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?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Excellent article, timely and very much on point. Well done.
http://lin
I'm truly internet challenged, but I copied the above link from Obama's web space (see what I mean?).
It's an address he gave at the Wilson Center on 08/01/2007 after being introduced by Lee Atwater. I found it under Issues, Homeland Security..
I just started navigating thru his campaign web space. Quite an education. You want details? You get details.
Thanks for the link Mojane - maybe if those that see him as an empty suit, would actually take the time to look would be surprised. This world isn't black and white, nor is it cut along political lines.
Mojane, thanks for the link. I believe you mean Sen. Obama was introduced by Lee Hamilton, director of Wilson Center, not Lee Atwater. Lee Hamilton was cochair of the 9/11 commission and is a supporter of Sen. Obama. FYI, Lee Atwater was the nasty Republican stratigist from Bush 41's campaign in 1988 who conceived the Willy Horton ad against Michael Dukakis. He died in 1991.
Ms. Breitweiser,
You wrestle with Lee Hamilton's words of endorsement for Obama when he says "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." You argue that the words "power" and "relentlessly promote" are not Obama's strong suit when it comes to our national security. I believe Obama would relentlessly promote tools of diplomacy that would help deter future acts of terror. You also refer to Obama as "glib." You have criticized Obama's fiery pastor and that he should distance himself from the Rev. Wright. Obama is not fiery or subordinate as a result of their relationship or Wright's teachings. He's one of the first politicians I am proud of in my lifetime and actually has an even temper. If there's no eventempered leader answering the red phone, need I say more (war?). I think your loyalty to Hillary rooted in 911 experiences and a war we all agreed upon in Afghanistan clouds your logic. You should demand another commission to debunk the War in Iraq which Hillary, your "relentlessly self-promoting" candidate voted for. With all due respect, your previous posts calling for unification of the Democratic party have all been sabotaged by your wrath for Obama.
Yes, I looked in the report just this morning, and it even said that "Al Qaeda is going to get some guys onto planes and have them crash those planes into buildings in New York on the morning of September 11th, 2001!
Or maybe I actually read that "Al Qaeda was determined to attack in the US, possibly using airplanes". The report predicted an attack, not a specific date and time.
That said, it's a gotcha question, because if Obama had said that we all knew that Al Qaeda was going to attack and that the Bush Administration didn't do anything about it, Matthews would have turned around and declared Obama one of the "9-11 truthers". Which apparently, in the mainstream media, is the same as being called a crackpot. This is how Chris Matthews gets people to say what he wants, by goading them one direction, then cutting them down in the other direction.
Obama said that 9/11 wasn't predicted, not that it couldn't have been predicted. Big difference. This election is about a lot more than who said what about 9/11, or who helped whom after 9/11. We all know that the Bush administration completely ignored the probability of terrorism until it was too late - a fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama. This article is basically pointless.
No wonder Obama is winning. Who are you people? Where have you been? This man will have to protect us and he appeared clueless. So, in order to not have to look at your candidate you dump on someone who has done more than anyone else to bring transparency to government. I thought Obama liked transparency so why are dumping on someone who put herself out on a limb to try and get answers. Throw Kristen under the bus so you can feel better about your candidate.
Who's throwing Kristen under a bus? Your problem is you can't quite get a hold of Obama so you could do exactly that. Come Nov. I'll bet that's what you will try and do, vote McCain to spite Obama.
Try to have a car accident and answer Matthews' question smarty pants. I bet you'll be able to give the good answer only in retrospect if you're alive, not while it's happening or if you are dead.
Surely, he could have handled the question better. But I don't see how that calls his whole credibility and leadership abilities into question.
This just seems like another case of "um...um..
Well if that's the case mimister Wright was correct in saying the Gov't was resonsible for 9/11,by not acting upon the possibility it would happen. But do you honestly think a presidential candidate would commit political suicide and admit that publicly The man has been crucified for his minister saying in church for God's sake, so to agree with such a statement would have indeed been very unwise,even if it is or was true.
I must admit i felt the same way, as soon as he said it... but he more than made up for that slip, in my opinion. To compare his answer to Condoleeza Rice's continuous lie-fest is a little bit disingenous at best, as Obama has (or had, whatever the correct tense is) nowhere near the same exposure to the intelligence, reports, daily warnings etc that Rice had.
His approach to intelligence gathering and willingness to have all points of view at the table, including the contrarians, is an immense improvement over the fact-inventors (and fact-ignorers) that the current clowns continue to employ.
I think maybe he was speaking as an ordinary citizen; I don't think the average person on the street on September 11, 2001 would have been able to predict an imminent terrorist attack...
Oh, and bye the bye. Hillary is wildly out of control. I hope she's somehow removed from this imbroglio as soon as possible, making our lives a little less miserable and allowing Obama to have at that crazy old war horse (lots of horse metaphors here) General von Hindenburg.
We'll all die of old age before a major politician running for office dares announce in advance they will uncover the true 9/11 story if elected.
First, Breitweiser is an unabashed supporter of HCR. She's been taking every opportunity to take shots at Obama to promote her horse in the race. You must take into account who the critique is coming from.
Second, Matthews is an ass. The question sounds like that old question to Dukakis as to how he would act if his wife Kitty were to have been raped. The dumb question should have gotten an answer magnifying its dumbness. Obama fell short there. He could have started by pleading with the questioner to give this goofy 3:00 AM call a rest. No al-Qaeda kamikaze pilot would be hitting an empty building - they may have been naive, but they weren't stupid.
