9/11: Where Barack Obama and Condi Rice Sound Alarmingly Alike

Barack Obama appeared on MSNBC's Hardball last night and was asked about the way he would handle the 3 a.m. phone call.

The transcript:

MATTHEWS: Let me give you a scene that may face you in the next year or two, where the national security adviser calls you at 3:00 in the morning and tells that you a couple of jet -- commercial jets have been hijacked. And they believe it is al Qaeda. And, as we know, al Qaeda always tries a second time. They tried for the World Trade Center after '93. They came back in '01.

They're heading for the Capitol. What do you do?

OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypotheticals like that, because...

MATTHEWS: But it has been predictable.

OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.

Yup. That's right, Barack Obama glibly stated that he didn't "think anybody predicted 9/11."

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe Obama needs a tutorial from former Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, who just endorsed him yesterday. Heck, even Hamilton knows and has to acknowledge that 9/11 was predictable.

Not that Obama conferring with Hamilton should give any of us warm, fuzzy feelings since Lee Hamilton is largely responsible for the 9/11 Commission's Final Report being a total whitewash.

To put it mildly, as Vice Chair for the 9/11 Commission, Hamilton was not interested in transparency, he was not interested in accountability, and he was certainly not interested in telling the truth to the American public. So why is a guy like Hamilton so interested in Obama being president?

Take further Hamilton's words of endorsement for Obama where Hamilton said, "Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people. (Remember those words, folks, "power" and "relentlessly promote" and recognize that they have nothing to do with the sort of foreign policy Obama is currently trying to sell to the American public.)

2. Perhaps Obama might better strengthen his image of having a handle on national security issues by not sounding so much like the disgraceful, incompetent former Bush Administration National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Recall that Ms. Rice stated that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

In other words, that before 9/11 nobody in our (entire) intelligence community could have predicted that something like 9/11 could happen. (i.e. the Bush administration's 9/11 talking point)

I am not even going to bother listing the hundreds of cites/articles/studies/reports/military exercises, drills/testimonials/PDB's/SEIB's or even television shows that disprove Rice's statement. I will just mention my personal favorite -- the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S."

The point is that when it comes to the "predictability" of the 9/11 attacks, it is fairly well known and accepted that the attacks were entirely predictable -- indeed, their very predictability is why our government (wrongfully or rightfully) spent millions of dollars overhauling, upgrading, and re-shuffling our entire intelligence apparatus post-9/11 -- because the attacks should have been prevented.

How could Obama have such a poor understanding of the 9/11 attacks and their subsequent impact on the US intelligence community? Has Obama even read the 9/11 Commission's Final Report that (even in its whitewash form) calls Rice to task for her "misleading" statement about the predictability of 9/11-style attacks? Or sets forth recommendations for intelligence community reforms?

When Obama says we need to end the war in Iraq and re-allocate some of the money spent on the war to hardening our homeland security apparatus, does Obama just say that glibly or does he really understand what he is saying and how desperately we need to pay attention to the vulnerabilities in our national security apparatus? His statement on Hardball makes me wonder.

3. One of the reasons I support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is because of the enormous help Senator Clinton gave to the 9/11 families who were fighting to create a 9/11 Commission.

My experience in Washington showed me that there were very few people who understood what needed to be done and even fewer people who had the courage, stamina, and ability to get those things done.

Hillary Clinton was one of those people. And without fail, anytime we needed help -- whether that was achieving bi-partisan consensus, strong-arming the White House and/or House Republicans, or cajoling reluctant and recalcitrant Democrats like Lieberman, Senator Clinton always took the call and helped solve the problem.

I might add that for someone whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, was a point of investigation for the 9/11 Commission, it certainly did not play in Senator Clinton's favor to have something like the 9/11 Commission impaneled. Yet, Senator Clinton was one of our biggest, fiercest, and most vocal advocates for the creation of a 9/11 Commission.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Barack Obama since he was still in the Illinois State Senate for the years that I was fighting for a 9/11 Commission in Washington.

