Commentary: The Passive Priority: National Security
Overlooked in the recent testimony of Condi Rice to the 9/11
Commission is exactly how passive the Bush Administration is when it
comes to our national security.
By Gerald S. Rellick
Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 commission surely ended
any doubt that George Bush and his national security team were
prepared to deal with the nation’s security in a manner that met even
the minimal requirements for the position of commander-in-chief.
Rice’s testimony was followed by the usual strained and
forced-sounding praise, such as Senate Intelligence Committee chair
Richard Shelby describing her as “very candid” and Gordon Liddy
announcing, “a star is born.” An article in the Los Angeles Times
claimed that Rice “delivered a powerful rebuttal…to critics who say
President Bush brushed off warnings of a major terrorist attack inside
the United States.” The article also cited “a presidential scholar
[who said] ‘She did a good job. She wasn't confrontational.’”
Did anyone really expect her to sound like a babbling fool, or to
break down and cry? After all, she’s been around Washington for a
number of years and is certainly no stranger to the TV news interview
shows.
John Nichols, writing in The Nation, is surely a lot closer to the
truth: “The national security adviser stayed on message, remained
reasonably composed and delivered her talking points about as ably as
a deputy press secretary.”
A more curious reaction came from Commission member, Bob Kerrey, who
was particularly tough with Rice in his questioning. Kerrey wrote a
few days later in a New York Times op-ed that Rice “gave a triumphal
presentation. She was a spectacular witness.” But then Kerrey went on
to criticize Rice and Bush indirectly by saying that “9/11 could have
been prevented, and our current strategy against terrorism is deeply
flawed.”
The same Los Angeles Times article that praised Rice in its opening
words also changed gears and delved into an analysis of Rice’s
testimony. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a media expert and professor at the
University of Pennsylvania, repeatedly emphasized Rice’s “passivity”
in responding to tough queries and Rice’s fallback to reference to
“structural problems.” Said Jamieson, “the concept of bureaucracy she
offers is essentially a passive, not an active concept… It can be true
that there is a structural problem, but that doesn't eliminate the
question of whether people within the structure could have done
something more.” The Times article ends on this same note, “Rice's
answers depicted an administration less in command of the government
than her composure and relaxed demeanor in the witness chair may have
implied.”
Passive indeed. Consider her remark, “If there was any reason to
believe that I needed to do something, I would have been expected to
be asked to do it. [But, I was] not asked to do it.” Or her appeal for
sympathy: “We were in office only 233 days.”
Here we have the national security adviser to the president of the
United States, testifying before the commission and the nation that
she was essentially waiting for someone to tell her what to do. Can
there be any doubt that George Bush was also more than a little
clueless and looking for a some guidance himself as he waded into this
new and complex field of national security?
John Nichols continues, “[F]or Rice, her testimony will be remembered
for a single exchange [when] Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste asked
Rice if she could recall the title of President Bush's daily briefing
(PDB) document for August 6, 2001, more than a month before Osama bin
Laden's network attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”
Rice fumbled with her response, obviously trying to avoid an answer.
But realizing she was under oath, she relented and answered, “I
believe the title was Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United
States.” Rice didn’t just believe this to be the title; she knew this
to be the almost exact title. The emphasis is important. Saying she
believed it to be the title of the PDB was a deliberate attempt to
downplay the significance of its obvious and devastating meaning. All
other attempts at escape and obfuscation by Rice effectively ended
here. Whatever credibility she had up to this point vanished.
All this begs the question: how long should we expect a new president
and his staff to effectively transition from the outgoing
administration on critical matters of national security? It is here
that the baton must be passed smoothly and efficiently. Other policy
matters can wait. How is the nuclear code information dealt with in
the transition? Surely, operational details such as these are handled
with the greatest care and exactness. If the U.S. is subject to a
nuclear attack one hour before inauguration time, who, then, decides
how to respond?
President Bush must have made Republicans wince when he held a short
exchange with the media the day after the PDB was released. With a
straight face, Bush said, “I'm satisfied that I never saw any
intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America
at a time and a place of an attack.” Not exactly an awe-inspiring
response from the commander-in-chief. This is about the same as saying
that if Osama bin-Laden had sent George Bush an email detailing the
time and place of the attack, Bush would have been sure to do
something about it. I hope Republicans are sleeping well tonight with
their “war president” in charge. The rest of us sure aren’t.
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked as scientist in the aerospace
industry for 22 years. He now teaches chemistry part-time in the
California Community College system.
.
|
