Kerrey: The one-man commission

Kerrey: The one-man commission
: Bob Kerrey, self-styled attack dog of the 9/11 Commission, is in the NY Times Sunday saying again that 9/11 could have been prevented but without saying, again, how. It’s bad enough that he’s throwing out such a terrible charge, it’s worse that on TV and in papers he is coming to and announcing his conclusions before the commission is even finished gathering its evidence, let along writing its report. He’s making a mockery of a process that has become a mockery.

  • Kat

    I can not understand how anyone could have imagined such a sick act as 911. I do not blame Clinton and I do not blame Bush–I blame islamic terrorists. But I do think the world has gotten a harsh wake up call. The question is though what do we do about these sick people. Knowing the following–how do we prevent it?? What should the US do?
    {A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report states it is “probable” terrorists would employ a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon in an attack by the year 2020.
    The warning is contained in a July 1999 DIA report on future threats, says Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news source.
    “It is probable that terrorist organizations or individuals will employ a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. interests by 2020, states the report, stamped secret. }

  • Yes, it has turned out to be Kerrey vs. Kerrey.

  • Reid

    I read a Tom Clancy novel in which a man crashed a plane into the US Capitol that was published in something like 1997. And, I think some terrorists had tried to do it in Paris sometime in the late 1990’s.
    Someone should have foreseen this avenue of attack. Someone from the FBI or the CIA or one of those agencies tasked with that kind of thing.
    In addition, our wake up call should have been in 1993 when they first tried to blow up the WTC. That event should have opened our eyes to the no-holds-barred outlook of these monsters. But, I guess we looked at it as anomalous and, its failure as reassuring evidence that these yokels didn’t know enough to do real damage. I know I did.
    The fault lies with many agencies and bipartisan governments, the difference, of course, being that the Clinton administration had 8 years to figure it out while Bush had only 7 months. That’s seven months in which the current administration came up with a plan for actually going after AQ instead of just issuing impotent threats like Clinton was always doing.
    The Dems are really going to stoke this brouhaha for all it’s worth, though. Because, they know that, when people finally enter those voting booths, the question they are going to ask themselves is, who is going to keep me and my family safe? Who actually does what he says he is going to do? Who follows through on his rhetoric and isn’t afraid to use force when it is needed? Who do I think Al Qaeda and the others do not want me to vote for?
    And, no matter how madly they spin, I’m afraid there is one and only one answer for those questions: Bush is the man.

  • Reid

    Just another quick note: the Democrats have become the party of the status quo, even when the status quo sucks. The crumbling sanctions regime against Iraq was the fountainhead of recruitment for Al Qaeda. Not only had they served to unite the entire region against us but, they were about to fall completely apart anyway. So, I ask every lib I know, and they never have an answer, “How would you stabilize the Middle East and eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists with Saddam firmly ensconced in power in a sanctions free Iraq?”

  • Reid

    Oh, and I used to have a lot of respect for Bob Kerrey. He was one of the only Democrats willing to tackle Social Security reform and, he generally supported a strong foreign policy. Too bad I guess the veepstakes were just too tempting. So sad. Too bad.

  • Mike

    Am I the only one who finds it odd that a member of a bi-partisan commision (who hasn’t finished it’s investigation mind you) is writing an article in the NYTimes about the investigation?
    How does this help the investigation? How is this proper? You don’t see a judge opining about a court case they are prosiding over do you?
    I feel nothing but contempt for Bob Kerrey. A man who deserves the respect of all of us for his service in Vietnam. Testimony has not finished in the inquiry and he has already made up his mind!
    His contempt for the Condelezza Rice is evident by his calling her Ms. Rice instead of Dr. Rice (I guess it’s better than Dr. Clarke as he was doing during her testimony, but I digress).
    “we should swallow our pride and appeal to the United Nations”????? Is he crazy? I’ll admit that I would like to see more involvement from the UN in the transfer of power (mainly because it will bring some of our boys back home), but we should never defer to the UN.
    Bob Kerrey should not be opining about our dealings with Iraq to begin with! He should be trying to determine what went wrong before 9/11 and how we should fix it!
    Kerrey is useless right now.

