Rice on 9/11: Did White House Do Enough? (12 Letters)
The New York Times
April 10, 2004
To the Editor:
Re "9/11 Panel Presses Rice on Early Warnings" (front page, April 9):
Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration's national security adviser,
as is her custom, did not deign to talk to her questioners; she orated at
them, with clichés and tedious rhetorical flourishes, rhythmically
repeating phrases to form cadences better suited to commencement addresses,
all cleverly calculated to stretch out her answers.
The longer her answers, the fewer questions she needed to deal with.
It's also called filibustering.
And what a bureaucratic mind she has, splitting hairs over what is
a policy versus a strategy or a warning memo versus a historical review. The
need for urgent actions was set aside by a need to spend seven months
generating a strategic plan laced, no doubt, with words like "tasking" and
"rendering" and countless acronyms.
No wonder that our government took so long to get its act
together - and when it did, it attacked Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.
ALAN M. EDELSON
Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.
April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
Excuse me, but did they expect a road map?
Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration national security
adviser, said in her testimony on Thursday that "there was no specific time, place or
method" mentioned in an intelligence report warning of a terrorist attack (front page, April 9).
Is that the level of protection we can expect from this administration?
The mind-set is clear: since there was "no silver bullet," as Ms. Rice
put it, this very hawkish administration was powerless to act at all.
Good grief.
I sit here in Houston surrounded by refineries and pipelines - the very
same Texas assets that Al Qaeda has, according to recent reports,
threatened to attack around election time.
Note to President Bush: They have told us when and what.
It's up to you to find out who.
BETTIE W. ROBERTS
Houston, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
Condoleezza Rice not only told the truth, but she also showed
us that she is gracious and intelligent.
CHRIS BELEÑA
Clermont, Fla., April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
If President Bush clearly understood the danger posed by Al Qaeda,
as Condoleezza Rice has testified (front page, April 9), and if part of the reason
the United States was caught by surprise on Sept. 11 was that there
were "structural and legal impediments" to the acquisition and coordination of
information that might have prevented the attack, why was the Bush
administration so vigorous in its efforts to derail formation of the Department
of Homeland Security?
STEVEN SOMKIN
New York, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
I am stymied by Condoleezza Rice's repeated use of the "silver bullet"
metaphor and her distinction between "historical" and "actionable"
intelligence reports (front page, April 9).
When subordinates give their analyses to their superiors, aren't the
superiors supposed to determine what to do? Isn't that why this is the
"executive" branch?
JAMES WESSMAN
Albany, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
In her sworn testimony Thursday, Condoleezza Rice seemed smart,
eloquent and appealing (front page, April 9). But her memory was a little weak.
First, the 9/11 commission chairman, Thomas H. Kean, asked:
Was Ms. Rice informed before the 9/11 attacks that passenger planes could be used
as terrorist weapons? "I do not remember" any such reports, she said.
Then another commissioner, Richard Ben Veniste, asked whether
before the attacks Ms. Rice informed President Bush that Qaeda cells were
active in the United States. Again, "I really don't remember."
Perhaps, in the interest of national security, America needs less
firepower and more brainpower.
RIPLEY M. HOWE
Sacramento, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
Throughout her testimony before the 9/11 commission (editorial, April 9),
Condoleezza Rice tried to pass the buck for the failure of the Bush
administration to thwart Al Qaeda's attack on the United States.
Ms. Rice tried to apportion the blame among previous administrations,
the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. But the impression I got was that as national
security adviser, Ms. Rice was remarkably unengaged.
Ms. Rice said she didn't remember Qaeda cells' being something that
she was told she needed to do something about. I had to ask myself why she
would have needed to be told before doing anything about terrorist cells inside the United States.
Wasn't it her job to take the initiative?
MYRNA A. GOTTLIEB
East Brunswick, N.J., April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
It is sad to see The New York Times and 9/11 commission playing
into the blame game, rather than focusing on the important issues at hand ("The
Rice Version," editorial, April 9).
The only substantive issue here is the future: What are our security
options in this post-9/11 world we inhabit?
Surely, we must learn from our past, but to call this mind-numbing
journey into the dankest recesses of partisanship educational is like calling the
Spanish Inquisition spiritual.
WILL STEWART
Beverly Hills, Calif., April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
Condoleezza Rice's testimony that President Bush was "tired of swatting flies"
is a stark admission that the president perceived Al Qaeda as no
more than a harmless pest.
FERN TREVINO
Chicago, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
You would think that if any country on earth heard of an enemy determined
to attack it, it would, at the very least, have sent Air Force jets to
patrol a few obvious priority targets like its largest city and (if they were different) its capital.
JAMES ADLER
Cambridge, Mass., April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
While Condoleezza Rice maintains that terrorism and, specifically,
Al Qaeda, were high on the Bush administration priorities, the question begging
for an answer is:
If that is so, why did she place Richard A. Clarke and his counterterrorism
organization lower in the hierarchy than they were during the Clinton
administration?
In the Clinton years, Mr. Clarke briefed cabinet-level officers, with reportedly
positive results in the form of incidents averted. When Ms. Rice and
the Bush administration took office, however, she moved Mr. Clarke down
to a position in which he was briefing only deputies and others.
This is a clear statement, with no inference required, that she and this
administration placed a lower priority on threats directed at the United
States.
JACK STARR
New York, April 9, 2004
o
To the Editor:
Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, stonewalled,
filibustered and otherwise dragged out her answers in order not to have
to answer any more questions from the non-friendly members of the
bipartisan commission than absolutely necessary ("9/11 Panel Presses Rice on
Early Warning," front page, April 9).
Some of the questions from her supporters were beyond embarrassing
in the way they allowed her to confirm questionable positions.
PETER BREBACH
Manitou Springs, Colo., April 9, 2004
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
nytimes.com |
