posted on June 13, 2002 05:58:45 PM new
NY Times 6/13/02
A Closer Look
By BOB HERBERT
Eventually, almost certainly, a distinguished bipartisan commission will be convened to examine the conditions that led to the catastrophe of Sept. 11.
The Bush administration doesn't want this. And Republicans in Congress are fighting to prevent it. But it will happen.
The American public remains largely in the dark about the terrorist threat that is still out there, and the nation's preparedness to deal with it. The periodic terror-related announcements by top Bush administration officials often seem calculated not to educate or to illuminate, but rather to frighten the public and intimidate the political opposition.
That is not acceptable in a free society. Despite the preferences of the administration, which likes to operate behind closed doors with the windows shut and the shades drawn, the public has a right to more information, not less. A thoroughly independent, non-Congressional inquiry is essential.
And that sentiment was poignantly expressed this week by a group of women whose husbands were lost in the World Trade Center attack. They traveled to Washington for a round of meetings and demonstrations in an effort to build support for an independent investigation. "It's not about politics," said one of the women, Kristen Breitweiser of Middletown, N.J. "It's about doing the right thing. It's about the safety of the nation."
The calls for such an inquiry are coming with more frequency.
"History will demand an independent inquiry," former Senator Gary Hart told me in an interview last week. "We might as well get on with it and do it properly."
Mr. Hart was co-chairman, along with former Senator Warren Rudman, of a special commission on national security that warned as recently as the spring of 2001 that the United States was becoming increasingly vulnerable to attack by terrorists and other hostile groups. The commission concluded that sometime in the first quarter of the 21st century "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
Mr. Hart said that in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy, "The amazing thing to me is how little demand there has been by the public for information. The assumption seems to be that everything's being taken care of."
Part of the problem has been the success the administration has had in managing the news and keeping fears of terror at a heightened pitch. Every time serious criticism of the nation's preparedness begins to emerge, the administration tries to trump it with some terror warning or some big new antiterror initiative.
Gone are the days when a Franklin Roosevelt would try to defuse an economic panic by cautioning a nation against the fear of fear itself. Or when a Winston Churchill would rally a war-stricken nation by proclaiming, "We shall not flag or fail."
Instead we have Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" saying another attack on the U.S. by Al Qaeda is "almost certain." And we have the director of the F.B.I., Robert Mueller, telling a gathering of district attorneys that suicide bombings like those in Israel are "inevitable" on American soil.
It's a peculiar leadership strategy that depends for its success on routinely scaring the heck out of the population.
The government-induced anxiety was ratcheted way up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's insistence that terrorists "inevitably will get their hands" on weapons of mass destruction, which include chemical, biological and nuclear arms.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Now what can we do about that?
An independent inquiry would give us a better understanding of the various threats (including some reasonable sense of their likelihood), and would let the nation know how prepared (or ill prepared) we are to meet them. A proper inquiry would not be sensational or political. It would be a learning process. The commission would thoroughly examine what happened and what went wrong in the weeks, months and years leading up to Sept. 11, and it would assess our current readiness to deal with the continuing threat.
It would build confidence, ease fears and provide a blueprint for the prevention of future attacks. It would also, as Mr. Hart pointed out, establish "as clear and factual a contemporary record as we can possibly get."
This has to happen. So why not sooner rather than later?
posted on June 13, 2002 06:53:06 PM new
Herbert's summation in the last 3 paragraphs is very well done. The president is playing political football with our national security. In fact, it would almost seem that he is pushing toward domestic confrontation.
posted on June 13, 2002 07:07:03 PM new
This piece was refreshing and inspirational, particularly in light of that it was in the NY Times.
I think I had 15 nervous breakdowns between 9-11 and a month or so ago when the loose box of beads started to be pulled together on a string and I was able to say, "Wait a minute..."
posted on June 13, 2002 07:24:58 PM newAntiquary, Oh I don't think so.
Of course there should be an inquiry. We'll examine all the loopholes in the FBI/CIA. But who exactly do you suggest investigate the most secret areas of our information-gathering? Greenpeace, maybe?
What will an inquiry prove? Either people will believe that the government was inept and should have known, or else they will believe the government is taking away their civil rights.
Terrorism is real, not a political invention by Bush. There has been enough evidence to show that a plot existed to detonate a radiation bomb. If recent events aren't a wake-up call, what more do you need?
posted on June 13, 2002 07:28:50 PM new
The point, twinsoft, is not whether or not terrorism is real. No one has asserted that it isn't. You are arguing that point with yourself.
posted on June 13, 2002 07:43:15 PM new
>>Terrorism is real, not a political invention by Bush. There has been enough evidence to show that a plot existed to detonate a radiation bomb. If recent events aren't a wake-up call, what more do you need?<<
posted on June 13, 2002 08:51:07 PM new
Antiquary, you are too easily trolled. You're like a puppet on a string. *Yawn* Why do I even debate with a pea-brain like you?
