FACTS:
* the Administration could have stopped trying to de-emphasize terrorism in the months before 9/11;
* the Administration could have stopped trying to cut funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11;
* the Administration could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially during the major intelligence spikes occurring in the summer of 2001.
(9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. With better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made.")
WHY RICE REFUSES TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH:"Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress."
WHY SHE CAN AND SHOULD: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress...There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions...There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this."
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying "Our commission is sui generis...the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress." Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress."
Article comments
1 - Hal Pawluk
The only good sign I've seen so far is that a few Republicans are starting to realize that there's a distinct difference between being a Republican and just blindly following the neocons.
For example, the entire 9/11 Commission is asking that Condi testify before them, in public and under oath. Their position is that they were appointed by the President, not Congress.
Maybe common sense will take hold, after all.
2 - Shark
...a few Republicans are starting to realize that there's a distinct difference between being a Republican and just blindly following the neocons.
I think there's a line being drawn here that might delineate -- for Republicans -- something important for the future: anyone who values personal integrity has to start questioning the lies and distortions of this administration.
We'll see who wants to hang onto their soul and who wants to sell it to the devil by sticking to the party line at all costs.
(I have a feeling Satan is churning out receipts faster than Bush is churning out deficits.)