NY Post discredits 911 Victims

NY Post -July 11, 2003

July 11, 2003 -- Last fall, we welcomed President Bush's creation of an independent commis sion to investigate the intelligence and policy failures that led to the 9/11 attacks.

But when families of the terrorist attack's victims used their political clout to force the resignations of the panel's two top officials — former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell — we started feeling some misgivings.

And those concerns have been borne out by the latest behavior of the commission — now headed by former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean.

Indeed, it's becoming increasingly apparent that what began as a broad-based independent probe has morphed into an increasingly partisan investigation — with President Bush as its primary target.

Because the panel has not gotten the immediate response it wants to its demand for millions of pages of documents, Kean all but accused the administration of stonewalling the panel — even while insisting that he was making no such charge.

But, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday, it's difficult not to suspect that the Kean panel, awash in partisan political figures — like onetime Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste and former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who still openly blames the White House for his defeat last November — will fail utterly to meet its mandate.

That's especially sad, because an independent investigation of bungling by the CIA and the FBI was truly necessary.

The intelligence and policy failures that culminated in the destruction of the Twin Towers and part of the Pentagon long predate the months leading up to 9/11.

They include the foreign-policy failures of the Clinton era in Somalia and its inadequate response to al Qaeda threats; the U.S. flight from Beirut after the Marine barracks bombing of 1983; and the Iran hostage fiasco of 1979-81.

In short, they stretch back a quarter-century and encompass administrations of both political parties.

Kissinger and Mitchell were uniquely qualified to head such an inquiry by virtue of their strong foreign-policy backgrounds — in sharp contrast to Kean, whose biggest concerns as governor were urban sprawl and property taxes.

But both men were forced to quit when the victims' families — seeing some dark conflict-of-interest conspiracy at work — demanded that they publicly disclose their business client list.

But then, that's been part of the problem all along — the perception that family members are trying to set the agenda.

According to published reports, the families have said they will "not stand for some broad, sweeping historic account" from the commission.

In short, they want a scapegoat. And it looks like the commission may comply — or at least seek to delay its report so that it can become an issue during the 2004 presidential campaign. Frankly, there is no reason to believe that the White House isn't doing everything in its power to prevent a 9/11-scale terror attack on America. Just as there is no reason to jeopardize national security with a too-hasty document dump of the sort being sought by the commission. The question of how 9/11 could have occurred is too vital a question — for all Americans, not just the families — to allow it to degenerate into a mindless witch hunt. Or a partisan political free-for-all.

Allan Duncan:

Editor,

In response to the editorial Seeking A 9/11 Scapegoat, I'd like to make a few comments.

9-11 was much more than a series of "intelligence and policy failures". It was in fact, a complete breakdown of our national defense and our national security.

As President, George W. Bush was Commander-in-Chief on 9-11, and since nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by terrorists while on his watch, he has to share the blame. There is more to being Commander-in-Chief of the military than landing a plane on an aircraft carrier and wearing a tight jumpsuit for a photo-op!

The White House has also played the "Executive Privilege" card in an attempt to keep documents from the Commission relating to intelligence briefings Bush received that told of imminent plans by Al Qaeda to hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

It's simple to figure out why these documents aren't being released. If they were, they would prove that Bush had received these warnings and did nothing to warn the public or protect Americans from the attacks.

I'm afraid the buck has to stop somewhere and I'm afraid it stops on the Commander-In Chiefs desk!

Allan Duncan New Hope, PA

Days of Yore

Before the "New York Post" was acquired by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Alwaleed-controlled News Corp. of America (FOX News), interesting, balanced, and fair editorials based on fact were the norm.

Murdoch, an Australian neo-conservative, and Prince Alwaleed, with fingers in other media, including AOL TimeWarner CNN and Walt Disney Corp. (ABC), a Saudi royal subject to litigation by Sept. 11 victim families for funding terrorism, spend inordinate sums trying to influence U.S. policy and public opinion by buying up media and continuing assaults on September 11 victims.

With reference to the editorial "Seeking a 9/11 Scapegoat," suggesting victim family members forced George Mitchell off the National Commission is about the last straw.

Mitchell would have been in conflict of interest (an incomprehensible concept in Saudi society) since he sits on the board of Saudi-related Walt Disney Corp. Ditto for Warren Rudman's inability to serve -- he's on the board of Raytheon, enriched by Saudi arms and defense purchases.

Perhaps we should take our complaints to the Securities & Exchange Commission and have a sit-down about de-listing News Corp. until such time that it falls under control of September 11 victims and their families. Or perhaps to the Pentagon suggesting current owners pose a risk to our national security.

Lois Ann Battuello St. Helena, CA

July 13, 2003 -- 9/11 was much more than a series of "intelligence and policy failures." It was a complete breakdown of our national defense and security ("Seeking A 9/11 Scapegoat," July 11).

