WP: Blame Game Goes Largely Unplayed

[kskiska]

Wednesday, March 24, 2004; Page A01

If blame is the Washington sport, then Day One of the new round of 9/11 commission hearings was structured like the Super Bowl.

Witnesses alternated through the day between Clinton administration leaders and their Bush administration counterparts, covering turf marked off by Richard A. Clarke, counterterrorism chief under both presidents. In a book published this week, Clarke kicked off the blame game by charging that President Bush did too little to fight al Qaeda before the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the players did not clash. Despite some sniping and testiness, the surprising theme was unity.

(snip)

The witnesses portrayed themselves as handcuffed by the many sanctions Congress piled up against Pakistan as punishment for its nuclear bomb program and a military coup. The path to bin Laden ran through the Taliban, the explanation went, and the Taliban was friendly with Pakistan. "An unbelievable number of sanctions" left Bill Clinton and George W. Bush without leverage, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage growled, in a voice like a garbage disposal with a spoon caught in it.

(snip)

Gayle Goodman, a citizen from Broward County, Fla., was waiting, not for blame but to visit her senators in support of Medicare funding and grants to nonprofit groups. She seemed surprised to learn that some in the line were headed to a hearing of a 9/11 commission.

"Is that still interesting?" she asked skeptically.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18974-2004Mar23.html

[DeepModem Mom]

1. kick

[radfringe]

2. blame game not played???

The witnesses portrayed themselves as handcuffed by the many sanctions Congress piled up against Pakistan as punishment for its nuclear bomb program and a military coup.

sounds like they are blaming congress to me

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. kick

*

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. I'm sorry, but there is blame here. Powell tried to deflect it:

This powerpoint presentation was given to Powell:

"It was Dec. 20, 2000, and one of the PowerPoint slides prepared by Clarke reportedly said of the terrorists, "They're here" in the United States. "

This is was Powell said:

"At the time that he gave me the briefing, I was not the secretary of state, this administration was not in office," Powell answered. "If they were aware that al Qaeda representatives were already in the country running around . . . why hadn't they done something while they were preparing the PowerPoint presentation?"

Er...Powell, does the concept of transition team meeting mean anything to you? He was being briefed in preparation of the new assignment and he's saying that it doesn't count? Is he nuts!!!

What was Powell expecting the Clinton Administration to do? Was he expecting Clinton to do to Bush II what Bush I did to Clinton with Black Hawk down? Isn't that what happened in Somalia? Bush I imposed a military action which the Clinton Administration had to honor with deadly results.

Powell can't have it both way. The Bush Administration WERE given a process which they chosed to ignore. The Clinton Administration, since it was the outgoing administration, was in no position to do anything more forceful, otherwise things could have turned out for Bush II as they did in the case of Somalia.

[salin]

5. Bingo!

On my commute yesterday I heard an this excerpt from Powell's testimony. Thought the same thing.

Also wondered why no one brought up (or at least it wasn't excerpted) the fact that the Bushteam created their "own approach" which included putting Cheney in charge of the efforts. Cheney never had a single meeting (too busy with that Energy Task Force, I guess) - even after all of the increased chatter. Or that the FBI and DOJ lowered the priority of terrorism ala budget priorities (that is - where the dept puts its resources, manpower, etc.) from that of the Clinton admin., to the point where in Ashcroft's budget (submitted, I believe, in early September) didn't even have counter-terrorism in the top ten budget items.

The briefing and attempts to pass information on, was there. The documentable actions of the Administration demonstrate a lack of paying attention.

Finally, I heard Rumsfeld state that for the DOD to have taken action that could have had an effect on 9-11 would have needed to begin "months and months and months" in advance.... sorta like.. the plans drawn up and ignored by Clark. But he leaves out that last part and makes it sound like a Clinton admin problem (even with the gratuitous... "lobbing a few bombs wouldn't be effective" comment... again ignoring the entire work of Clark, Berger, etal.)

He stupidly even replayed Condi's theme of "we could never have known that airplanes would be used as missles"... but at least that was shot down by a commissioner (was listening and didn't hear WHO was shooting it down)... who replayed all of the places where intel was present that suggested just that possibility.

They are spinning wildly.

I just fear that the public isn't listening, doesn't want to listen (because then they have to confront the idea that people elected to protect us chose to ignore and leave us unprotected... and I think that shatters the image held of what our govt - whether it be dem or repub - represents... and denial is easier), and won't hear. Thus the image of teambush as "keeping us safe" - despite the mounting contrary evidence - will not penetrate the public psyche.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Deferring national security to Cheney makes those energy meetings

all that more important. We need to understand what those energy plans involved that may have interfered with an early implementation of counter-terrorism measures. Is it possible that Cheney shut our radar off in order to allow his business cronies more accessibility to countries which had been sanctioned before?

I think we have a right to know.

[salin]

7. Without a question... did you see the ironic call for Bader-Ginsberg

to recuse herself from any SC cases per abortion, because she was to speak at a conference that had NOW as a cosponsor... while Scalia scoffs at the calls for recusal after going duck hunting with Cheney on a trip paid for by an Energy Co exec also involved in the energy paper cases... chutzpah. These folks, including "sometimes it is okay to lie to the American people" top US Govt Lawyer (solicter general) Ted Olsen, are the embodiment of Machievelli.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Criminey!

When did Ted Olson say that!

On edit: If we had to recuse Supreme Court Justices based on the audience they speak to, then Scalia would not be allowed to rule on any issues that are conservative.

[TahitiNut]

9. Olson said that in arguing before the Supreme Court

The United States Government's top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests.

"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.

"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
http://www.rangeguide.net/fedlies.htm

Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court can be accessed at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html


On edit: Olson made the first remark in Christopher v. Harbury (argued on 03/18/02). (I don't find the second remark.) The transcript of oral arguments can be found at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/18apr20021445/www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/01-394.pdf

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Omigod!

How did I miss that? It would explain why Cheney and Bush are such liars!

[salin]

10. sometimes one has to wonder

if in the convoluted conservative networks if one hand ever realizes what the other twenty hands are doing. You point out a great inconsistency.

Would have to search on Olsen, but yes, he said that.

[goclark]

12. Wife in plane on 911

Isn't that the Ted Olsen?

[salin]

13. The same... and the Arkansas Project, Ted Olsen

who worked with the Scaiffe funded operation that dug up and manufactured stories about Clinton, not worrying about any truth, under the credo of "if you throw enough sh*t against the wall... some of it is bound to stick". That Ted Olsen.

[TahitiNut]

14. As an ethnic Norwegian, I must point out that it's spelled "Olson".

:evilgrin:

[salin]

15. As an ethnic Norwegian,

I should have known that ;-)

[TahitiNut]

16. Yup. We don't want to claim him, right?

(We'll leave him to the Swedes.) :evilgrin:

[saigon68]

20. We don't want him either (the Swedes)

I'm Swedish, and he associates with War Criminals

[bain_sidhe]

17. "at the time he gave me the briefing...

"I was not the secretary of state, this administration was not in office," Powell answered."

Hubby says that sounds like one of his students, wailing that "but you didn't tell me it was going to be on the test!"

On a more depressing note...

"Is that still interesting?" she asked skeptically.

Oh. My. :scared:

[a_random_joel]

18. What about the Plame game?

Who's to blame?

[JoFerret]

19. For now

perhaps. But the Bush Avenge at any price team are cranked up