New testimony
Conveniently abstracted by Spoons, we have the essentials of the recent testimony before the 9/11 commission of former FBI director Louis Freeh and former (thank God!) Attorney General Janet Reno. Here are the salient points:
- Janet Reno never specifically briefed incoming Attorney General John Ashcroft on the threat posed by al Qaeda;
- In her 8 years in office, General Reno was briefed about al-Qaeda, but was never told (and apparently never asked) the location of al-Qaeda cells in the country;
- Reno "never focused on just al Qaeda," because of the Oklahoma City bombing;
- Clinton's FBI Director, Louis Freeh said that the FBI was not given the resources it needed to fight terrorism;
- Freeh was aware that Bin Laden had issued several fatwas in the 1990s ordering his followers to attack the U.S.;
- Nobody thought investigating terrorism cases was the best response to Al-Qaeda's declared war on the U.S., but it was the best anyone could do "in the absence of invading Afghanistan";
- During Freeh's time in office, "We weren't fighting a real war [against terrror]";
- General Reno testified that the majority of the [Democrat-reviled] Patriot Act has helped counterterrorism efforts.
Again, we need to change the focus from assigning blame and partisan grandstanding to a more fruitful lessons learned analysis. These items indicate that prior to the attack, no one new about the attack. This is not surprising. MoveOn.org's poster in the DC Metro claiming that "Bush Knew" are moonbat fantasy. We need to stay far, far away from that sort of thinking.
What we need is a clear exposition of what policies hindered the collation of intelligence we had; what policies might, if implemented, increase the amount and quality of information we get; and what security measures might be both effective and appropriate for a constitutional republic. I have no idea, of course, what the commission's report will look like. But considering the behavior so far of all the commissioners, I do not think that I will be getting what I am hoping for.
on
| § 2
§ 2 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
My understanding is the
My understanding is the commission saves the grandstanding for the public testimony (read: Big Media). Private testimony is apparently another matter. Further, as the public portion takes place after the private testimony, those so inclined have time to work up the sound bites. I, too, hope the commission does good work. Merely creating the Dep't of Homeland Security don't do jack. And am I the those person to whom "Homeland" has a faintly fascistic ring?
Oh heck, Reno's in the news. Did she have any new opinions on how the Oklahoma City bombing came about? She has had some down time to think.
If I ever have a hope of getting a public policy wish answered it is this: I would like a head of the justice department who understands the job. In my opinion, from Ed Meese on we ain't exactly had that.
Re: DHL, you're hardly the
Re: DHL, you're hardly the only one.
And as far as Attorney Genruls go, you can go even further back, to Ramsey Clark for another stellar example of stupendous partisan bile and incompetence.