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

[desmirl]

Whether 9/11 was predictable is a matter of degree. How predictable? Knowing the day, time, and flight numbers? Probably not. Knowing that something big was in the offing? Definitely. Knowing that people were asking to be taught to fly airplanes without knowing how to take off or land? That should have been SUCH a red flag! So, somewhere in between lies the truth. But--9/11 was totally preventable.The airlines were told a long time ago that making the cockpit accessible to passengers was inexcusable, idiot, and insane. The airlines ignored good advice, and over the 30 years from 1971 to 2001 a lot of crazies got into commercial airliner cockpits. Now, the government has demanded strong, lockable doors on cockpits. Bottom line: if a crazy can't get into an airliner cockpit, he has a lot fewer options for working his mischief.

[CellarDoor]

Agreed. It should not be physically possible to get into the cockpit from inside the plane (as in no doors whatsoever...not locked or otherwise...inside the plane. Pilots enter from an outside door and cannot pass into the main hull of the plane as it would be totally sealed off during construction...give pilots a mini-toilet, mini-fridge, whatever they need during flight all in the cockpit area...it's very do-able I think). And zero communication between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Nothing whatsoever. Even an emergency medical issue should be radioed to the ground first and then back to the pilots. There should be no way for anyone on board the plane to be able to get into the cockpit much less speak with a pilot. This removes the pilot's "humanity" from the equation by not allowing him or her to act out of fear of repercussions from the hijacker. If I was a pilot of a hijacked plane and the hijacker said he'd cut the throat of a flight attendant if I didn't give into his demands...I don't know if I could refuse and let someone die. This cannot be allowed to happen and pilots who cannot overcome that emotional hurdle must have the potential for that hurdle removed completely.

I think this is a careless statement from Obama and is worthy of a further press for clarification.

[CondisNightmare]

Hey, Kristen, the reason your husband's murderers aren't dead by now is because of lying, self-centered politicians like Hillary Clinton, who sanctioned the criminals Bush and Cheney to invade Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden. I thought you were a truth-seeker; why support a liar like Hillary? HILLARY CLINTON IS A LIAR JUST LIKE HER LYING HUSBAND! PERIOD.

[kirafa]

AND SO IS OBAMA AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!

[Rastaman426]

Yeah.....nice, rational, reasoned, response...NOT!

Typing in bold doesn't make your opinion any more reasonable....but please...go on spewing this venom...it's the only language Obama-philes and reTHUGlicans understand.....

[indiethinker]

To jump from a few impromptu words Obama said - whose meaning & intent was clearly the idea that any particular crisis a president may face is unpredictable & that answering an abstract hypothetical without the context of the specific situation is not productive - to the ridiculous conclusion that he sounds like Condi Rice is extreme hyperbole. Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War aligns her much more closely with Condi Rice than those few words from Obama did him. It was she that was so caught up in the national hysteria over 9/11 that - because she didn't want to appear weak & unpatriotic - she had the extreme bad judgement to trust that George Bush would act reasonably & not start a preemptive war.

[chin075]

indiethinker, unfortunately this hypocritical picking apart of words and selective recollection of facts is typical of both neocons, Bush and his administration, and apparently Hillary Clinton, her campaign and some of her supporters as well. This is the style of politics that Barack Obama thinks is preventing the U.S. from moving forward, and apparently millions of voters agree with him more than they do HRC or the Repubs. To say that Obama sounds like Condi Rice is but the latest ludicrous, credibilit­y-stretchi­ng spin that Obama's opponents apparently feel forced to throw at him. Kristen apparently doesn't recall, or conveniently leaves out, the fact that Hillary voted for the war and Obama opposed it from the beginning. I know that pro-Hillary, anti-Obama supporters try to spin that one all the time, but this is the fact, stated in its most simple, unadorned way: Hillary voted for the war, Obama opposed it. Strip all the b.s. and all the hypotheticals from the argument and the plain fact is still:

Hillary voted for the war. Obama opposed it.

