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

[ajax2]

The number of public officials who said no one anticipated 9-11 attacks is quite long Ms Breitweiser. The Obama quote on MTP appears accurate but truncated, as if Barack wanted to say more.

[ESerafina42]

Well, there always IS an excuse when St. Barack says something embarrassing. Hillary would have been crucified on this site if she had made that statement. And I would bet that most of the people who said "no one could have anticipated" the attacks were covering their own butts. Now, what did that Aug. 6, 2001 PDB say? Oh, yeah! "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US." And where had they tried before? Oh, yeah - the World Trade Center. And what did they do when Dubya was at that summit in Europe that summer? He stayed on a ship and air traffic was prohibited around the meeting place, BECAUSE SOMEONE MIGHT TRY TO FLY A PLANE INTO THE BUILDING. Oh, no, no one EVER could have anticipated it.

[rrafiringa]

Obviously you haven't read the question Matthews asked and the frame of the attack.
Matthews says the attack is already happening, and the Capitol is the target.
When you have a car accident, you have no control over it, your baby is in the backseat, and it starts skidding towards a bus full of schoolchildren, tell me what you do? Come on, if you don't 9/11 victims will crucify you!

You could write 10 books with 1000 pages each about all the things you could do to avoid a terrorist attack in progress. Anything other than that is a feel good answer. I'm glad Obama chose to give the truth as an answer.

As for Hillary, who I believe also avoided that question to her credit, will need your help to become president, and she better fight to the bitter end:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

[kellylark]

Wow N'Obama suppoters get awfully riled over an outright and truthful attack.

He says stupid things like "Nobody could have predicted 9/11" when ALL the evidence flies in the face of that stupid statement, and the Kool-Aid drinkers go to war.

What the heck are these people going to do when the republican's go after him IF he becomes the nominee? Platitudes and Kool-Aid will not stem the attacks we can't even "predict".

Hillary has no secrets left. No surprises (except those she needs to learn not to spring on herself) and no barbs or taunts or names the American people have not learned to ignore.

N'Obama is an open book. heaven help us.

[rrafiringa]

No secrets left huh? This is why she has to be president at all costs:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

[knighthowl]

I would like to know what the "N'Obama" means. Is this a not so subtle reference to the N word? That is what I take it to be, and if you think it is merely "no" to Obama you are a fool.

[pooka]

You know what Kristen? I am sick of hearing you use your 9/11 widowhood as a platform for your ignorance. So you like Hillary. That's your choice, but your position is so obviously gender-based that it is insulting. So much of your nastiness is directed against men and in particular, the man who is opposing Hillary. On February 29th you wrote "And collectively we all know the truth: women are better." That was in your piece entitled "This One Is For The Girls." Did you not lose your beloved husband, presumably a male, in a tragic event where the overwhelming number of those who died while bravely doing their jobs as firemen, police officers, and rescue workers were men? What are you thinking? Are you thinking at all? From the quality of your posts, I think--not much. You voted for George Bush. I do not trust your opinion or your judgment

[southsideirish]

Pooka, my anthropomorhic, fae friend, I respect your anger. I'm agitated myself. But the polemic in your phrasing sounds really insensitive. It won't help. Believe me. I think if anyone reads, "This One Is For the Girls" with a fair mind, they can understand that she is simply not operating from a fair platform. Her unfortunate tragedy, however, is not something that can even be broached as a subject of scrutiny. It's a matter that is beyond reproach. She's lost more than we can ever imagine, and in the face of that, accomplished just as much. We must grant her that, and thank her for it. Center on the issues at hand. You'll be better off. I just don't want to see you drawn and quartered for a lapse of control in the face of an extremely heated argument.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

damn soutsideirish, yer good!

[rrafiringa]

Well I lost my dad in a car accident in 2000, now I'm going to use it as political leverage to get my favorite presidential candidate elected. Ha! Beyond reproach indeed!

[pooka]

You are wise and kind. I have a redhead's temper. I think that I just read one too many of Kristen's posts.
I am sorry that Kristen lost her husband. I know that her personal loss is profound.
A very dear friend of our family lost her husband, a fireman, in the WTC on that day. I was thinking of him when I read Kristen's shocking line, "And collectively we all know the truth: women are better." It really troubled and angered me when I thought of the sacrifice that he and so many others made.
As many have pointed out, yourself among them, Kristen's presentation of the "facts" in her latest piece was deliberately deceptive. Coming from Kristen, who searched so hard for the truth, it is disappointing and baffling. She is not adding anything to Hillary's credibility with posts like these. I am working for and supporting Obama, but I will absolutely vote for Hillary in November if she is the nominee. Posts as unfair as Kristen's just make it almost painful to make that committment.
Post Comment Edit Cancel

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Pooka, the same goes for you. I'm embarrassed for you. Senator Clinton was the first public figure of prominence to help secure funding for chronic respiratory issues before they became problems, for the men and women who were the heroes on 9/11. Hillary, not Barack, secured the funding and showed leadership that was quite frankly, PRESIDENTIAL. Where was Obama? Oh yah, he wasn't elected yet.

[Conservativeslayer]

Your faulting Obama for something he couldn't of done, because he wasn't in a position to do it. WOW Talk about ridicolious

[rrafiringa]

Ouch! That was a Coulter right there.

[TeriMcCarthy]

You can't continue to defend you candidate by dragging down the other democrat. It is just becoming unseemly. Well time to get over it. Don't like straight answers huh, just the politically expedient ones, like voting to authorize the war, without reading the NIE and only because well maybe someone (your candidate) thought they would lose red neck votes if she (your candidate again) didn't.

