because I stood there and watched
the [Alfred P.] Murrah building in rubble,". No one could have prevented 9/11. The terrorist were determinded to hit us and hit us hard. Had it not been planes as missles it would have been bombs in tunnels, or dirty bombs in large crowded cities. It was inevitible. Lets move on.
Isn't it interesting that Miller is to Democrats (which I am not) what McCain is to Republicans?

I am not a fan of Janet Reno's but me thinks she got this one just right.

But our enemies, not understanding America and its democracy, may miscalculate in a big way and feel they are winning and try something stupid.

I don't agree.

We gave President Bush a pass in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and rightly so, because it was necessary to focus on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.

But Bush himself has changed the subject by becomming immersed in Iraq. Even if we never get a true accounting, I think the commission has done a great service by changing the subject back to 9/11. Osama is still out there, and I believe all of us have become complacent in seeing this as "history" when it may well repeat soon.

Isn't the public portion of these hearings coming to a close anyway? I really don't know.

I agree with most of what Miller says in the beginning, but I think he slides towards rhetorical overstatement once he gets warmed up and starts talking about Clarke.

I don't think it's a good idea to abandon possibly useful paths only because they may somehow encourage our enemies, although it's valid to consider their relative worth against the extent of enemy encouragement.

I've said over and over that the hearings are worthwhile only insofar as they point out ways that we can improve our approaches in combatting terrorism. When the process devolves to partisan fingerpointing, it's worthless. In fact, counterproductive. Miller is right that the commission should not designate scapegoats. But I think he's just placing himself ahead of the curve so he can look prescient. I don't think they are going to assign blame in any way that's not diffuse.

But as Miller himself implies, the value of our democracy is that we as a nation and as a system can withstand such scrutiny. A system with elements for self-correction can look messy at times. The important thing now is to emerge from this self-scrutiny with renewed resolve and a short list of concrete ways that we can improve our anti-terrorist efforts.

If there is any value to the public airing, it's that it makes it as untenable as possible for our various law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies to continue along a path of reluctant intelligence sharing and haphazard processing.

Without pointing fingers or patting anyone on the back, let's all recognize that it's of utmost importance that our intelligence gathering agencies all, as someone put it, "know what we know." We definitely can't have bureaucrats hoarding info. And we can't just gather intelligence, we have to analyze and compose it into a comprehensible mosaic.

And civil-rights wise, we have to try to ensure that any changes we make preclude temptations to use this information for open-ended witch hunts into activities unrelated to terrorism.

My sense is that some are trying to make a hard sell on the idea that criticism is not worthwhile because it encourages our enemy. Like I said, there's some validity, but there's also some partisan advantage to be gained in stifling criticism. My attitude is that we ought to be able to take it, sort out the inflammatory rhetoric,digest the remainder, and take advantage of it.

If I have to choose between risking encouragement to our enemies or risking the self-corrective nature of criticism in a democracy, I'd lean towards letting our enemies think what they want of messy examination, and then showing them they were wrong to take heart. Your mileage may vary, of course.

My problem isn't with the commission or its purpose per se, my problem is with its timing and who is on it. By all rights, it should have been done two years ago or should be done AFTER the election. It should also be seated with completely independent NON-congressional members who won't bring political baggage with them.

We KNOW what went wrong -- the various bureaus were too busy competing with each other to willingly share vital information and that "wall" that was mentioned prevented law enforcement from being able to work effectively with the investigative bureaus. Let's address that problem and forget who's to blame!

Heather: Yup, I agree 99% But let's not entirely dismiss that "wall." The wall should have doors and windows. But there's a reason why that wall exists in some form.

In a nutshell, when national security is at risk, we're willing to compromise on things like wiretaps and digging up dirt and so on. Few people like it, but few have made especially compelling arguments against the notion that when our national security is at risk, we sometimes have to do what we have to do.

So we hold intelligence gatherers in the CIA and NSA etc to a lower standard, sometimes in statute and sometimes tacitly by not looking much askance. Now the point here in sharing info with the FBI is counter-terrorism. Not other things that the FBI is also interested in. That's what I was talking about when I mentioned the idea of some safeguards to preclude open-ended witch-hunting by the FBI. And I have no specific ideas on this point. I'm only saying that it's definitely worth keeping in mind. As you know, I'm a little less trusting than you regarding whether this troubles John Ashcroft at all.

Don't agree.
The country gave Bush and crew a pass due to the attack. Country needs to see and hear the questions asked.