[Lizzie]

chino75 ~
I nearly laughed out loud when you accused everyone BUT Obama of picking apart words, and of selective recollection !

Nothing coming out of Obama or his campaign, that isn't parsing and picking apart Clinton's words, except for his outright lies. Yet he is not held accountable. When someone challenges him to account for what he said/didn't say, what he meant /didn't mean, what he knew/didn't know, more knives come out against Hillary. Obama approved Rice as Sec'y of State while serving on the Senate FRC. If he was so "against the war in Iraq", he'd have known of her role getting us into it. He'd have known her lies - her "mushroom cloud threat". IF he had paid attention, he'd have known of the deals the bush administration made with the 9/11 Commission. I knew it and I wasn't a senator. He SAID he was against the war, but he didn't campaign on it anywhere in Illinois, except where it would sell. He never went out on that limb. Obama's campaign raised the "race card" - not the Clinton campaign. Jesse Jackson Jr accused the Clintons when nary a word had been spoken.

The bill Hillary voted for was based on the lies the Bush crime organization fed Congress. That some voted against it was a miracle. Most voted to support AUMF.

So, Puhleeeeze, stop talking out of your back pocket. You don't sound any brighter than The Man you're defending.

[Rastaman426]

chin075: "Hillary voted for the war, Obama opposed it"

Maybe it's because Obama was too busy in church cheering his reverend to have voted one way or the other, but his record suggests that he wouldn't have done anything differently than HRC. Of couse, it's great to say in hindsight that you have always been against the war. Why not follow through and vote accordingly?

[jimdog1954]

Dude, al Qaeda won't hijack airplanes next time. They'll try something easier - something we are not ready for. Today's pilots are a lot smarter than pre-911. They'll never let anyone in the cockpit again, and if some knucklehead causes a commotion in the passenger cabin, the pilot can maneuver the airplane so that any passengers not strapped into their seats will be bounced around like playing "Pong" at warp 12. They'll hit us again when they are ready because all our muscle is in Iraq and not guarding the home front. Unfortunately, President Obama will get the blame for the next attack and the village idiot will be sitting on his porch swing saying, "I told ya, I told ya."

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Obama could have said THAT and I would have been happier.

[Rastaman426]

Except for the "dude" part...

[dsm]

They knew, but did nothing
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html

[Kieran]

Brilliant column, Kristen.

Why is it OK for Obama to channel Condi Rice on 9/11? Either he's ignorant or indifferent to what he's saying.

This should have been a headline in the MSM and invited national scrutiny.

But - there's nothing hard about Hardball when Tweety has a tingle going up his leg. So Obama can parrot the Bush administration and not be challenged by a dumb-struck Chris Matthews.

[ResidentChimp]

The 9/11 attacks were not predictable and for once I agree with Obama. Matthews an idiot. Hypothetical questions are for morons.

[IMD]

I believe the intelligence community consider hypotheticals when trying to predict terrorist activities, so I would disagree that they are for morons. Due to the limited brain work of the current occupant, Americans want to be reassured that the possible future prez would act, and act appropriately. Obviously there would be many factors to consider at the time, but Barack as possible Commander-In-Chief, should have a direct answer to this question.

[pakiman]

Find me a person in the CIA who thinks 9/11 was not predictable. The only people who claim otherwise are politicians who are liars and don't want any accountability.

[AnotherAndy]

Not predictable?

Even I know that the G8 summit in Italy in July 2001 was ringed with anti-aircraft missiles, and George Bush stayed offshore on an aircraft carrier and flew back and forth to the G8 meeting BECAUSE a hijacked airplae might be crashed into the G8 site. Where has Obama been these last 7 years if he didn't know that too?

Also, on 12/25/94, French commandos stormed aa hijacked Air France plane that was going to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower! That was a big story at the time.

Also, in 1998, the FAA was told that terrorits might fly planes into the WTC, or the Pentagon, or into nuclear power plants or othr national landmarks! (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39166-2002May18&notFound=true)
Obama wasn't privy to
The details of this AFFmeeting have been in the media since 911, and any interested person could easily find it on the net; if not Obama himself, then surely some of his staff, who should have prepared the ill-prepared candidate so he could answer a question that was sure to come up, so he wouldn't seem so ignorant.