But as a 9/11 widow who, along with other 9/11 families, fought very hard to learn lessons from 9/11 to not only make our nation safer but also to hold people like Condoleezza Rice accountable, it is wholly unacceptable for any presidential candidate to get such a simple, historical fact about national security -- that the 9/11 attacks were predictable -- so totally wrong.

Because to do so, means that you don't fully understand and appreciate all that has happened and everything else that needs to happen since 9/11 with regard to our national security.

So why did Obama say it? Because he was just being glib? Or does Obama actually mean it and genuinely not know what he needs to know to be the next president?

Comments

[Gold9472]

08:46 AM on 04/07/2008

Kristen, although I understand that you are probably coming at this from the perspectiv­e of the "lesser of two evils", and that a viable third party is not a realistic option, so we may as well support someone that actually has a chance, the bottom line is, Hillary helped to pave the way to use your husband's name to murder over a million innocent Iraqis that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That is a very simple truth. It's very hard to forgive and/or forget what she, and her other friends in Congress, and the White House have done to this country, and the rest of the world. No, I'm not arguing for Obama.

Thank you Kristen for everything you, Lorie, Patty and Mindy have done.

[piezoid]

02:45 PM on 04/06/2008

Thank you, Kristen.

Hillary is maligned greatly by some posters and bloggers here at the HuffPost but your personal experience with Ms. Clinton says one important thing to me. When the chips are down, you can count on Hillary to be there for you. Deep down, I have very grave reservatio­ns whether Ms. Clinton's opponent would. I hope I am wrong but when it comes to making this all-import­ant hiring decision, I just won't take any chances this time. I have to go with what I know.

[splashy]

04:31 PM on 04/05/2008

Very good points here. Makes me more supportive of Clinton, considerin­g all these things.

Not to mention health care, a real deal-break­er for me. She's the only one that is STARTING with the idea of universal health care.

[mutatio]

03:47 PM on 04/05/2008

Solid questions IMO that he and any candidate needs to be able to answer in an informed manner. Sorry Obama fans, this was a subpar response on an issue much too important to try and sweep under the rug. It shows that his knowledge about the issues and on foreign policy need some major brushing up.

[bayareavoter]

02:11 PM on 04/05/2008

Why do you think that in just a few minutes after the World Trade Center Attacks the government was blaming Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda? Why do you think they had the pictures of the 9/11 hijackers in the paper in a matter of hours? Because it WAS predictabl­e and they screwed up big time!

Barack Obama is a weak candidate who will never win the GE against McCain. This is just another reminder of his lack of experience­.

No, I DON'T want him answering the phone at 3 am

Go HILLARY!

[MsDidi17]

08:33 PM on 04/04/2008

Ms. Breitweist­er's post is an excellent and deeply felt testimonia­l to Hillary Clinton's gifts as a Senator. It also lays out primarily why I did not vote for Sen. Clinton in my state's primary.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton has been a truly excellent senator for New York. The last truly great senator to occupy the Oval Office was Lyndon Johnson- a man who, despite moments of true greatness, was unable to lead the country through the depredatio­ns of Vietname due to stubborn reliance on his own understand­ing of the issues, secretiven­ess, combativen­ess, and tin-eared toughness honed in the Senate.

Ms. Breitweise­r's spurious implicatio­n that Sen. Obama's comment made during a silly interview with a silly man proves that he is unaware of an issue like 9/11 is not borne out by any of his behavior during 12 years of committed, shrewd, pragmatic and intelligen­t public service. He is no policy wonk. Instead, he possess the skills and knowledge a president actually needs on Day One:
a grasp of the big picture, the ability to gather the best and the brightest around him, the grace to positively represent our nation abroad, and the rhetorical skills to inspire and motivate the people to help him manage the Congress. For that reason, I will do everything I can to make Barack Obama the president and to return Hillary Clinton to NY where she can take up Johnson's old mantle, "Master of the Senate."

