ABC B.S.

There have been several comments about the ABC "Path to 9/11" Miniseries, to this effect:

Rather Dan Ratherish, eh? Fake but accurate?

But there is a world of difference between a story that is true (where was the President in May through October of 1972? EVEN HE has not represented that he attended to his guard duties then) - but that used an unverifiable but content correct document that was potentially forged by a source other than the news station using it...

AND A STORY that presents critical content as true, that is not true, and which is created, produced and manufactured by the station itself.

There is more. Lot's more. And some of it may surprise you. And please keep in mind the very much non exaggerated last two letters of the title as you read on.

What Republican and hardly non partisan Commission Co-chair Thomas Kean was referring to with his "reasonably accurate," but still unacceptable, characterization, was the overall account by ABC.

With respect to the key incident implicating both Berger and Clinton directly, Kean spoke about as clearly as he could. It was a "fictionalized account," "representative of a series of events combined into one," different events that when framed in that one way, convey something with a completely different meaning than what actually happened.

This is the republican Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the number one and number two terrorism experts in the country, Clarke, and Roger Cressey -- the ones who had direct knowledge -- calling the ABC representation a fabrication.

NSA Sandy Berger, WHO MET PERSONALLY WITH CONDI RICE IN JANUARY, 2001, to warn her of the growing gravity of al-Qaeda and that her administration "would be spending most of their time dealing with al-Qaeda," also flatly contradicts it. As does anyone else with direct knowledge.

It is perhaps, in partisan terms, the most politically important part of the story. And it is fiction, presented as if fact. In other words, A LIE.

In essence, given that it presents critical events as fact, which, are, in fact, fiction, THE ABC STORY IS A LIE.

Another odd thing is the heavy negative emphasis on the Clinton administration, given the actual facts, as opposed to the spin and clear desire to believe otherwise:

Sure, criticism of the Clinton adminstration on this issue can be found, in hindsight. Just like "criticism can be found of the Bush Administration, in hindsight." Right?

Not exactly. Hindsight is 20/20. It doesn't make everything that happened when it happened, indicative of poor decision making at the time. It also doesn't do the opposite; that is, it doesn't render minimal focus on the issue as somehow rational because although we knew we are at great risk, in the words of President Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice both, "we did not know where,when, or how."

The facts are incontrovertible. The Clinton Administration paid far more attention to the al-Qaeda threat and to counterterrorism than the Bush Administration did. Here also are two broad instances in which republicans reigned in Clinton's efforts to expand anti terrorism efforts. More importantly, as Unclaimed Territory extensively and persuasively illustrates, there are no instances of the opposite.

The Clinton administration, although it did not always speak publicly about it, met and discussed strategy regarding al-Qaeda routinely, and when the threat levels were elevated or data or chatter otherwise indicated increased risk, addressed the issue almost daily. This never happened in the first eight months of the Bush Administration leading up to September 11, 2001. In fact, despite the compelling need, just the opposite occurred.

The fact is, again, that while in hindsight issue can certainly be taken, the Clinton administration focused more on terrorism than the Bush administration ever did. And it did so, even while both the threat, and our growing awareness of the threat -- particularly in the aftermath of two sweeping Commssion reports, the bombing of the USS Cole in the autum of 2000, and greatly increased intelligence chatter around and after the turn of the decade -- were all greater as the new administration came into office.

In fact, the republican head of one of those Commissions, the Chairman of the National Commision on Terrorism and subsequent Ambassador to Iraq, Paul Bremer, on February 26 of 2001 said of the Bush Administration, that it is "paying no attention" to the terrorism issue, and that "What they will do is stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.'"

"Oh my God" indeed. The Bush administration paid almost no attention to the issue. Even by Condi Rice's own 9/11 Commission testimony, testimony that in general was frequently contradicted by the facts, al-Qaeda was barely ever discussed in principals meetings on national security isssues.

A "comprehensive" speech on national security, prepared by then Bush Administration National Security Advisor Rice -- the same one warned by the previous NSA Sandy Berger that al-Qaeda was a vast and growing threat and to focus heavily on it -- to be delivered September 11, 2001, paid scant attention to the issue of sovereignless, international terrorism. It reportedly referenced the al-Qaeda threat in what would have amounted to a few seconds, in what was otherwise a speech projected to run upwards of 30 to 45 minutes.

And yet republicans still criticize not the Bush administration, but the Clinton Administration for its handling of the grave al-Qaeda issue, when the Clinton administration paid more direct attention to it, and specifically warned the incoming administration to pay even more attention to it. Not to mention the fact that they turned over to them and highlighted THIS document.

It reads, in part:

In order to implement the overall global strategy while undermining the ability of al-Qa'ida to utlize Afghanistan, CIA has prepared a program that focuses on eliminating it as a safe haven, disrupting the Mujahidin infrastructure that connects Afghanistan to the global network, and changing the operational environment inside of Afghanistan.