  • Mike

    sorry about the length of that last post. I got a litte worked up.

  • Oh, Jeff, Jeff. You’re just being silly.

  • Homer Robinson

    Is Kerrey that vain, or is the need to be seen as a player that great. Strange.(And Sad)

  • Although I think the 9/11 Commission is, in the end, a futile exercise, I don’t really blame Bob Kerrey. I’ve tried to listen to what I can of the hearings, and Kerrey has generally been the most inquisitive and rational member. Kerrey at least makes an attempt not to get suckered into partisan bickering. I may not agree with Kerrey about everything, but I think he’s being honest about his ideas.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    Jeff, maybe Kerrey won’t say how 9/11 could have been prevented, but it’s so easy…all Bush would have had to do is arrest every Muslim man in America in 5 weeks time and then hold them in prisons indeffinately. I’m sure the Dems would have heartilly supported that.

  • sol

    Bob Kerrey is just a typical, retarded, shameless, devil-infused, left-wing ‘liberal’.

  • Richard Meixner

    Senator Kerrey is just fulfilling a political role in this very political year. The selected public airing of the 9/11 Commission inquiry is political theater. Ms. Rice had already provided testimony, but the opportunity to attempt to embarrass, harass, or hinder one charged with the national security brief is simply too appealing.
    And that continues, but you, Jeff, rightly point out how mockingly political it truly is (as was, IMHO, the Senator’s sarcastic introductory praise last Thursday). The false catharsis of such cries will not heal the pain on this third Easter since that event. Hopefully your voice of reason-How, dear sir, would you have directed bureaucratic resources in view of such diffuse threats?-will lead others to ask the same, and reveal the paucity of thought in such charges.
    Jim Miller also addresses this issue, and (along with Cori Dauber) warns of policy determined by the ‘authentic’ few who lost family and close friends that day.

  • Kerrey’s posturing is galling, but my biggest question is to all those folks howling for the UN to take over: How many divisions does Kofi Annan have?
    It’s still going to be the same soldiers on the ground; Germany, France, etc. don’t have the ability to offer any help even if they were so inclined. It certainly can’t be expected that Russian soldiers would improve matters. Their misadventure in Afghanistan would draw even more acrimony–and fedayeen–into the situation.
    (Must now wash hands for paraphrasing a psychopath to make a point.)

  • Ga-ne-sha

    Now Benveniste is on Fox News Sunday, attempting to answer a really simple yes/no question, approx.,”Do you think Rice’s characterization of the PDB was correct?”, with a reference to someone else’s op ed piece, which he has before him and wants to read. Well, I guess he is right in the sense that no one really wants to hear from him the way they wanted to hear from Rice. Benveniste was and is not involved in forming and executing Administration policy, though he apparently thinks he is.
    These particular lofty Commissioners, Benveniste and Kerry, are suggesting to the hapless public the Commission already has “findings”. Did they learn this tactic of nuance [presenting a non or pre-finding finding], or are their brains scrambled congenitally such that their basic thought processes can only produce “nuance”: such as “I am a lofty Commissioner, and the Public wants to hear from me”, or “The issue is too important to leave to the findings of the Commission”, or “I am a devotee of the Liberal Religion and I must act like a Liberal at all times”, or “Dishonor is honor. It’s all relative anyway”, or “Everything, including truth, is only ‘political'[Clarke]”, or what else?
    If they have learned this tactic, thus knowing it is a tactic only, then why are they using it, if at the same time all their thinking seems to involve baldly defective rationalizations? Why don’t they give us the real reasons for their opposition to Bush instead?

  • Jack O’Toole is scratching his head over Jarvis’s post.
    Join the club, Jack.