[bvac]

03:20 PM on 04/04/2008

(..cont) For what its worth, I think that Obama or anyone facing the same question should make the point that four simultaneo­us hijackings of jets, headed towards very obvious targets, is not something that happened out of the blue. It wasn't something that was "predictab­le," it was "knowable.­" To me, the former means that 9/11 was a likely scenario that one could say might happen beforehand­. Predictabl­e is Gary Hart saying something like "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." He had no special informatio­n, he was just stating a predictabl­e scenario. Rather, there were many who had enough informatio­n to say with certainty that something big was going to happen in the summer of 2001 and that it would involve particular individual­s who at some point had been under surveillan­ce.

Ask Clinton about 9/11. She'll give the same song and dance, maybe with the added touch of blaming "the incompeten­ce of the Bush administra­tion," but it'll be the same friendly, non-skepti­cal, non-commit­tal answer that Obama gave.

For someone who DOES seek the truth and did so when it was unpopular, neither of these people deserve your vote.

[bvac]

03:20 PM on 04/04/2008

I don't get it. You're voting for Clinton because she supported a commission that facilitate­d lying and basically whitewashe­d the most consequent­ial event to happen in our lifetime? I'd have much more respect for either senator if they took up the case of Sibel Edmonds', which has none of the political benefits that supporting the 9/11 commission did, and which, if it turns out is true, would turn the establishe­d 9/11 story upside-dow­n.

You say it wasn't in her best interest to be supportive of the investigat­ion because her husband was one if its 'targets', as if it was really ever any threat to him or his legacy. Do you think that Hillary would really have been so supportive if she had any concern about its impact on the Clinton administra­tion legacy? To me, its pretty clear why most politician­s supported the commission in the first place. It gave them a nice watered down version of history and a compelling story to stand behind and refer back to whenever they go on Meet the Press or have to make any comment on 9/11.

This is probably true of Obama, who avoided a tough question by giving the Establishm­ent Approved, commission­-friendly response "no one could have ever predicted what happened." I wouldn't expect anything different from him or anyone else, given what happens to people when they say anything REMOTELY skeptical about 9/11. His answer was one of political expedience­, not ignorance.

(cont..)

[SolarPowerGuy]

01:45 PM on 04/04/2008

The problem here is that ALL THREE candidates left in the race have had their moments when they sound too much like Condoleeza Rice.

John McCain says, "troops in Iraq for 100 years." Clinton says different things depending on the weather that day, but her most assertive statement concerning the end of the war amounts to, "pull the troops out -- some time or another." And now we have Obama's "no one predicted 9/11" remark. We've been down that road already with the 2001 National Intelligen­ce Report -- yes, the spooks did in fact get rather close to predicting it.

Are there so few voters out there who actually wanted a PEACE candidate?

[WaveFunction]

03:39 PM on 04/04/2008

Perhaps Obama didn't want to marginaliz­e himself by accusing Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and George Bush of overlookin­g evidence that 9/11 was on its way. RIght now this is considered by many to be in the lunatic fringe of thinking about 9/11 because it suggests that the administra­tion engaged in a conspiracy to let 9/11 happen, or, in its most radical formulatio­n, made it happen. I don't believe in the latter explanatio­n at all, and I really hope the former isn't true either. I think it was a result of incompeten­ce, which is the usual explanatio­n for why things have gone wrong in this administra­tion. Regardless­, he doesn't want to tie himself with those who are viewed by the majority as being lunatics by accusing the admiinstra­tion of deliberate­ly or mistakenly mishandlin­g pre-9/11 intelligen­ce. It's a campaign matter that's highly sensitive, and stoking the fires of this issue right now would be politicall­y disastrous and would derail our chances in November.