Or how's this for a "pre 9/11 mindset:"

The United States' goal is to reduce the al-Qida network to the point where it no longer poses a serious threat to our security or that of other governments...

Towards the end, the United States has developed a comprehenseive and coordinated strategy that employs a variet of tools, including; diplomacy, covert action, public informatino and media, law enforcement, intelligence collection, foreign assistance, financial regulation enforcement,and military means, to effect al-Qida to its core.

.
These Principles were adopted by the new administration. After September 11, 2001 (in the President's speech to the nation 9 days later). And have not been sufficiently pursued since as we over focus on Iraq - a country which was not one of the forty or so referenced in that same report as containing a terrorist cell structure in its midst.

Or consider THIS document, an urgent warning from counterterrorism head Richard Clarke in January of 2001, stating:

We urgently need a principals level review of the al-Qida network.

In the original, the word "urgently" is both underlined, and italicized.

Yet according to the Commission, despite repeated requests by Clarke, such a meeting -- just a few months in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole by al-Qaeda -- one urgently requested in the first few days of the incoming administration by the nation's counterterrorism czar, was not had until nearly eight months later.

A staff report, discussed at length in the 9/11 Commission Hearings, concluded, stunningly, that:

Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled.

No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the Deputies Committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on al Qaeda. The Principals Committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process. Rice and Hadley told us that although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the al Qaeda program, its policies on al Qaeda, quote, "had run out of gas,"

Apart from summary recitation of the need to "come up with a plan," such review that Ms. Rice in her testimony acknowledges was required, was simply never formalized and turned into a top down level focus on the problem.

And then there is of coure the August 6 PDB, delivered just before the President went on a nearly one month long vacation, that in its very title warned of the potential imminence of a strike. It is short, to the point, and very clear.

Yet, as Rice's speech scheduled for September 11 clearly shows (and which has been reported on but apparently never fully revealed, although evidence to the contrary would be welcomed), the issue still was simply not considered that important.

At the same time, there was intelligence information out there that agents were bringing in (let alone phone calls from flight schools asking about the oddity of new, foreign, Middle Eastern students asking to learn how to fly and not to land) that, because there was no top down focus, was routinely being ignored or dismissed.

And yet somehow, despite the clear fact that in the face of lesser imminent threat, and lesser (albeit growing) awareness of the severity of the threat, and the fact that the Clinton administration STILL paid more attention to this issue at almost every turn, this issue has been turned onto its head, and the glaring spotlight of monday morning quarterbacking, complete with history that as presented is simply made up, has of course, once again, been turned onto the Clinton administration.

The ABC film, despite being, in critical respects, a lie, has been called "pro-American." Pro American has become the new rhetoric for "Pro right wing republican." Just like Patriotism, quite the opposite of what it was in the Clinton administration, now means, "support rather than criticism of the current administration," rather than simple love of country and love of the principles and ideals for which it stands.

And ABC has become as complicit in this as anybody. Except for Fox, which is in a league of its own.

Tony Snow's Version of Reality

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's version of reality: "Earlier, speaking to reporters, Snow, continuing the administration's media focus on the war on terror, accused some in the Democratic Party of saying 'we shouldn't fight the war' and 'we shouldn't apprehend al-Qaeda' or even 'question al-Qaeda.'" [link]

What kind of world is this when the White House Press secretary can utter statements that push the boundaries of propaganda to the outer limits of creativity, and yet go unchallenged? How could Snow have mischaracterized even more egregiously; by stating that democrats rendezvous with aliens from pluto?

If by the first of the three quick quotes by Snow above, he is referring to the Iraq war, then yes, many democrats, some republicans, and a majority of Americans think that our efforts to transform Iraq -- a nation no more connected to al-Qaeda before the war than 40 other countries by the White House's own accounting -- have been counterproductive, poorly managed, and perhaps an ongoing mistake. That perception has little to do with al-Qaeda, as opposed to the view that our efforts in Iraq have not been properly framed, sold to the world, or managed; may not be able to play much of a role in how Iraq's warring ethnic factions play out; are diverting us from focusing on catching al-Qaeda and preventing a what is becoming a troubling resurgence of the al-Qaeda base operations and Taliban in Afghanistan; and enabling radical terrorist cell recruitment. It's a point of view.

But Snow's subsequent statements, that because of this, or because some democratic leaders (including many who would focus much more heavily on capturing al-Qaeda) have different ideas with respect to how best to minimize, root out, and eradicate this loose network of anti-Western terrorist cells that pose the real challenge that we face, somehow believe we "shouldn't apprehend," or "even question" al-Qaeda, are simply beyond the pale. ...As beyond the pale as it gets. But yet all too frequent in what is becoming a country rapidly dominated by inane rhetoric over reality, even as our policy understanding seems to go further and further awry.