Thirdly, Clinton (that's right, Bill) and Gore had an opportunity to either federalize or seriously regulate airline security in the mid 1990's. They didn't. They caved to the greed of the airlines (with plenty of help from the Republicans). If there had been even halfway competent personnel and reasonable procedures in place, the Qaeda boys would not have gotten on board with their box cutters. Now that the horse is out of the barn, we're paying billions for crap, whereas before 9/11 we had hamburger flippers checking for the bad guys for coolie wages, and the turnover rate was horrendously high. Had greed not trumped professionalism, Breitweiser would less likely be a widow.
A hearty amen. It is amazing to me that people like Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Larry Johnson and Kristen Breitweiser are so gung-ho about Hillary. Kristen is a smart woman, so I can only assume that the trauma that she must still be feeling, and the B.S. that Bush , his lying cabinet and administration have put her through has made her grab on to the Hillary myth. Yes, Hillary has done wonderful things for the 9/11 families. I will give her that. But what was she supposed to do? She had just been elected to the senate. Many people still didn't like her, and the biggest crisis ever unfolded on her watch. Now what do you think would have happened if she had done nothing, fallen apart and cried? She stepped up. Especially because even then she had the presidency in her plan. But then what did she do? She voted to help Bush divert attention from Bin Laden. Kristen...
It does not matter which candidate this author has decided to endorse and support. All that matters is Obama gave the same remark given by Condi Rice.
So... apparently. that's the only thing Hillary's people are able to freak out over from that interview? Pretty lame (and funny).
If you think that 9/11 is funny you are seriously deranged. Obama should have said what he would do if it was happening again. He doesn't know what he would do. I would rather trust Breitweiser on this issue than any person that posts a comment here. She was on the frontlines. You are clueless as to how hard she has worked to get answers. There is still a lot we don't know. This is why Obama cannot unite the country. His supporters are willing to dump on honest, caring, hard working Americans rather than demand their candidate have answers to the hard questions.
You don't believe that yourself. Give it up because you sound like you have a different motive.
So Bjorn. You're the president. There are planes in the air. What would you do? What ... would ... you ... do?
Obama said nobody could've predicted 9/11. A far cry from Condi saying nobody could've predicted planes flying into big buildings. Jeesh!
He didn't even say nobody could have predicted 9/11, the attached dialog shows he said nobody did predict 9/11. Big difference.
Chris Matthews comment also inane. AQ did not repeat attack on WTC, the mode of attack was totally different, which is Obama's point. We don't know what form the next AQ attack will take. It seems very counterproductive for the future President to say what response he will order for a particular hypothetical attack.
Oh please...
My comment below wasn't meant for you, sorry.
By the way, where in CurrerBells comment did you get that they thought 9/11 was funny?
Kristen, that 9/11 was "predictable" does not imply that it was "predicted". You ramble on about how "predicatable" 9/11 was, but Obama didn't say that it wasn't "predictable". He said that it wasn't "predicted". You can say that this is just semantics - I disagree. I am not aware that anyone "predicted" 9/11 - that is with anything approaching specifics (where, when, how). The August 2001 NIE proves that it was "predictable", but it certainly didn't "predict" that it would happen. If I say that it is "predictable" that terrorists will strike the US again, this does not mean that I have "predicted" that they will.
Go do your homework. There were exercises two years before 9/11 based on defending the pentagon from an airplane being flown into it...of course 9/11 was predictable. Kristin spared you all the references but she should have posted them just so you could go read because you are totally and utterly clueless about just how predictable it was.
There were exercises going on that very day. By you arguing about Obamas reponse to a loaded ? and damning him for giving the correct answer is very telling.
Kristen,
I would also hesitate before I answer that kind of question, because it's really loaded and the answers are not as simple as some want to paint it.
When you drive on a highway, do you know that there are multiple risks for an accident? Yes, just go northbound on the NJ Turnpike from DE to NY between 3 and 7 PM. Can you predict when it will happen? No. Can you predict where it will happen? No. Can you predict what will happen? No. Can you predict how it will happen? No. Would you know what to do if it happens? Yes, but that depends whether you have time to react or not before the hit, and under what circumstances the accident happens.
Now transpose the terrorist attack scenario described above as the accident currently happening. Did you predict it would happen? No, although you knew that it could and whether or not you have taken precautions will play in determining your chances of survival. Did you predict where it would happen? No. Do you know what is happening? Yes, you're having an accident and you could die any second. Do you know how to react given that your car can change directions any second bump another car, or roll over or crash against a hard object or...? Good luck answering that one.
Although it raised my eyebrow at first, after some thining, I beleive Obama gave the right answer.
I can't believe the crap posted here. A plane is coming at the pentagon, you get the call, what would you do? He better know who to call and have the protocol down. McCain and Clinton would have hit that question out of the ballpark.
How...... How would they have knocked it out of the ballpark, any answer would be pure fantasy.
Would you like them to tell you what they would do when Atlantis rises from the sea also.....w
Yapping about hypothetical extreme scenarios in the hypothetical event that they are president is a WASTE of time. Real life isn't the TV show 24 but IF something like 24 goes down it will be the "Jack Bauers" that address it not the President directly. Plans will be in place to attempt to deal with it but my god SH!T HAPPENS. Obama gave you a straight rational answer and you would rather him blow smoke up your arse. Maybe if he said he would build a Ironman suit and defend the United states single handedly you would think he knocked that question out of the ballpark..
Get real. Besides Hillary WAS asked a similar question in the last debate by Wolf Blitzer and she ALSO said she doesn't want to address hypothetical loaded questions like that.
Any answer at that point in the plot would be far fetched and straight out of a TV show as mentioned by my colorful peer Darkbane. A terrorist attack is a dynamic scenario, you never know what's next.
Had Matthews asked Obama what he would've done with the intelligence that was available to Condi and crew, I would better understand Kristens logic.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