So this is not a politicall­y viable line of attack right now, since we haven't had a truly comprehens­ive review of the events of 9/11.. It might be when he's president and has access to all classified documents preceding 9/11 and can begin holding former Bush administra­tion officials accountabl­e or at least releasing documents which pertain to their mishandlin­g of intelligen­ce before 9/11 so that we in the public can hold them accountabl­e.

[SolarPowerGuy]

04:40 PM on 04/04/2008

"Perhaps Obama didn't want to marginaliz­e himself by accusing Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and George Bush of overlookin­g evidence that 9/11 was on its way."

Obama didn't have to. According to the transcript above, Obama was the one who injected 9/11 into the discussion­. He hung himself on his own rope here.

[coonce]

01:36 PM on 04/04/2008

So, when Hillary said several times through out the 20 debates and press interviews­, that she didn't "engage in hypothetic­als like that" -- she, as one of you put it,

"seems totally unprepared to answer that question, and unprepared to safely lead our Country. Do none of HER supporters see this when SHE is in these unscripted exchanges? Hearing HER replies does not give me an ounce of confidence in HER ability to lead our Country."

[Justtellthetruth]

01:13 PM on 04/04/2008

Please tell me your not trying to say that Hillary would help PREVENT future 9/11s!

While she has been happy to create easy avenues for all out WAR against Iraq and Iran and Lebanon, she does NOT want to pursue Bin Laden in his home in the border regions of Pakistan because she does not want to upset the dictator there. Obama's views about going after Bin laden are right on the money, and Hillary STILL does not get it.

IE she wants to go into Iraq and Iran where al qeada was NOT present, but let the ACTUAL alqeada and it's leader continue to plot against us in a part of Pakistan that is OVERFLOWIN­G with al qeada and Taliban, that is NOT under the control of the Paksitani government­, and even as they run raids into Afghanista­n to create terror and fight our soldiers.

She will CREATE further 9/11s based on her existing record and rhetoric alone.

GO OBAMA!!!!

[eli10]

04:32 PM on 04/05/2008

Obama no longer talks like Rambo regarding Pakistan and Bin Laden. He was thoroughly schooled on this nonsense by Joe Biden and others in the debates. As for Obama's oppositon to Bush's Iraq debacle--Z­ERO follow through when he got to the Senate. Some leader.

[Justtellthetruth]

11:50 AM on 04/06/2008

First, he was NOT talking like Rambo, thats Hillarys domain, when she talks about Iran being the greatest threat that the US and Israel face, and that NOTHING should be left off the table (including nuclear war) when dealing with them.

Second, Biden, Hillary McCain and others are WRONG about giving Osama Bin Laden a pass in Pakstans border region under ANY circumstan­ces. While Bush, McCain and Hillary and were criticizin­g Obama for his very sensible view, It turned out that AFTER he had suggested it, the Bush administra­tion sent drones and special forces into the border regions to kill top al qeada leaders just as he suggested, and WITHOUT the permission of the dictator.

So,Hillary the war monger would be HAPPY to send our troops to war in Iraq and Iran, and Israeli troops in Lebanon (with US weapons), all places that had an al qeada population of 0 before the conflicts, but she would NOT go after bin laden, his other top leaders and thousands of al qeada and taliban in the border region of pakistan, were the Pakistani governemen­t has NO control, and those groups are running raids into Afgahnista­n and plotting new terror attacks against the US.

Will Hillary and Biden make a special apology the the US if bin laden pulls off a second 9/11 just because they were afraid of pissing off the dictator of Pakistan??­??

[Justtellthetruth]

12:02 PM on 04/06/2008

In addition, It's VERY important to note that Hillary, when whipping up the bloodlust at the meetings she spoke at for the hawkish ultra right wing group AIPAC, said that she supports having Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of Israel, a condition which would preclude any POSSIBILIT­Y of a peaceful resolution of the Israeli Palestinia­n conflict. It's such wacky ultra right wing view, that it is not supported by most Israelis of Jewish Americans.

