| Articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What a Difference a Day Makes | In-Depth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Special to The Dubya Report Updated June 20, 2002 On Tuesday, May 14, it was only a question of dubious fund-raising practices. "The president called for the nation to rise above politics after Sept. 11, and then we find the Republican Party selling a picture from Sept. 11 to $150 donors," Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics told the New York Times. "It strikes a lot of people as in bad taste, and is just at odds with two claims of the Bush administration: that they were going to change the tone of fund-raising, and that Sept. 11 wasn't about politics." Noble's comments came as Republican party officials revealed they were hawking a photograph of Dubya on the phone to Vice President Dick Cheney -- or "his adult supervisor" in Maureen Dowd's words -- shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Coming on the same day that Republicans broke political fundraising records with their last grasp at unregulated donations before the new restrictions on campaign financing kick in, the picture-peddling momentarily eclipsed reports by the New York Post and Newsweek that an FBI agent in Minneapolis had speculated in mid-August that French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui might be planning to "fly something into the World Trade Center." Then on Wednesday night, CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reported that Bush had been warned that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network might hijack U.S. passenger planes. As Washington Post media watcher Howard Kurtz remarked, the "Bush Knew" story "promises to make the fundraising flap over the use of that Bush photo on Air Force One look like a tea party." "Specially commissioned, individually numbered and matted, this limited edition series is yours free for serving as an honorary co-chairman of the 2002 President's Dinner with your gift of $150 or more, " read the letter to potential Republican contributors. Democrats and others objected that for months any wavering from the Bush party line on terrorism was branded by the administration as unpatriotic, while now they were blatantly attempting to exploit the terrorist attacks for their own partisan purposes. An exchange between ABC News reporter Terry Moran and press secretary Ari Fleischer, at the May 14 press briefing: Q ...You say that these are pictures of the President doing his job for the American people. On 9/11, that job was one of those moments where he's acting not as a Republican or the leader of his party, but as the Commander-in-Chief, at a moment when he's the focus of the hopes and fears in the country. Why isn't he concerned that now selling this photograph to raise money for Republicans could undermine something that he frequently says, which is that the war and its prosecution and the commitment to it should be above and beyond partisan politics. Why isn't he concerned that deploying this photograph for partisan politics undermines that? Nita Lowey, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, called the mailing "a shameless fundraising ploy. ... They have chosen to politicize the tragic events of Sept. 11." Bill Maher, host of the ABC late-night talk show "Politically Incorrect" quipped, "It's the inaugural photo that is exploiting a tragedy." At last year's big fund-raiser Bush pledged to change the tone in Washington and end "excessive partisanship." The fund-raising memento was not the first time Bush exploited the September 11 events for personal or partisan political benefit. Bush's visit to the World Trade Center site on September 14 interrupted work on the site for hours, at a time when survivors might still have been pulled from the building wreckage. As reported by NPR's Jim Zarroli on the program All Things Considered for September 14: ... volunteers were told to get new identification cards so they could get past police barricades along Canal Street. One construction worker who has been at the site for three days complained that the requirement took valuable time away from the rescue. "They pulled everybody out, hundreds of people digging in the rubble, passing buckets, passing buckets, bringing the dogs in, bringing the radar with the sonar, and they stopped the whole operation to send people over to some street, to a company -- Bovis -- to get ids, because they want tight security so the President can come. Makes no sense at all. I'm aggravated, man. I'll see you later." With the CBS News report on May 15, the media and critics turned to the question of whether anything more than incompetence had prevented the administration from discerning a connection among repeated warnings of terrorist attacks. The White House admitted that intelligence reports received last summer suggested the possibility of attacks against the U.S., perhaps involving a hijacking. For the first time in months, Democrats began to question White House handling of the war on terror. Some family members of those killed in the attacks, and even some Republicans expressed concern and anger that the government had not passed along specific warnings to the public. Stephen Push, whose wife was killed aboard the American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon, said "I think it's shameful that they didn't warn the American people." Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, complained about the delay in releasing information. "The fact that they've waited this long to get it out is troubling." Republicans and Democrats disagreed as to whether members of congress had received the information contained in the White House briefing. Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the intelligence committee said that he and Democratic colleagues had been provided with less detail than was in the White House briefing, and that no information about hijackings was included. Some members of the House and Senate intelligence committees said that they had not been informed at all. A brief review of some relevant events from last year: On June 28, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet wrote in an intelligence summary for National Security Adviser Rice, "It is highly likely that a significant al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks." A senior White House official is told the Washington Post that Tenet "repeated this so often that people got tired of hearing it." Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's top counter-terrorism official, was concerned enough about an imminent terrorist attack that he called representatives of a dozen federal agencies together in the White House situation room on July 5, 2001. "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon," he said, according to two officials present at the meeting, who spoke recently to the Washington Post. Agencies in attendance included the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service. Clarke ordered every counterterrorism office to cancel vacations, defer travel and exercises, and put rapid-response teams on shorter alert. The government's entire counterterrorism infrastructure was placed on the highest state of alert. Five days later the Phoenix office of the FBI transmitted a five-page document to headquarters, reporting a connection between suspected Middle Eastern terrorists and the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona. The report suggested that the FBI investigate flight schools for information on other Middle Eastern students, and speculated that Osama bin Laden might be training agents to infiltrate the aviation industry. On July 26, CBS news reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft had quietly begun traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines. An FBI spokesman told CBS "There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," but would not specify what the threat was. Likewise, a CIA official said he was not aware of "specific threats