OLEAN -- Here we are, five years and a few weeks after 9/11, and the American public is more confused than ever.
Recent polls show 36 percent of Americans now believe the federal government had a secret and still-unrevealed hand in the tragic and history-altering attack. That is astounding.
Many of those same people believe the Pentagon was severely damaged and 184 humans working there killed by an American-launched Cruise missile instead of a commercial airliner hijacked by terrorists. That is also astounding Ñ and flat wrong. I covered that portion of 9/11. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses, many commuting to work, who saw American Airlines Flight 77 go right over their heads and smash into the Pentagon, including the editor of USA Today.
Americans have never viewed themselves en masse as a paranoid and conspiracy-minded citizenry, yet a similar group of hardcore believers still insists the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor 65 years ago was known in detail by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt before it occurred, and that he let it happen because Ñ for a variety of reasons Ñ he wanted America to engage in World War II.
I myself Ñ along with many Americans Ñ donÕt believe President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman (but thatÕs another column).
There are many complicated reasons for these skeptical views, but one of the salient explanations is this: The White House, no matter who the president is, never, ever wants the public to know the full story, or even a smattering of it. Usually Ònational securityÓ is dragged forward as the excuse, but the real reasons are almost always political.
You canÕt lay the blame on political opponents, or avoid it yourself, if the general population knows the full truth. Prestigious investigative commissions, ostensibly appointed to shed light on such catastrophes, in reality almost always labor at another task: to muddy the historical waters and hide relevant truths from John Q. Public. They are routinely peppered with blatant conflicts of interest Ñ both political and philosophical.
The result is both common and damaging. More controversy is generated, more confusion spread and more conspiracy theories spawned.
Look at the commission that supposedly tried to answer the burning question of why we seemed totally unprepared for Pearl Harbor. Four of the most influential members were appointed by Frank Knox, the secretary of the Navy, and Henry Stimson, the secretary of war Ñ heads of the two executive departments that were targeted for investigation.
The 9/11 Commission Ñ originally praised for vivid prose and at least some enlightenment when it delivered its report two years ago Ñ now suffers under the same scrutiny. Books are being published. Reporters and historians are finally starting to examine the makeup of that body and ask relevant questions. Democrats and Republicans are both taking hits.
Why was one of the commissioners most active in shaping the controversial report President Bill ClintonÕs deputy attorney general for three years? Jamie Gorelick would have served the public better had she been called to appear as a sworn witness.
The same for Philip Zelikow, a powerful think tank executive and shadow figure in the executive branch who was the 9/11 CommissionÕs executive director and staff chief.
As Washington reporter and government expert Max Holland writes in the current issue of the excellent public affairs newsletter ÒThe Washington Spectator,Ó ZelikowÕs role on the commission as its very director was so conflicting, he often Òhad to oversee the investigation, testify, and recuse himself simultaneously.Ó
Zelikow served with his friend Condoleezza Rice on Bush the ElderÕs National Security Council. He continued to advise Rice after 9/11, and for almost two years has been one of her top counselors in her current Cabinet role as Secretary of State. Zelikow also played a key part in bouncing Richard Clarke, ClintonÕs highly regarded counter-terrorism chief, whom many believe could have prevented 9/11. Finally, Zelikow helped draft President George W. BushÕs 2002 national security blueprint that provided the framework for DubyaÕs unilateral invasion of Iraq.
Writer Holland claims the once-lauded 9/11 Commission is similar to others in American history: ÒIt has become apparent that to achieve unanimity the commission took a bipartisan dive.Ó
Whenever the issue turns to how Washington managed to let terrorists carry out a plot of years in the making Ñ one that was noticed in time by intelligence operatives Ñ the 9/11 Commission resorts to ÒunderwhelmingÓ historical analysis, notes Holland. He quotes a much-published University of Georgia political scientist Loch Johnson in describing that part of the commission reportÕs narrative as reading like Òan elephant rolling a pea.Ó Johnson found especially disturbing the commissionÕs Òinability Ñ or more likely unwillingness Ñ to assign any blame among intelligence managers or policymakers.Ó
Worse than assigning accountability, the commission decided to deny until the start of 2009 public access to the government files and information it collected. More confusion. More coverup. More conspiracy theories.
The president did not go unsullied in HollandÕs observations, of course. The writer noted that DubyaÕs Òlatest mantraÓ is that the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein out of power.
ÒWho would deny that?Ó Holland writes. ÒItÕs also true the world would have been a better place in 1950 if Joseph Stalin had been deposed. But presidents from Truman to BushÕs own father moved cautiously against the citadels of communist power, avoiding war until the Soviet empire imploded because of its own internal weakness. Bush and Rice would have Americans believe that the same nation that contained the Soviet empire for forty-five years was incapable of keeping Saddam Hussein in check.Ó
Holland Ñ who doesnÕt mince words Ñ calls BushÕs explanations for his actions Òa simpletonÕs view of history from a president who has watched one too many John Wayne movies.Ó
Despite the lack of official enlightenment, informative historical reports in the cultural media are starting to pop up. Author Ron Suskind (who appears at St. Bonaventure University this week), in his new book, ÒThe One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside AmericaÕs Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11,Ó scores a direct hit on DubyaÕs questionable management style when it comes to national security.
In August of 2001, alarmed CIA analysts flew directly to DubyaÕs ranch in Texas to Òintrude on his vacationÓ with a surprisingly detailed alert: Information was now in hand that terrorists were planning to fly hijacked commercial airliners into tall buildings in the United States, possibly in New York City. According to Suskind, the president, unimpressed with the brieferÕs degree of confidence in delivering the intelligence, dismissed him with these words: ÒAll right, youÕve covered your ass now.Ó
Instead of the positive face that the presidentÕs spinmeisters Ñ and Dubya himself Ñ have tried to put on their national security response and the efficiency of their key personnel, it appears all is not smooth in this administrative paradise.
Famous reporter Bob WoodwardÕs new book, ÒState of Denial,Ó describes several concerted efforts by underlings to warn Dubya about the ineptitude of his much-relied upon defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
Not only did Rice warn her president that RumsfeldÕs Òoverbearing styleÓ was deleterious to military efficiency, writes Woodward, but White House chief of staff Andrew Card (now departed) and even First Lady Laura Bush tried several times to convince Dubya that ÒRummyÓ should be sacked and replaced with someone more diplomatic who better understood the situation in Iraq Ñ perhaps Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain or Bush the ElderÕs smooth trouble-shooter chief of staff and former secretary of state James A. Baker III.
Dubya seemed to be leaning that way, but his political wizard and puppet-master Karl Rove would have none of it. So here we are, five years later, with the president describing his obvious quagmire in Iraq as a polarizing, historical clash of religious and national security interests. But heÕll need more than that to get a majority of the American people on his side. HeÕll need to take the lid off all these government secrets heÕs been sitting on for five years, even if it means admitting mistakes. Americans are forgiving people, especially if they perceive cutting a leader some slack works in their own interests.
This is yet another of those things that is extremely unlikely, but extremely necessary.
Footnote: My recent shots at the lethargic nature of the current 109th Congress drew some criticism, but I give you these statistics from the fine research of the reliable Washington Post writer Dana Milbank:
Measures passed by the notorious 1948 House of Representatives, famously dubbed Òdo-nothingÓ by President Harry Truman: 1,191
Measures passed by the current House: Just more than 400 at time of this writing, most of them routine and insignificant.
Days in session by the 1948 House: 110.
Days in session possible by the current House: under 100.
Number of seats in the House lost by Republicans in 1948 elections: 75
This may end up being the most inactive Congress in the history of our republic.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | October 3 2006 |