As president, George W. Bush was commander-in-chief on 9/11, and since nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered by terrorists on his watch, he has to share the blame.
Allan Duncan
New Hope, Pa.

I am appalled by your suggestion that the families of the 9/11 tragedy are seeking scapegoats. How dare you suggest that these families are to blame for any failures on the part of this commission!

If the commission is moving slowly and cautiously, it is with good reason. It has not been given all the relevant material they have requested from the White House. As for Max Cleland, I have nothing but the highest respect for this man who is of the highest moral character.
Kathleen Boyd
Steilacoom, Wash.

While I don't buy into the whole "blame Clinton" aspect of The Post's argument, I do agree that many seek someone, anyone, to hold accountable for what happened.

The coalition of families of 9/11 victims I truly believe has good intentions at heart. But in the end they are turning this into a circus. No memorial is good enough or big enough, no truth is enough, no information is enough for them.

I think we all need to step back and accept that maybe there are no real answers to what happened that awful day. A madman created a nightmare, and now we are left to live with it.
Rio LaCour
Harrisburg, Pa.

Intelligence-gathering will always be imperfect. It is the executive's job to make the best of that imperfection. Did that happen? One cannot answer that question without a spotlight on the White House.
Robert Fleischer
Groton, Mass.

The Post's editorial is the biggest bunch of blame-shifting I've ever seen. The Bush administration has been keeping needed information from the 9/11 commission for over a year.

That same administration tried to prevent any investigation at all. And The Post wants to blame the 9/11 families - victims of 9/11? Give me a break!
Shirley Bryant
Muskogee, Okla.

I think that the majority of families feel that President Bush has done a superb job at trying to rid the world of these parasites who conspired to murder our loved ones.

If anything, we question why the pathetic Clinton administration did absolutely nothing after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Somalia debacle, two bombings in Saudi Arabia, two embassy bombings in East Africa and finally the attack on USS Cole. I hope the commission can have Bill Clinton answer that question.
Stephen Simone
Staten Island

The families' "political clout" is the only thing moving our country to uncover any of the numerous mistakes and misdeeds of 9/11.

The families are not partisan in any way. We are citizens from all political persuasions. The only single thing we have in common is that this government has greviously let us down.
Bruce De Cell
Staten Island

The family members' "agenda" has always been to learn the truth through a thorough, independent, non-partisan investigation so that there is no repeat of 9/11.

It was party politics, not family members, that produced a commission comprised solely of politicians, rather than academics and think-tank members. Party politics, not family members, caused delays in passing legislation necessary to form the commission. Party politics (in fact, the White House itself) created the unrealistic deadline that has forced the commission to make a public plea for accelerated cooperation.
Beverly Eckert
Stamford, Conn.

President Bush allotted only $3 million to investigate the worst intelligence failure in American history.

It took a massive outcry from the victims' families to get the budget increased to $14 million. In comparison, an investigative commission was formed almost immediately and was given $50 million to investigate the space shuttle Columbia disaster.
Jason Marrs
Ossining

No one is saying that all of the failures that led to the 9/11 murders occurred under the watch of this administration. But this administration fought against the formation of this commission, so there is some reason to believe that they are intentionally stonewalling.

Are the failures of the FAA, for instance, suddenly state secrets? What are they trying to hide?
Jonathan Ehrlich
Flushing

Your editorial on the 9/11 commission is right on the money. Unfortunately nobody is listening. At the end of day, President Bush will be blamed for 9/11, lose the presidency and Howard Dean will be the next president.

I see the script already: Under Dean we will return to foreign policy of Jimmy Carter (phony liberalism) which, in a way, led to 9/11. Let's not forget this whole Muslim radical business started under Carter - when we sold out our friend the Shah of Iran and supported our enemies the Muslim radicals.
Gary Schwartz
Fort Lee, N.J.

Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Kristen Breitweiser:

In your editorial "Seeking a 9/11 Scapegoat", you accuse the 9/11 victims families as wanting a scapegoat for the 9/11 attacks, calling the need for an independent commission a "mindless witch hunt" and a "political free for all."

We would like to remind you that you ran the headline, "BUSH KNEW" little more than a year ago.

So, as widows trying to find out why our husbands never came home from work that horrific morning, we, too, would like to know what "Bush Knew." But, it can't stop there. What did the Clinton Administration, the FBI, CIA, DoD, NSC, NSA, and INS all know? What did they fail to do? Because, we, as a nation, need to make sure that those mistakes are remedied and never repeated.

We can never restore the lives of our loved ones, but working collectively we can restore the safety of this nation.

Last fall, three of us met with your editorial board and pleaded with you to better cover the need for a 9/11 Commission. You told us flatly, "no one will care until more people die."

Let's hope that is not the case.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies.

printed from NY Post discredits 911 Victims on 2004-05-30 23:47:48