Thursday, April 08, 2004

Political futures on the line in the US from SCBBC

So goes the headline on the SCBBC website announcing the upcoming testimony of Dr. Rice before the 911 commission.

Let's take a peek behind this story and see what SCBBC left out.

First off, Rice has already testified in front of the commission, behind closed doors for four hours, longer than any one else so far. No bombshells were reported then and none are expected today. Wonder why the BBC left that out?

Secondly, Rice is a personal adviser to the president not a political appointee like Rumsfeld. What is the difference? Political appointees are confirmed by the US Senate while personal advisors are not and therefore not compelled to testify in front of Congress. This is an important separation of powers issue in the US and has been honored by both parties regardless of who is in power - till now; and election year. Wonder why the BBC left that out?

Third, there are important security reasons for testifying in private. Imagine you are Dr Rice with access to all the intelligence information; FBI, CIA, NSA and all the rest. Now someone from the commission asks you a question. You don't just immediately blurt out the answer. You have to stop and think a minute about how to answer with the facts, the truth and not give away classified information or more importantly, sources. In addittion, having to answer quetions in this manner makes you look stupid or worse like you are trying to hide something; which you are - intelligence sources and methods.

The commission will all have a certain level of security clearance but not to Dr Rice's level and they most certainly will not have source access. Why is this important? Remember when Ronald Reagan, on national television, played the taped intercept of the Soviet fighter piolt's conversation as he shot down the civilian 747 airplane over the pacific? The Soviet's changed their fighter piolt communication code immediately and we lost a valuable intelligence source. Why did Reagan do it? My guess is to demonstrate just how evil the "evil empire", as he was calling the Soviet Union at the time, really was.

Dr Rice testifying behind closed doors can limit any intelligence slips and deprive enemies an opprotunity to analyse her testimony for intelligence value. You can read a lot between the lines sometimes and when used with your own intelligence information, obtain valuable information. And behind closed doors you do not look stupid when you hesitate as you try and find a way to answer without giving away intelligence.

Fourth, Bush's job is not on the line over this. Clinton had 8 years to address the problem and did nothing despite repeated Al-Qaeda attacks. All Americans remember Bush going to ground zero shortly after the attack - against his advisers wishes and the Secret Service's advice. They also remember that Clinton didn't even bother going to New York after the first terror attack on the WTC.

And finally we are presented with this:

A big day for future President Rice, and indeed for current President Bush, and perhaps for those who want to find out the truth about whether or not this administration failed the nation in the months before 11 September.

"A big day for future President Rice" implying she is testifying for political reasons.

"and perhaps for those who want to find out the truth" implying some don't want to know the truth.

Last but not least we get this nice little bit of "leaving things out":

"whether or not this administration failed" Uh, excuse me! I think the commission is looking at the 8 years the Clinton administration failed and if the Bush administration in it's 8 months could have done more. Wonder why the SCBBC left that out?

No comments:

 
Brain Bliss