ResidentChimp, you AND Obama should do some reading about current/recent world events.

In this article Ms Breitweiser, is absolutely correct. Obama, glib or not, should have known that 9/11 was both predictable and predicted!

Obama's lack of knowledge is frightening, and you want this guy in the Whitehouse?

[Merin]

Unfortunately a vast majority of Americans believe that it was "unpredictable" and will tag any information that shows how incompetently the Bush Administration was when dealing with terrorist threats as "conspiracy theory" in the lines of "Bush did it."

Bush didn't "do it" but his admin's taking their eyes off the ball ALLOWED IT. Not on purpose, not with knowledge of the towers being hit, but with intent on focusing their efforts at socially conservative issues - prostitution, the drug war, and all the Cold War targets (Russia, North Korea, etc.)

Perhaps what Senator Obama is referring to is that, in the public zeitgeist, terrorists hijacked planes with demands - that's what we were used to and that is what all media portrayed the act as. The concept of using the planes themselves as weapons, no demands made, was NOT what most would have expected.

Should the intelligence community been watching better than they were and putting the facts they did have together to protect us? Sure. Could they have discovered and prevented the plot? Probably.

But the reality is that, prior to it happening, VERY FEW would have even dreamed up the scenario. I know, some had. I know, I've seen the report covers and the worries overseas and such. But our government screwed up, weren't paying attention, and it caught the vast majority of us by surprise.

As someone else has posted, hindsight is 20/20.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

All the MORE reason to have an answer to a simple question about a repeat.

And while "very few" of us coulda woulda shoulda, we pay big bucks to keep NORAD up and running.

THOSE very few of us were CLUELESS that day, not necessarily as to how to predict, but certainly as to how to RESPOND.

[BJMS]

Hmmm...but voting FOR the Iraq War (when Iraq obviously had nothing to do with 9/11), voting FOR Kyle/Lieberman, voting AGAINST the Levin amendment, and NOT reading the NIE is ok??? Wow...and they accuse Obama supporters of being cult-like followers who have drunk the kook-aid???!!!

[ntmessage]

The reason some people have a hard time understanding Obamas cult like appeal is that he has not given them a reason to for FOR him as opposed to AGAINST someone else.

Many need some substance and tangible proof that he would have acted differently if his ass was really on the line, which it was not. So people are not ignoring the Clinton facts, they looking at the whole person that they have known for years and making that judgment.

What may explain the feeling that the Obama people are acting cult like is that he has really done little tangible to even analyze and get an empirical read on how he will govern in a tangible way.

Obama did nothing after a riskless speech that no one can find recorded anywhere, which does not mean it did not happened it means that I made that same speech myself in the office and it had the same impact on the war.

[LeftRight]

Okay, so why don't you talk FOR your candidate, instead of AGAINST mine!

[JimR]

You are being extremely disingenuous when you call the speech riskless. At the time, the Bush administration was bullying lawmakers into supporting the war and openly questioning the patriotism of anyone who opposed it. So lawmakers at all levels were bending over backwards to "look tough." Obama launched his Senate campaign not long after that speech, so politically it was very risky.

[auntiecairo]

Obama isn't answering hypotheticals because when he did that in the debates about Pakistan it was used against him and still is - both McCain and Clinton keep misquoting him on it. While I understand the basis of your article and there's no way you could feel objective abou 9-11 I hope you'll keep in perspective that Obama is the one who said he would go after Bid Laden if there was actionable intelligence - which was initially dismissed by Clinton, MCCain et al., even though we've recently gone in and taken out some operatives in the region. The main failures on 9-11 were not taking information available - but even with that nobody could predict the exact date - let's face it. If someone wants to do something - they probably will or can. Luckily, despite Bush's assertions to the contrary, "terrorists" in general are not well funded or organized. At some point we have to work through the emotions of 9-11 and try and figure out why it happened. There have been more lives lost in the war in Iraq and on 9-11 and we're no safer nor our government more prepared (witness Katrina). I think the best way to honor those we lost on 9-11 and subsequently is to try and affect change - and I think Obama is more willing and able to do that.