[ESerafina42]

Funny - dragging down the other (Democratic) candidate seems to be the Obama supporters' main strategy. In fact, the support of many of them (at least on this site) seems to be based more on an irrational hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton than any positive feelings about him. Then there are the ones who think that he's an angel sent down by God to save us.

[Heidfeld]

EXACTLY...

Thank you for a dose of reality.

[tbone99]

How could Obama have such a poor understanding of the 9/11 attacks and their subsequent impact on the US intelligence community?

He can't mention anything that might offend his Republican constituency.

[yoyo1959]

Because Obama is inadequate to the task and the job.

[AdultFilmLegend]

They are the same in many ways. The big difference is that he is winning. He is disliked by many Democrats, but she is loathed but everyone else that doesn't love her. Major, major, major difference.

[mounthoodliberal]

digging deep as usual, kristen. there's a big difference between predicting the attack and predicting 9/11. obama simply refused to fall into matthew's little gotcha trap that was designed to get him labeled as one of the 9/11 truthers.

[HowardRoarke]

Kristin, if pushing 9/11 is going to be your life's calling, shouldn't you learn to accept that Barack Obama is going to be our next President?

I know he has a reputation of listening to all sides, but seriously, the way you shill for Hillary by pointlessly attacking him all the time, I really don't understand how you'd ever expect to be listened to at the White House again.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

"Pushing 9/11" !?! You've got some nerve.

The question Obama ducked was about what he would do if something that has already happened were to be in process of happening again.

Fair question to ALL candidates.

If this is a "hypothetical," then so is everything else that will happen after this instant.

And no one who currently supports another FELLOW DEMOCRAT will be listened to in a utpoian Obamanana Republic? Thanks for the heads up. Personality before Party, eh?

Fercrissakes.

[barrista]

"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."

Ahh, love the Used Cars Salesman sales pitch. Not foolin' anyone Kristin.

It's apparent any mention of 9/11 brings up strong emotions (understandably), but it's not something to define someone's electability on. Give up on Hillary, it's a losing cause.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

I think her point is: HILLARY DIDN'T GIVE UP ON HER and the OTHERS who lost loved ones on 9/11. Where was Barry? Not elected yet, that's where. She supports the person who helped her and others during the dark days following that tragedy. She feels strongly about this, perhaps you would too of God forbid, you had a similiar experience, and gasp! it wasn't Senator Obama there to pick you up, but rather Senator Clinton. :)

[HarryPalmer]

When Hitler and his allies were threatening the free world, where was Hillary Clinton? Oh yah, she wasn't born yet. How much leadership did display in during WWII? None! That's why I am writing in and voting for Bob Dole.

Harry Hussein Palmer

[LAcarlito]

Kristen: Obama has been clear and consistent that the US needs to keep its attention on Al Qaeda and hunting down Bin Laden and the Iraq war was a lousy distraction from that effort. It seems that he has been reading the intelligence reports and making smart decisions THAT MATTER. Your favorite candidate was in a visible position of leadership, being from NY and was a cheerleader for the Iraq War because it polled well and she thought it was the right thing for her to do for her political career at that time. She was wrong. Hillary had bad instincts and answered that most important question WRONG.

So who cares how Obama nuances a hypothetical question with that hack Chris Matthews. On a real question of war, Obama got it right and Hillary got it DEAD WRONG.

[Boadicea]

Wow, that's the biggest stretch I've seen a Hill-schill engage in yet.

What is wrong with you people? You are supposed to be supporting your own candidate, not using inuendo and half-truths to bash the other guy. Can't you see Americans are sick to death of this kind of stretching of the truth to attack an opponent?

The only notable Hillary supporter I haven't lost respect for during this primary is Wes Clark. The rest of you have been offensive in the extreme and completely out of touch with Americans. You, Kristen, are a big disappointment.

Can't wait til Clinton's ugly, dying campaign is finally a corpse.

[barrista]

Hey Kristin, it's gonna suck when Hillary has to drop out isn't it?

[yoyo1959]

I am daily amazed at how a supposedly inspiring, soaring and hopeful candidate can have such hateful, angry and unintelligent followers as those that I see on this and other websites on a daily basis.....don't understant it.

[sd4peace]

I think some people come off as angry because theey are sick and tired of having to defend their candidate against, cheap, irrelevant, BS attacks, that have been blown way out of proportion.

What did you want him to say? That the Gov't knew beforehand and did nothing, so he can again be torched in the media as unpatriotic, and unelectable. BS! this is a NON ISSUE

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Note the subtle shift of tense from prospectively predictable (in hindsight), to predictED!

It's not that 9/11 could or could not have been predicted on 9/10. It's that it's now 9/12, so the question is more than fair.

Barack Obamavoidered a straight up question.

It is appalling to me that so many commenters below are ok with that.

If your local fire department had no plan to deal with the next house fire, would you say, "That's a hypothetical?"

[DLSteinhardt]

Sen. Obama has laid low on a number of issues, repeating discredited shibboleths even, to avoid controversy.

This tactic has helped him make fewer enemies, and also, I suspect, to ease his learning curve, as the State Senator of 2001 morphs into potential Superpower Head of State and Government by 2009.

vidhardt.blogspot.com

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Why, oh why, do Obamanistas cheer as St. Obama ducks the question?

Here is the 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?"