Snow's statements are also incredibly insulting to democrats. It is a huge wonder they take it.

But Snow's statements also raise the question as to "why?" Why must he so egregiously mischaracterize reality in order to support his points? (Why must the RNC today?)

As for anything that does not support Snow's spin in general? "Democratic talking points." Including Facts.

Speaking of "democrats who take it," NBC reporter David Gregory, in this same briefing, had an interesting comment. Snow, according to this Editor and Publisher article, gave Gregory some grief, who responded: "You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me."

What was Snow doing to him? Answering his question by saying it "was a democratic argument," then taking continued issue, accusing Gregory of being rude, and pointing his finger at him when Gregory insisted that Snow not dismiss what Gregory felt was a legitimate question that way. Apparently, in the new world of spinspeak, not actually repeating republican talking points, or asking questions, and insisting on answers (in other words, a reporters job) is "being rude."

For the record, what was Gregory's question? He asked, given that the public, as he suggested, may well wonder, why the President did not admit more failings on the administration's part.

Was this democratic spin? Or was it a fair question for an administration that has established an abysmal record in the eyes of many, yet seems to shirk from ever taking accountability despite making statements and promises that have repeatedly turned out to be wrong, or not kept, or simply untrue. There seem to have been a lot of mistakes made. It would seem that if it was simply democratic spin by Gregory, Tony Snow could have simply answered it by saying that there have not been many failings on the administration's part.

Presumably even Mr. Snow could not say this with a straight face.

Confusing Nazism With Terrorism

This blog/news site has addressed the importance of correctly framing the grave international threat that we face. Something which, as noted therein, we are decidely not doing.

The latest craze is to compare the specific terrorist threat that we face, with the rise of Nazism in Europe similar to the 1930's. But the problem is that one is a psychotic criminal threat by a loose network of borderless, sovereignless cells intent upon wreaking devastation upon innocents, with ostensible political overtones. The other is a sovereign state political ideology of intolerance for divergent views and differences, that may inevitably lead to depraved violence, devastation and imposition of one's sovereign states views and values, upon others.

Because of these fundamental, if not conflicting, differences, dealing with them is about as different as dealing with two potentially grave national security threats could be.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, exhibiting the group think mentality pervasive on this issue today, once again engaged in these comparisons. Yet Rumsfeld, in his well noted speech to the American Legion last week, went even further. While disagreeing viciously with other Americans for not agreeing with him that the threat that we all face is in fact the same as 1930's nazism, Rumsfeld exhibited the demonization of those who disagree that is one of the hallmarks of nazism himself .

The far right has also repeatedly used heavy rhetoric in condemnation of democrats as exhibiting a "pre 9/11 mentality." (Presumably, this must mean things like the republican opposition to attempts by then President Bill Clinton to expand anti terrorism efforts, opposing the tagging of explosives, and expanding legal wiretapping to include tapping the individual, not the cell phone). Yet frankly, even as successful prosecutions of terrorists are down to pre-September 11, 2001 levels, it seems all the far right wants to do post 9/11 is take away rights and make big government here even bigger and more intrusive, with fewer and fewer checks, and save the world by "forcing democracy," just like they did pre 9/11.

But that the far right's mindset is pre 9/11 could not be more adequately illlustrated than by this extremely misguided comparison to the rise of nazism. It illustrates that there is a reason they are not making America safer today. They don't understand nazism, they don't understand terrorism. They see some similarities, and therefore think they are the same, missing the fundamental differences, and more importantly, why both need to be dealt with very differently.

While Rumsfeld's speech contained a lot of demonizing rhetoric, again, here is what his speech actually meant:

While Rumsfeld is busy characterizing the rest of the world as budding fascists, in the process of lashing out at those who think, let alone correctly, that the two problems need to be treated very differently, he also very ironically exhibits the beginnings of thought more associated with totalitarian regimes like fascism, than democracy; not only failing to understand it, but going so far as to demonize the informed dissent and disagreement which is at the heart of free and open democracy.

Bad leadership, that not only does not fully grasp what is going on, but demonizes those who do, is the result of not being able to see any point of view but one's own -- something exhibited time and time and time and time again by the current far right wing leadership, Rumsfeld included.

(update: In his speech to the American legion, Rumsfeld also stated that many "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased." Albeit increasingly common coming from the far right today, this is such a bizarrely erroneous statement that it defies analysis. Not only does it clearly exhibit the point in bold immediately above -- that Rumsfeld and those who continue to make this statement to the American people don't even have one iota of understanding of what those who disagree with him are saying -- it brings up the more pertinent question; "why don't they?"

update 2: In a followup editorial in the LA Times, frought with mischaracterizations at almost every turn, and ironically entitled, "New Enemies Demand New Thinking," Rumsfeld wrote that there is a "lack of perspective in our national dialogue." No doubt. Once again, the far right projecting it's own tendencies, onto everyone else. )