by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 10, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

estifying under oath before the Sept. 11 commission, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice strongly defended White House actions. Mandated to explain abysmal security lapses before Sept. 11 and to make recommendations about how to avoid future problems, the commission watched Rice blame intelligence failures on “structural” problems at the CIA and FBI, government agencies responsible for global intelligence and interstate law enforcement. “There was no silver bullet,” said Rice, denying she had advance warnings about possible terrorist attacks before Sept. 11. Immediately after 9/11, Rice acted flabbergasted, telling the press that using commercial jets as missiles was “unthinkable” despite past warnings. Yet, a partially declassified Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S,” presents a different picture.

      Rice dismissed the PDB as a “historical” document, distinguishing it from actual threat assessments, where specific persons, places and times were attached to verified threats. Commission co-chair and former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Keane asked Rice to have the entire briefing declassified, to fully inform the pubic about its contents. While initially opposing Rice's testimony, the White House wanted to contain political fallout from former counterterrorrism chief Richard A. Clarke who said the White House was fixated on Saddam Hussein not Osama bin Laden. Rice mounted a spirited yet highly guarded defense. When responding to Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, Rice got rattled when asked to name the title of the Aug. 6 PDB. While no smoking gun, the Aug. 6 PDB suggests the White House knew more than previously acknowledged.

      Despite the importance of the commission's work, Rice's testimony demonstrated unwanted partisanship during a hotly contested election year. Republicans conducted only direct examination, rehabilitating Rice when she looked rattled and defensive. Rice portrayed the White House as a victim of institutional inertia, blaming failures on “structural” problems at the CIA and FBI. While a clever tactic, Rice sidestepped her feckless response to gathering threats during the summer before Sept. 11. Three simultaneously hijackings showed unbelievable laxity in the nation's airport security. Not once did she order beefed up security at the nation's major airports. It was, after all, effective security at New York's JFK airport that thwarted the potentially fourth hijacking. Few commissioners asked the tough questions needed to explain security failures on Sept. 11.

      Rice shifted attention onto the wrong question, namely, whether the White House could have prevented Sept. 11. On that score, most people agree stopping the attack was difficult. But the commission was supposed to ascertain whether Rice took reasonable steps in response to growing threats before 9/11. “It was historical information based on old reporting,” Rice told commissioners, refuting the idea that the Aug. 6 PDB contained any new threat information. Pointing fingers at “structural” problems at the CIA and FBI doesn't absolve Rice from writing memos, notifying important players and briefing the president. “This is a provocative piece of information and warrants further exploration as to what was done following the receipt of this information to enhance our domestic security,” said Ben-Veniste, rejecting Rice's assertion that the PDB was purely “historical.”

       Ben-Veniste never asked Rice whether she was vaccinated for anthrax on or before Sept. 11. If Rice and the White House top brass were vaccinated before 9/11, it would provide clear evidence that Rice indeed took some steps in response to warnings about possible terrorist attacks. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that top White House officials received anthrax vaccinations before Sept. 11, nearly six-weeks before an anthrax-laced letter arrived at Sen. Tom Daschle's office on Oct. 16, only five days before the first postal worker's death from anthrax poisoning. “The PDB backs up what Dr. Rice testified to. There is no smoking gun, not even a cold one,” said former Republican Illinois Gov. James R. Thomson, attesting to obvious partisanship on the commission. If Rice got vaccinated before Sept. 11, it would show she took some concrete steps to protect the White House.

      Partisanship on the Sept. 11 commission makes getting to the bottom of the nation's worst national security failure an impossible task. Republicans too easily ignore lapses at the National Security Agency, including the Aug. 6 PDB, clearly showing that the White House had some advance warning before Sept. 11. While mounting a credible defense, Rice stuck to her talking points, defended the White House and gave herself a pass. Either Rice doesn't get the role of National Security Advisor or the job has been reduced to a titular position. Giving President Bush 40 updates about Al Qaeda during the first eight-months in office, Rice should have sounded the alarm before Sept. 11. You don't need a “smoking gun” to figure out that Bin Laden should have been high on Rice's priority list. Pretending Sept. 11 was “unthinkable,” doesn't look good for the president's national security advisor.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColulmnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.