  • Of course 9/11 could have been prevented. It wasn’t fated by Allah or anything.
    The 9/11 Commission is supposed to explore our failure to stop it. Sure the Commission going to be used by partisans on both sides, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a Commission.

  • The only way that 9-11 could have been prevented, at least in part, would have been for the cockpit doors to be reinforced, and pilots instructed not to open them under any circumstances, no matter how many passengers and flight attendants the terrorists slaughtered. We all recognize that as the proper procedure now, but nobody would have prior to them crashing the planes into the buildings.
    I do note that Kerrey’s comments veer off into Neverland at the end, with the recommendation that Iraq be turned over to the UN. Lord knows how he expects that to be accomplished.

  • Kat

    And how would you have prevented 911? By searching all the mosques? Profiling all muslims? Not allowing muslims to travel to or from America? How do you ,OH SMART ONE, propose that muslims not be successful in blowing up another plane or train? How can we ensure they do not carry out a chemical attack by 2020 as they propose? Should we be searching all muslim homes, mosques, schools?

  • felixrayman

    Bob Kerrey, self-styled attack dog of the 9/11 Commission, is in the NY Times Sunday saying again that 9/11 could have been prevented but without saying, again, how. It’s bad enough that he’s throwing out such a terrible charge
    It’s not a terrible charge, it’s true. The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. Other similar attacks were prevented both before and after 9/11, there is no prima facie reason the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented as well. He is stating something fairly obvious here and your distaste for obvious facts is telling.
    it’s worse that on TV and in papers he is coming to and announcing his conclusions before the commission is even finished gathering its evidence, let along writing its report.
    The more that the issue gets talked about, the better the chances that something gets done about the problems that allowed 9/11 to happen. Structural problems in our nation’s intelligence? Well have they been fixed? This needs to be talked about more than it has been.
    Finally, your implication here that saying 9/11 could have been prevented is a terrible thing to say is appalling. We need people who will say 9/11 could have been prevented and here is how we are going to prevent the next one, not people who imply that attacks that kill thousands of Americans are just something that needs to be put up with.
    That’s appalling. I know you are trying to make political points here and everything, but you are way beyond the pale.

  • Rob

    You’re failing the same way that Kerrey failed.
    Be specific now, HOW could the 9/11 attack have been prevented aside from dumb luck?
    What was the standard procedure in the event of a plane hijacking?
    Why were the terrorists able to take control of the four planes with such obviously inadequate weapons?
    Why did the fourth plane fail to reach it’s target destination?
    The answers to all of these questions are the same. Before 9/11 (actually before the first three impacts) the standard procedure in the case of a hijacking was to sit quietly and let them get the plane on the ground and start negotiations.
    After the first three impacts, it was now understood that there would be no negotiation. Once this was undrestood, the passengers acted and took the plane back (with the final crash being the unfortunate result of such heroic actions.)
    9/11 succeeded because it wasn’t foreseen as an attack scenario. It only worked once and will only work once.
    As for the person who brought up the Tom Clancy book you’ll recall that in that case it was a depressed/suicidal airline pilot flying a plane that only had the co-pilot aboard at the time.

  • John Moreschi

    What worries me the most is the fact that the terrorists and the roque states that support them, especially Iran, are eating up the partisan statements of Kerrey and Kennedy, and are seeing in them evidence that their attacks on our troops are working to demoralize Americans back home. Their efforts are clearly aimed at getting the Amercian public to pull the troops out and leave Iraq to the fascists who will battle it out amongst themselves, with the winner becoming a source of funds and weapons for the terrorist to use in America and Europe. This is a war between the fascist element of Islam and all of Western Civilization. To think otherwise is to be in denial. Those who hate Bush so vehemently need to understand that there is more than an election at stake in what they say. Troops are dieing as a result of the encouragement the fascists are getting from Bush’s political enemies.