against any Cabinet member." Ashcroft himself was evasive. "I don't do threat assessments myself and I rely on those whose responsibility it is in the law enforcement community, particularly the FBI. And I try to stay within the guidelines that they've suggested I should stay within for those purposes." The FAA was still urging U.S. airlines to maintain a "high degree of alertness" on July 31. Bush received his now notorious briefing -- "not a warning briefing, but an analytic report," according to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice -- on August 6. By then, scarcely a month later, the Richard Clarke's high alert had apparently waned. Plans for combating Al Qaeda were still mired in an interagency policy review panel where they had languished for half a year. It would be another month before Bush's cabinet-level advisers would have their first meeting on terrorism, one week before the September 11 attacks. By September 11 all the FAA heightened alert levels had been dropped. In her news conference Thursday, May 16, National Security Adviser Rice emphasized that intelligence officials had been focused on threats to U.S. interests overseas. She also took pains to clarify that, although the August 6 report "mentioned hijacking, but hijacking in the traditional sense, and in a sense, said that the most important and most likely thing was that they would take over an airliner, holding passengers and demand the release of one of their operatives." Earlier in the day, press secretary Ari Fleischer had strained to imply that the use of airplanes as suicide bombs was a new development in the history of terrorism. information about hijackings in the pre-9/11 world is totally different from information about hijackings in the post-9/11 world. Traditional hijackings prior to September 11th, it might as well be a different word and a different language from what we've all, unfortunately, come to know about the post-9/11 world. For decades, governments have taken steps about warnings on hijackings. Never did we imagine what would take place on September 11th, where people used those airplanes as missiles and as weapons. Fleischer told reporters that the title of the August 6 memo was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States," consistent with the implication that the primary threat was to U.S. interests abroad. On May 18, however, the Washington Post reported that memo was actually titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and "underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to 'bring the fight to America.'" Sources told the Post that the document focused on possible domestic targets of terrorism, including a discussion of plans for attacking Los Angeles airport during the 2000 millennium celebration, and noted that Al Qaeda members were known to live and travel in the U.S. The Post also reported the existence of a document prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress in 1999 for the National Intelligence Council, a CIA-related think tank. The report contradicted Rice's assertion that no one "could have predicted that these people . . . would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." The WTC bombing may also have been a harbinger of more destructive attacks of international terrorism in the United States....Counterterrorism officials had been aware of terrorist plans to crash airliners into civilian targets since 1986.
Incompetence "remains the most plausible explanation for the Bush administration's failure to prevent the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001," says Joe Conason in his recent piece for Salon.com The conspiracy, he suggests, was and is the administration's efforts to conceal its "tragic errors" from Congress and the public. Mainstream media widely reported a call from Dick Cheney to Tom Daschle, in January after Democrats gained control of the Senate, urging Daschle to limit the investigation of the events of September 11. Bush reiterated the request in a private meeting with congressional leaders on January 29. Reports at the time suggested Cheney characterized such an investigation as partisan interference with the "war on terrorism." FBI Director Mueller said on September 17, 2001 that "there were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country." It now appears that both he and possibly Attorney General Ashcroft had been told of the Phoenix report "soon after the attacks." "Republicans have repeatedly claimed that the former administration was less diligent in guarding America against such attacks than Mr Bush," observes The Economist of London. Recent revelations, they suggest, makes it clear this is "a broad libel against Bill Clinton." Intelligence officials who worked for both administrations told the Economist that "this is rubbish." Security adviser Rice and like-minded members of the Bush administration were "much more concerned about missile treaties than obscure Afghans." The Economist goes on to suggest that "one reason why Mr Bush kept George Tenet, the CIA 's director, in his job after the worst intelligence failure since Pearl Harbour was because Mr Tenet could have pointed out that Mr Bush was no better than Mr Clinton). But this has more to do with public relations than with what really went wrong." The White House response to widespread criticism of its handling of terrorism intelligences has been to increase the volume of warnings. Speaking on NBC News' Meet the Press on May 19, Dick Cheney reiterated vague warnings. We don’t know if it’s going to be tomorrow or next week or next year.... But the prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real.... [B]ut again, it’s non-specific.The next day FBI Director Robert Mueller told a group of local prosecutors meeting in Alexandria, VA, "There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it." These statements were followed by a flurry of "non-specific" warnings concerning mass transit, cultural monuments, apartment buildings, civilian aircraft, and nuclear power plants. A "senior administration official with knowledge of U.S. intelligence and White House strategy" acknowledged to the Associated Press that the warnings were politically motivated. The current warnings are "designed to give Americans better notice and protect Bush against second guessing in the event of another attack...." A "top White House aide" described a two-pronged political response to the recent criticism: (1) accuse Democrats of playing politics with the issue, and (2) remind voters that America is still a target. Officials admitted that while discussion of an attack had increased in the intelligence community, it was likely because of "increased U.S. access to documents and terrorist suspects — or that terrorists are disseminating false information." The key players in the administration's current defensive maneuvering -- Rice, Cheney, Fleischer -- were among those who insisted for weeks that Bush's flight from Washington was justified by a "credible threat" that Al Qaeda's hijacked jets would attack Air Force One. Gullible journalists, including, notably, William Safire, happily promoted this falsehood, until it was finally exposed by the Associated Press and CBS News. At a minimum, administration critics inside and outside the beltway now have ample justification for re-examining "many of the events of last year ... for further evidence of what the Bush administration knew or should have known."
Portions of the chronology table are derived from CNN.com "Timeline: Events Leading Up to 9/11." |
· Competence, Character and Credibility |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also Coleen Rowley's memo, and The Dubya Report special reports: Homeland Insecurity: Counterterrorism Myths and Failures, Terrorism Update, and Family Affair: The Bushes and the Bin Ladens, especially the section on the current administration |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | Dubya Talk | The Record | Family Ties | The Money Trail | Topiary | In Depth | Search |
© 2001, 2002 Clark Kee