"We were not asked to do it."
Why might it be a good thing that Condoleezza Rice is moving to Secretary of State?
Because she was the worst National Security Advisor in history. It's possible that, had she been doing her job, the 9/11 attacks might never have happened. It's important to our security that we correct the huge vulnerability created by having a person so ill-suited to the role acting as National Security Advisor.
Of course, since this administration guarantees permanent employment to all who provide unquestioned personal loyalty to El Jefe, Rice can't be fired, she must be moved. Ergo, Secretary of State Rice.
What is the job of the National Security Advisor? While the job has taken on various scope under various presidents, most would agree that the job is to gather up the intelligence from the various fractious and jealous agencies, bring it all together, and give the President a picture of the overall view.
What do we now know about the period before 9/11? We found out that the CIA knew that Arab terrorists were in the country. They knew that Bin Laden wanted to attack in the US, and had considered hijacking airplanes. The FBI knew that there were some Arabs getting strange flying lessons. The CIA was intercepting a high volume of "chatter," suggesting some imminent event. The counter-terrorism expert, who'd been asking for a high-level meeting to discuss terrorism, sent her a memo on Sept. 4 warning that he thought the military and the CIA weren't doing enough about the threat.
Was the National Security Advisor challenging the agencies to do better? Was she "shaking the trees", trying to bring to light any information stuck down at lower levels of the bureaucracies, as had been done before the millenium? Was she following up with people to make sure that everyone in important parts of the government, like say, the FAA, had heard any of this? Was she even asking anyone to ask the questions? Did she take any initiative at all?
I think her testimony to the 9/11 Commission says it all:
Secretary of State seems like a job that fits her skill-set. At State, her two major responsibilities will be to shape foreign policy, and to represent the President to leaders abroad. We've seen that the White House shapes its own foreign policy, so having an independent voice at State just gets annoying, and sends the dreaded "mixed messages." As for representing the President, she is probably better suited to that than Colin Powell. Every leader in the world has known for some time that he was on the outside. They can feel confident that Ms. Rice actually speaks for the President.
Taking no initiative of her own, and faithfully repeating the President's message seem to be her strongest skills. A perfect fit.
Update: The Washington Post has a good summary of her performance in the run-up to Iraq here.
Because she was the worst National Security Advisor in history. It's possible that, had she been doing her job, the 9/11 attacks might never have happened. It's important to our security that we correct the huge vulnerability created by having a person so ill-suited to the role acting as National Security Advisor.
Of course, since this administration guarantees permanent employment to all who provide unquestioned personal loyalty to El Jefe, Rice can't be fired, she must be moved. Ergo, Secretary of State Rice.
What is the job of the National Security Advisor? While the job has taken on various scope under various presidents, most would agree that the job is to gather up the intelligence from the various fractious and jealous agencies, bring it all together, and give the President a picture of the overall view.
What do we now know about the period before 9/11? We found out that the CIA knew that Arab terrorists were in the country. They knew that Bin Laden wanted to attack in the US, and had considered hijacking airplanes. The FBI knew that there were some Arabs getting strange flying lessons. The CIA was intercepting a high volume of "chatter," suggesting some imminent event. The counter-terrorism expert, who'd been asking for a high-level meeting to discuss terrorism, sent her a memo on Sept. 4 warning that he thought the military and the CIA weren't doing enough about the threat.
Was the National Security Advisor challenging the agencies to do better? Was she "shaking the trees", trying to bring to light any information stuck down at lower levels of the bureaucracies, as had been done before the millenium? Was she following up with people to make sure that everyone in important parts of the government, like say, the FAA, had heard any of this? Was she even asking anyone to ask the questions? Did she take any initiative at all?
I think her testimony to the 9/11 Commission says it all:
If there was any reason to believe that I needed to do something or that Andy Card needed to do something, I would have been expected to be asked to do it. We were not asked to do it.She was waiting for someone to ask her to do something. We've seen how well that worked out.
Secretary of State seems like a job that fits her skill-set. At State, her two major responsibilities will be to shape foreign policy, and to represent the President to leaders abroad. We've seen that the White House shapes its own foreign policy, so having an independent voice at State just gets annoying, and sends the dreaded "mixed messages." As for representing the President, she is probably better suited to that than Colin Powell. Every leader in the world has known for some time that he was on the outside. They can feel confident that Ms. Rice actually speaks for the President.
Taking no initiative of her own, and faithfully repeating the President's message seem to be her strongest skills. A perfect fit.
Update: The Washington Post has a good summary of her performance in the run-up to Iraq here.
posted by Paul at 9:56 AM |
|
email this