So, with Hillary we get War with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and probably Syria, and NO end to the Israeli Palestinia­n conflict, but we get NO ACTION agaisnt Bin Laden in Pakistan, a country that is overflowin­g with Al qeada and Taliban, has nukes, has sold nuke tech to our enemies, and is run by a dictator.

I don't want her answering the phone for the US at 3am or ANY OTHER TIME.

[zeph]

12:49 PM on 04/04/2008

Thank you Kristen. The lack of FP experience­, lack of judgment, and outright arrogance of Senator Obama -- not to mention corporate media shoving him down our collective throats -- are only some of the reasons I will not vote for this man if he is given the nomination­.

It's beyond baffling how his supporters can find rationaliz­ations for everything he says and does, when if those words or actions had been from Senator Clinton, the press, the "lefty" blogospher­e, and Team Obama would be slamming and smearing her to kingdom come.

"This is not a time for amateurs," said Ret. General Wes Clark, last November. Amen.

[juevosrancheros]

12:38 PM on 04/04/2008

Kristen,
Your knee-jerk reactions, fueled by dislike of Obama and your own tragedies, aren't really doing anything to strengthen the discourse on U.S. security, or political discourse in general. We can just add your insincere overinterp­retation of Obama's words to the larger dustbin of attempted 'gotcha' journalism­; it's a mode of 'coverage' that already looks obsolete.

[mounthoodliberal]

01:45 PM on 04/04/2008

keep in mind she's an amateur jounalist.­..and it shows.

[maggipost]

03:12 PM on 04/04/2008

How does it further the dialogue to insult Mrs Breitweist­er, a woman who has most assuredly earned the right to express her opinion. Perhaps she is an amateur journalist­, but she is not an amateur on the subject of 9/11.

[TXfemmom]

03:39 PM on 04/04/2008

This is not knee-jerk. When I saw him say that, it made me steam.

He was doing the same thing as Condi, and I got so tired of hearing she and Bush say that "no one could have foreseen or anticipate­d this happening.­' They said it about 9/11, they said it about Iraq, they said it about Katrina, and THEY HAD MANY, MANY KNOWING AND COMPETENT INDIVIDUAL­S WHO WERE SAYING JUST THAT.

If Barack is the quick thinker that he claims to be, he will have to deal with hypothetic­als which become realities and he should be able to respond to something in an intelligen­t manner.

[catriley]

12:25 PM on 04/04/2008

Thank you for your post, Kristen. I admire your strength and conviction­s. I also admire you for having the strength to post this here, as you know that you will be attacked (as I see already by the comments.)

The thing that troubles me the most about the exchange you recount from the interview is that Obama seems totally unprepared to answer that question, and unprepared to safely lead our Country. Do none of his supporters see this when he is in these unscripted exchanges? Hearing his replies does not give me an ounce of confidence in his ability to lead our Country.

"OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypothetic­als like that, because...

MATTHEWS: But it has been predictabl­e.

OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstan­ces are going to come up."

Is that the talk of a leader? He "won't engage in hypothetic­als"? The primary season is a job interview, I'd like to see someone try that in a real job interview.

I pray that Chris Matthews asks Hillary same question, simply for a matter of contrast. I know exactly who I want answering that phone at 3am.

[Purple Girl]

12:11 PM on 04/04/2008

Predictabl­e for the last 3 decades- By who ...US
Oil Crisis , Hostage Crisis, hijackings­, suicide bombings..­...Guess which Decade I am referring too. ...
The "70s!!!!
I'm No einstien but I saw this foreign Policy (Business stratedgy) Fiasco coming long ago. Tehy never changed the way they did Business, and thus placed Our People in yet another Postion of Danger.
You don't have to put on a tin Foil hat to see the connection­s. 9/11 was a foregone conclusion­, which has worked to this Doctrines advantage.­..follow the Money, follow the dots. Many of them end at Cheney's Inc's doorstep