Too many attorneys involved and thus, too much hot air passed, which caused this gross negligence of 9/11. Meanwhile, Condi Rice Pin-head Dope (or Piled higher and Deepr take your pick as to term) )was head of Nation Sec Council. Am on record and to Commission: Dirs, cheif assts., to Supervisors should lose 2/3 of pensions. If not now, when? There is absolutely no genuine personal responbility faced any more in this country. The overgrowth of yuppies and their effects bothers me greatly. Greatly.

Zell Miller says a lot of outright kooky and Either-Or things. By the way, is he another of the Chicken-hawks? Sorry, no comparisn with respect for MCCain.

Chicken-hawks as in Cheny and crowd, all the talk radio hosts , and media types blatherings.

Am on record: that all must be in national service for privilege of citiznship. That would change boondoggling decisions also.

Janus

Janus, since you view the 9/11 attacks as due to gross negligence, perhaps you can direct us to your pre-9/11 writings voicing serious concern about this negligence.

Or if instead, your judgement of negligence is 100% based on hindsight, you'll admit this.

Since you're so keen on continually suggesting that Ms. Rice is inept and unqualified, perhaps you can point out to us the many specific instances, where, in her role as nationally security advisor she in fact HAS been grossly inept. I myself am unaware of such instances.

bk, that's a layup. Janus is a dork, but really - I'll put words in his mouth.

"I'm not the National Security Advisor. If I was, I would have connected the dots. I would have had the country on a higher alert status after Aug 6, 2001. I would have been woried about terrorists hijacking planes and using them to trade for captured prisoners. I would have hightened alerts at airports and ports, and I would have been pushing for us to take more serious intelligence gathering efforts. I might have doubled Air Marshals.

Now, I might have failed. I might not have caught box cutters. Perhaps the Air Marshals wouldn't have been on the planes. But, I didn't see the Aug 2001 briefing untill April 2004, so unless you have a time machine, I can't talk about my response to a memo about Bin Ladin wanting to, among other things, hijack airplanes, except in hindsight.

Perhaps, after I hightened alerts, some random agent doing surveilance on a florida flight school graduate would have marked a report with super-double-plus urgent, and we would have paid him a visit. Perhaps after some quality questioning, he might have broken. Perhaps just the visit would throw off the plans. Who knows. It's really too bad I wasn't in charge, and wasn't in possession of the PDB back then. If I was, I'll tell you that my September 11th planned speech wouldn't be about Star Wars.

Finally, when called to the table about what I might have done differntly, I never would have lied. I never would have said that "There really was nothing that looked like it was going to happen inside the United States," when I had a May 2001 report that said that Bin Ladin operatives were planing to infiltrate the US to carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives. I never would have said that the previous adminstration didn't pass on a plan if they had passed on a list of actionable items, otherwise known as a plan. I never would have said that I bolstered activites to track and sieze assets before 9/11 if I hadn't provided any additional funding for the National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center. I never would have said that I armed predators for actions against al-Qaida before 9/11 if I never actually launched an armed Predator before 9/11. I never would have said that I increased counterterrorism activies before 9/11, if I proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism. That's just me.

You believe that Rice should be held solely or primarily responsible for not doing the things that hindsight now tells all of us should have been done. Gee, if only we all had the prescience to respond optimally to every scrap of evidence sugggestive that something bad might occur.

No basket.

You want to know something? I hope my government has the "prescience to respond optimally to everything." A failure to do so is a failure.

Finally, you didn't read a word I wrote. There was evidence that Bin Ladin wanted to do something bad, but we were all hyped up about Star Wars. Failure.

No basket.

You want to know something? I hope my government has the "prescience to respond optimally to everything." A failure to do so is a failure.

I'll remember you said that. I'm sure such views win you many friends.

Your mileage may vary of course, but I don't lose much sleep because the government or anyone else lacks the prescience to respond optimally.

We had evidence that "Bin Laden wanted to do something
bad." OK, now I'm shocked. You're right. We should have immediately responded with full force ordering all available agents to " do something good."

Thanks for the laugh.

Must state that resent the ridiculous personal name calling from two.

You'd be surprised what smart and savvy type people knwor figure out and/or were yelling about ...

Most likely, hit a nerve due to paper professionals, yuppies and their offspring, and effects in this country. And, have seen enough in real life to know the the effects. Savvy and smart people can recognize the same and get my respect.

Janus

I also know of some key insider screw-ups.

BUT, WHAT YOU ARE SENSING IS MY DISGUST FOR a country of princes and princess lifestyles,
soft people and excesses, and layered self-serving complexities. Professionals who want to control other people's lives and restrict adult Americans from taking charge of their own lives and solving on their own. For example, as in a time-wasting, costly court system; too many accountants taxing schemes vs. what know are better ways to handle; 80% of univ programs and profs vs. can you not read? etc. etc.

Janus

Well, ya can't argue with that!