|
Related:
Rice delivers tough defense.(Xinhua/AFP
Photo)
(Click for
larger view!)
WASHINGTON, April 8 (Xinhuanet) -- US National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday stoutly defended the Bush
administration on its anti-terror strategy before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to
counter charges that could hurt President George W.Bush's re-election bid.
ANTI-TERRORISM TOP PRIORITY OF BUSH
ADMINISTRATION
In a high-profiled public testimony before an
independent commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks, Rice said the
elimination of al-Qaida network was the top priority of the Bush administration
before the Sept. 11 attacks.
"President Bush understood the threat, and he
understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond
toal-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swattingflies," Rice
said in the nearly-three-hour testimony.
Rice said the terrorist threat to the United States
emerged long before September 11th, 2001, but the US was "not yet at war with
them."
"For more than 20 years the terrorist threat
gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties
was insufficient," she said.
To rebut charges by former White House
counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke that the Bush administration did not
consider the threat of al-Qaida urgent before the Sept. 11 attacks, Rice
provided a detailed accounting of what the administration had doneduring its 233
days of office before the attacks.
At the beginning of the administration, she said,
Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of Central Intelligence
Agency almost every day in the Oval Office.
From Jan. 20 through Sept. 10, Bush received at these
daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaida, and 13 of those were in
response to questions he or his top advisers posed, she said.
"We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive
strategy to try and eliminate the al Qaida network," Rice said. "This new
strategy was developed over the spring and summer of 2001, and was approved by
the president's senior national security officials on Sept. 4."
"It was the very first major national security policy
directiveof the Bush administration -- not Russia, not missile defense, notIraq,
but the elimination of al-Qaida," she said.
"NO SILVER BULLET THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED
THE 9/11 ATTACKS"
As for numerous reports of terror threats the Bush
administration received in the spring and summer of 2001, Rice said those
reports were not specific as to time, nor place nor manner of attack.
"Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida
activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and in North
Africa," Rice said. "In fact, the information that was specific enough to be
actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. Most often, though, the
threat reporting was frustratingly vague."
Rice said throughout the period of heightened threat
information, the Bush administration worked hard on multiple fronts to detect,
protect against and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to
an attack.
"Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no
silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks," she said.
Rice and commission members had some heated exchange
over whether US law enforcement and intelligence agencies warned Bush in a
Presidential Daily Briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 that the al-Qaidanetwork was
plotting to strike the United States.
Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste said the
Aug. 6 memo suggested that preparations were being made consistent with
hijackings within the United States. The memo was titled "Bin Laden Determined
to Attack Inside the United States."
But Rice insisted that the memo was not a warning
because it focused on history, not current threats. The memo contained a
"discussion" on whether al-Qaida might use hijacking to try to freea prisoner in
the United States, and it said that "the FBI had full field investigations under
way," Rice said.
Because the memo, frequently brought up during the
hearing, wasa source of controversy, panel members said it should be
declassified. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean announced at the end of the
hearing that the commission had requested from the White House that the memo be
declassified, "because we feel it is important that the American people get a
chance to see it."
TESTIMONY REPRESENTS WHITE HOUSE
DAMAGE-CONTROL EFFORT
The White House agreed to let Rice testify publicly
in a major reversal of attitude.
It initially resisted calls from the commission for
Rice's public testimony, citing executive privilege. But the White House found
it under increasing criticism from the commission, family members of 9/11
victims and lawmakers for its refusal.
The White House turnaround came days after Clarke
stirred a political firestorm in Washington by charging the Bush administration
of undermining the war on terrorism by ignoring thethreat of al-Qaida while
focusing on Iraq.
Clarke's charges, laid out in a new book and in his
testimony before the 9/11 panel, threatened to damage one of the Bush's
signature issues. The president has cast himself as a strong leader on national
security and his aides hope this image could help him win a second term in the
November election.
The White House launched a series of offensives to
dismiss Clarke's charges and Bush finally gave a go-ahead to the Rice testimony.
Bush also agreed that he and Vice President Dick Cheney would testify together
before all 10 panel members in a private meeting.
REACTION MIXED, IMPLICATIONS YET TO UNFOLD
As expected, the three-hour, sometimes-contentious
testimony byRice drew mixed reaction, with administration officials praising her
performance while others demanding more answers.
White House officials said President George W. Bush
watched Rice's testimony at his ranch in Texas and was "very pleased" by her
performance.
Bush called Rice from his pickup truck on his ranch,
congratulating her for the "great job" of articulating the effortsby his
administration to combat terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials
said.
But relatives of the Sept. 11 attacks' victims said
Rice had failed to answer questions over why the Bush administration had not
been able to prevent the attacks, saying they wanted more fromher.
"We're glad that she came forward and spoke. We're
glad that itwas in public, under oath, and we were able to get that information.
But there is a lot more truth to be told," Carie Lemack, whose mother died in
the attack, told CNN.
Family members of some victims listened to Rice's
testimony in the crowded hearing room. At several points, they applauded when
commission members pressed hard questions on Rice.
Major television networks broadcast live the whole
hearing and held discussions over its political fallout in prime-time
programs.Tens of thousands of viewers sent e-mail to or called those television
stations to express their opinions over Rice's performance, both in her
testimony and in her position as a national security adviser.
It is very natural that the full implication of this
highly-publicized event would unfold only gradually. It can be anticipated,
however, that a political debate would follow along the party line.
Republicans are expected to use the Rice testimony to
argue that the Bush administration has taken anti-terrorism as its top priority,
while Democrats are seen likely to use the same testimony to press the Bush
administration for answers to more tough questions they would say left
unanswered. Enditem | 
Breaking
News 
