Lisa Fabrizio
Bombast and bombshells - - the 9/11 commission
By Lisa Fabrizio
The witch-hunt that is the 9/11 Commission investigation reached its apex last week with the appearance of star witness Condoleezza Rice and the release of the vaunted August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. Democrats on the Commission who ignored the old saw cautioning care in what you ask for, got exactly what they deserved.
While grilling top Bush Administration officials and failing to add more fuel to the fire that was Richard Clarke's testimony, they repeatedly ended their interrogations with snide calls for Rice to appear and prostrate herself before them. After some coy protests, the White House finally acquiesced, allowing the highest-ranking African American woman in history to defend herself.
And she came out swinging yet sweet; confident and demure; tough with a touch of softness; determined but eminently ladylike; no easy feat in a town that humbles men and hardens women who dare scratch the glass ceiling.
Richard Ben-Veniste tried to draw first blood by interrupting Dr. Rice constantly while trying to elicit from her only the title of the bombshell PDB. Not only did she matter-of-factly name the dreaded document, she went on to state that it was historical in nature and warned of no new threats. She then clearly emasculated the partisan shyster, responding to a 129-word, multi-part diatribe with, "Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?"
Then came Bob Kerrey's condescending greeting to Rice: "I'm very impressed, and indeed I'd go as far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished. It's quite extraordinary." I half-expected him to walk over to the third-generation college graduate, rub her multi-degreed head and tell her she was a credit to her race.
Kerrey, who some think was auditioning for the vice-presidential slot on the Vietnam War Criminals ticket, then questioned the use of "largely a Christian army in a Muslim nation." No Christians to fight in Muslim nations? If we follow this incredibly addled logic to its conclusion, we're in for a hell of a War on Terror I'm afraid.
After the hearing concluded, the main event commenced with the prospect of the mysterious PDB being declassified and tossed to ravenous pundits and pressman intoxicated by its Bush-whacking potential.
So threatening was it according to Ben-Veniste, that it was the brief that dare not speak its name: "Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB." Maybe the committee couldn't but the Washington Post saw fit to name it in a May 19, 2002 article titled, "Aug. Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S." Apparently bombshell retention in the nation's capital ain't what it ought to be.
In a breathtaking display of propaganda, most newspapers carried not the 440-word text of the PDB itself, but a 1,400-word AP 'explanation' of it by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, who, by the way contributed to the 2002 Post piece. A sample of creative editing from the lead paragraph; (the emphasis is mine)
President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan.
Quite a chilling sentence when compared to the actual text:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Crafting believable disinformation takes true skill, but the artists at work here have added geographical ESP to their vast repertoire. They say that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth. The liberal media enjoyed an incredible victory over the truth with their "it's all about sex" campaign in defense of a serial perjurer. The battle continues apace, this time under the 'Bush knew' banner.
Americans love their conspiracy theories. There are more people who don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone than those who are aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't. Not a day goes by that my email inbox isn't graced by communiqués from groups with names like "Bushlet911happen" and "Bushlied" before they are dispatched by my trusty spam assassin.
Despite partisan attacks by the media and the Democratic Commissioners, this Administration has vowed to prosecute the War on Terror as it sees fit. And no matter what the outcome of the Commission suggests, the important conclusion is this: whether or not President Bush underestimated the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11, it is very clear now that Al Qaeda underestimated him.
© Lisa Fabrizio
The witch-hunt that is the 9/11 Commission investigation reached its apex last week with the appearance of star witness Condoleezza Rice and the release of the vaunted August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. Democrats on the Commission who ignored the old saw cautioning care in what you ask for, got exactly what they deserved.
While grilling top Bush Administration officials and failing to add more fuel to the fire that was Richard Clarke's testimony, they repeatedly ended their interrogations with snide calls for Rice to appear and prostrate herself before them. After some coy protests, the White House finally acquiesced, allowing the highest-ranking African American woman in history to defend herself.
And she came out swinging yet sweet; confident and demure; tough with a touch of softness; determined but eminently ladylike; no easy feat in a town that humbles men and hardens women who dare scratch the glass ceiling.
Richard Ben-Veniste tried to draw first blood by interrupting Dr. Rice constantly while trying to elicit from her only the title of the bombshell PDB. Not only did she matter-of-factly name the dreaded document, she went on to state that it was historical in nature and warned of no new threats. She then clearly emasculated the partisan shyster, responding to a 129-word, multi-part diatribe with, "Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?"
Then came Bob Kerrey's condescending greeting to Rice: "I'm very impressed, and indeed I'd go as far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished. It's quite extraordinary." I half-expected him to walk over to the third-generation college graduate, rub her multi-degreed head and tell her she was a credit to her race.
Kerrey, who some think was auditioning for the vice-presidential slot on the Vietnam War Criminals ticket, then questioned the use of "largely a Christian army in a Muslim nation." No Christians to fight in Muslim nations? If we follow this incredibly addled logic to its conclusion, we're in for a hell of a War on Terror I'm afraid.
After the hearing concluded, the main event commenced with the prospect of the mysterious PDB being declassified and tossed to ravenous pundits and pressman intoxicated by its Bush-whacking potential.
So threatening was it according to Ben-Veniste, that it was the brief that dare not speak its name: "Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB." Maybe the committee couldn't but the Washington Post saw fit to name it in a May 19, 2002 article titled, "Aug. Memo Focused On Attacks in U.S." Apparently bombshell retention in the nation's capital ain't what it ought to be.
In a breathtaking display of propaganda, most newspapers carried not the 440-word text of the PDB itself, but a 1,400-word AP 'explanation' of it by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, who, by the way contributed to the 2002 Post piece. A sample of creative editing from the lead paragraph; (the emphasis is mine)
President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan.
Quite a chilling sentence when compared to the actual text:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Crafting believable disinformation takes true skill, but the artists at work here have added geographical ESP to their vast repertoire. They say that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth. The liberal media enjoyed an incredible victory over the truth with their "it's all about sex" campaign in defense of a serial perjurer. The battle continues apace, this time under the 'Bush knew' banner.
Americans love their conspiracy theories. There are more people who don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone than those who are aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't. Not a day goes by that my email inbox isn't graced by communiqués from groups with names like "Bushlet911happen" and "Bushlied" before they are dispatched by my trusty spam assassin.
Despite partisan attacks by the media and the Democratic Commissioners, this Administration has vowed to prosecute the War on Terror as it sees fit. And no matter what the outcome of the Commission suggests, the important conclusion is this: whether or not President Bush underestimated the Al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11, it is very clear now that Al Qaeda underestimated him.
© Lisa Fabrizio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
