Move along, folks! Nothing to see here!

Salon has an interesting article up about the Bush administration's reluctance to allow any kind of an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, and how they distracted the media - and the world - from looking at it too closely when a slew of questions came up last summer.

Just over a year ago, the families' questions were at least being asked. During May 2002, controversy swirled when CBS News reported that five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush had been briefed about an active plot by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida operatives to seize civilian aircraft. The revelations stood in stark contrast to White House spin in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that nobody in the administration or the intelligence community had "specific information" about a possible hijacking plot.

Into that combustible mix came revelations that FBI special agents in Phoenix and Minnesota had warned their superiors about suspected al-Qaida operatives training at U.S. flight schools. For the White House, the "what did Bush know and when did he know it" narrative was its first real political crisis after Sept. 11, the first time the press along with Democrats were asking pointed questions -- and gaining traction by the day. Even the New York Post, usually a reliable White House ally, ran a headline that declared "Bush Knew"; the conservative Weekly Standard warned that "the administration is now in danger of looking as if it has engaged in a cover-up."

But the White House, aided by global circumstances and a distractible news media, conspired to change the subject.

First, a succession of senior administration officials made dire warnings about the certainty of suicide bombers striking inside America. Then, on June 6, 2002, the administration abruptly reversed itself and announced it was backing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, as first proposed by Democrats. And the White House made the historic announcement the same day FBI agent Colleen Rowley testified before Congress about her famous Minneapolis memo, ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security was the next day's top headline.

At the time, I recall that even in the media, there were some who questioned the timing of all the warnings, coming as they did while people were getting curious about what had happened and what had really been known prior to the attack. When none of the warned-about attacks happened, there was a growing sense of skepticism about the warnings and just how "real" they were. More of them (in particular, the suggestion that terrorists were going to scuba-dive ashore to attack us that way) started showing up in the late-night monologues, and I noticed on the mailing lists I frequented and the blogs I checked out regularly, calls for investigations and additional information were more frequent and angry.

Just when it seemed like maybe the issue was going to gain some traction, it becomes imperative that we challenge Iraq and begin the run up to that war - and the topic was changed. Of course, now that the war is generating questions all its own, I have to wonder what the next major distraction will be - what will turn people away from wondering where the weapons of mass destruction are so that they can focus on a new crisis?

Part of what's truly disgusting about all of this is that while he's ignored the pleas from victims' families to open an investigation into the events of and surrounding 9/11, Bush and his administration have used the 9/11 attack to justify eveything from cutting back on peoples' civil rights, to exanding the powers of the Justice department, to the war on Iraq itself. Dick Cheney even cited the need for the War on Terror™ as one of he reasons Congress should back off from doing an investigation into 9/11 when he spoke to Senator Tom Daschle in the wake of the attack, claiming it would "divert" needed resources away from their efforts to end terrorism. Yet, without an investigation into what allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen, there's no way to know if any of these measures will actually have any kind of a positive effect.

To date, one investigation has been completed, but the results have not been released to the public - much to the disappointment of families who lost loved ones in the disaster.

Despite budget restraints and complaints from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the White House had "slow-walked and stonewalled" the joint inquiry, the panel's 900-page report was completed late last year. Today it remains stuck in national security limbo as the joint inquiry staff negotiates with the White House and its intelligence agencies over what portions can and cannot be released in the public version of the report. The release date has already been pushed back several times as the declassification process drags on into its seventh month. Even the Republican chairman of the joint inquiry, Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, a former CIA operations officer, has expressed deep frustration at the pace of the process.

"It appears the joint intelligence committee did too good of a job," quips [Kristin] Breitweiser [widow of Ronald Breitweiser who was killed when flight 171 crashed into the first WTC tower]. Indeed, last fall the New York Times reported that "the findings of a joint committee have been far more damaging than most officials at either agency expected when the panel's inquiry began [in early 2002]." The report is expected to detail disturbing lapses in counterterrorism at the CIA and FBI, where warnings about the Sept. 11 attacks went unheeded. They're revelations that are sure to be uncomfortable for the administration.

Honestly, I don't care if the revelations are uncomfortable for the administration. They probably should be - especially given how hard the administration is trying to keep all this quiet - and they're going to some extraordinary lengths to do just that.

Raising concerns about the joint inquiry review process was the revelation that the administration wanted some information that had already been made public during open hearings to be reclassified in the joint inquiry report. Also alarming was the news from this spring when former Rep. and current 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer, an Indiana Democrat, tried to read transcripts from the joint inquiry's closed-door hearings. Even though he had actually served on the joint inquiry a year earlier, Department of Justice attorneys refused to let him read the transcripts, insisting that the White House needed five days to decide whether it wanted to exert executive privilege to keep the information under wraps. The White House eventually relented.

"It was upsetting to find out the White House was trying to block the independent commission's access to the joint inquiry information, when we all know the mandate that created the independent commission states clearly that the commission is to use the joint inquiry as a starting-off point," notes Breitweiser, who also voted for Bush in 2000. "So why would they be blocking access to that?"

One thing that I think needs to be done is for Democrats - not just those running for President, but all Democrats - to start asking more questions about 9/11, the Iraqi War and what, if any, true relation exists between them. And we also need to start pushing for more answers. Calls for investigations, demands that what information we now have that can be given to the public (i.e. information that won't legitimately jeopardize national security) be released, and questions about how the steps we're taking are supposed to be helpful if (1) we don't know yet what went wrong and (2) they're not properly funded - as is the case with many Homeland Security measures - should all become part of the standard talking points for every Democrat - especially those on the campaign trail.

It's important that in asking for investigations and answers that no one make outright accusations of any malfeasance as that will only make the Republicans and their supporters more defensive. But these are things we, as citizens, have a right to know and those who wish to be our elected advocates need to make it clear that they're going to fight for us on those points. Coming from a stand point of wanting to ensure that we're actually doing what we need to in order to protect this country and our way of life gives it both a solid justification as well as avoiding going too negative on the current administration, something that, as Brad reminded me yesterday, often can often turn people away.

If I sound like I'm angry about the administrations near complete inattention into finding out what happened and why, along with their attempts to prevent anyone else from finding out either, it's because I am. I'm expected to trust and be loyal to my government, but they make it very hard to do so with their ducking, dodging and dissembling on every issue before them. Three thousand people died on 9/11, and thousands more have died - and are still dying - in the assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't it make more sense to know if the deaths we're sending our soldiers, the soldiers of our allies, and the citizens of the countries we attack to will actually do anything to prevent further terrorist attacks?

Posted by thorswitch at June 19, 2003 05:37 AM | TrackBack