[ntmessage]

Wow. 911 is a hypothetical? Rewriting history does contradict the fact that Obama. likes to wear his future foreign policy on his sleeve, just as Jimmy Carter did. That is a big issue. The world already knows he is a lightweight so friends and foes alike will test him to the hilt on day one, something they would not dare do with Clinton or McCain.

[SZM]

OK. Of coarse I'm sure everyone will agree with me that what happened in Mrs. Breitweiser's life, as well as thousands of others like her, was horrible, and no words of anyone will change that.
That said, Obama said that he "would not engage in hypotheticals", and that he didn't think it was prudent to predict, and guess as to the form and scope of "future attacks". Mrs. Breitweiser makes the ignorant assumption the Obama, (having access to the intelligence reports as Dr.Rice did), would have failed to act to alarming indicators leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Chris Mathew's stupid hypothetical cited that "two hijacked planes were ON THERE WAY TO THE CAPITAL", which is completely different than having knowledge of a potential attack before the fact. What the hell did Mathews expect Obama to say on national TV?, that we would shoot down the planes?, (which is the current policy of the Air Force). Mrs. Breitweiser then proceeds to compliment Senator Clinton for her work pushing the idiotic 9/11 commission, while at the same criticizing it's incompetence.
Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Rove all said the exact same ridiculously stupid thing, that "9/11 could not be predicted". Obama is not running for National Security Advisor, so why compare Obama to Dr. Rice? Fortunately for the great city of New York, and the other victims of 9/11, Clinton will be able to continue her "great" work there as a US senator.

[darcy]

What is entirely predictable is that the O-bots would be here defending their deity and attempting to make a silk purse from a sow's ear!

[Merin]

Keep attacking the supporters of the candidate you don't like.

Keep showing your true colors.

Keep alienating those who aren't supporting Hillary.

You are doing your candidate more harm than any Republican smear machine ever could.

Congratulations.

[ntmessage]

Get a grip. Why dont you simply count how many attacks on Huff Po are directed at Obama and how many at Clinton.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

As to Obama and the in-progress question, there is only one answer:

"I would authorize, not order but authorize, and not that night, but on a standing basis, the military to shoot down -- or ram -- such hijacked airliners if, in the opinion of these highly trained and disciplined pilots and their immediate commanders, many of whom are themselves commercial airline pilots when not on duty, the planes could be shot down over open water or non-populated areas.

Given our understanding of the suicidal nature of today's terrorists, we must acknowledge that there is little if anything we can do to save the lives of people on an already-hijacked plane, especially one bearing down on a major city.

So, the immediate math is all about people on the ground.

As hard as it is to hear that, it's even harder to say that. But it's the truth. And, with all due respect to Colonel Jessup, I DO think the American people can handle the truth.

And now, Mr. Matthews, if you'll allow me, why haven't you asked Condi or President Bush the same -- or pressed them on WHY THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT OSAMA BIN LADEN TO JUSTICE?"

[John]

"...but also to hold people like Condoleezza Rice accountable,...|"

Maybe I've missed something, but neither Clinton nor any other Democratic member of Congress has ever held Rice, or any other of her accomplices in the Bush administration, accountable for anything. They are still operating with impunity, pillaging and raping the American taxpayers, while a Democratically controlled Congress (with a few exceptions) wrings its hands.

[A Meat Beetle]

John:

Yes! Where have either of these Dem candidates been on the issue of holding Bush & Co. accountable for their crimes?

Answer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/photo/2007/1112/tmq_obama_bush_200.jpg

http://www.kennerly.com/portfolio/presidents/gwbush/images/gw09.jpg

[midwestvoter]

Hillary caught lying again- share this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

DO try to stay on topic.