I keep repeating it because people ACT like it isn't real. That f*cker was caught flying back and forth to Afghanistan, with the bomb plans IN HIS POCKET and people are whining about his CIVIL RIGHTS? C'mon, you're being absurd.
posted on June 13, 2002 09:13:21 PM new"It's a peculiar leadership strategy that depends for its success on routinely scaring the heck out of the population."
Funny, how, in our disccussions here in the RT, so many people like to label US as Alarmists!
posted on June 13, 2002 09:15:12 PM new
If you look at the FACTS - not suppositions about what he may or may not have been planning - they shos a very real and present danger.
What I find interesting is the way the media continues to downplay the seriousness of the radiation bomb. This article does the same:
"Mr Ashcroft also appeared to overstate the likely impact of such a bomb, saying it could cause 'mass death and injury'. Experts assured jittery Americans that the number of deaths would probably be small, and that the greatest impact would be panic."
What do you classify as mass death and what is small? Several thousand killed with a bunch of nuclear waste floating around in the air seems pretty serious to me.
posted on June 13, 2002 09:22:30 PM new
Well, you better inform the Whitehouse, twinsoft, cause the article is quoting the administration. Here it is in another publication if you need to read it again.
It was all over the news. I'm surprised that you missed it.
twinsoft, I'm afraid that you're just reacting to propaganda. It's a pity that such an intelligent person as yourself, who has thoughtfully contributed so much to the content of the RT, can be done in by these fear tactics perpetrated by the Bush Regime to make people think just what you do.
posted on June 13, 2002 10:00:41 PM new
Alas, you're quoting me USA Today? No disinformation there LOL!
The results of such a bomb are quantitative. That is, we know how much damage it will do. As I said, it find the government's QUALITATIVE analysis a little disturbing. As in, "a radiation bomb is no big deal, folks."
posted on June 13, 2002 10:17:24 PM new
Sorta like Ronald Reagan's claim that we could withstand a nuclear war, calling it "a Survivable Nuclear Exchange"? Remember that one? He HORRIFIED the entire Planet with that comment!
Remember also, speaking of R.R., when at that ball game, he leaned over the microphone and said, [paraphrased] "The Missiles are launching, the missiles are on their way . . . testing . . . is this thing on?"
posted on June 13, 2002 11:14:29 PM new
Alas, the administration chose USA TODAY to break the story of the initial exaggerated reports and you'll find it in many publications which picked it up if you wish to check. All of the events surrounding this incident have been covered in another thread. Reading it will give you background in understanding this specific issue with Abdullah Al Myhajir.
posted on June 14, 2002 08:31:14 AM newI keep repeating it because people ACT like it isn't real. That f*cker was caught flying back and forth to Afghanistan, with the bomb plans IN HIS POCKET and people are whining about his CIVIL RIGHTS? C'mon, you're being absurd.
And you got this misinformation from what Limbaugh-type dittohead wannabe? Or did you just make it up? Even Ashcroft and the government administration admits Padilla had NOTHING on him.
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
posted on June 14, 2002 08:32:37 AM new
People think the government is lying, but they believe an obvious bit of government PROPAGANDA attributed to "expert sources." What a bunch of sheep! And now the government is trying to convince everyone that a nuclear attack is not a serious threat? Hello!?
posted on June 14, 2002 08:56:39 AM new
Helen, thanks for the link. I especially liked this line: "Young families also are moving in from the suburbs because the city's fortunes are looking up -- if you set aside the terrorism thing."
posted on June 14, 2002 09:34:53 AM new
Nycyn
1/8?
That is a misleading statement and I would have edited it out. . Some families may move to DC because it's cheaper than living in the suburbs. Every social benefit in that city is inferior to those found in the suburbs. Most young people with children and an average income would not move there because of inferior schools and crime.
posted on June 14, 2002 10:35:17 AM new
We must all learn to overlook twinsoft's unbridled child-like enthusiasm since it stems from his recent rebirth into faith-based government. Ashcroft has accepted him as a protege with attendance at power-prayer breakfasts of coffee and holy rolls, tutorials on speaking in forked tongues, and even access to the methods of gathering information through divine inspiration. How else can he become expert in these heady new avenues to government power than availing himself of every opportunity to practice them? He's been earnestly working to perfect them for some time and I for one, only wish him the best in realizing his full potential.
