Where I Stand — Columnist Brian Greenspun: Banish the ghosts

Friday, March 26, 2004 | 4:42 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WEEKEND EDITION

March 27 - 28, 2004

In a world of spooks, a few ghosts shouldn't surprise anyone.

Not since the Watergate hearings, which led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974, has this country been involved in such an in-depth look into the failings of government as it has the past few days in front of the 9-11 commission.

For the ordinary citizen -- that would be those of us who sat in front of our television sets watching and listening to the failure of our government to protect us from the devastating attack on American soil that changed the world as we know it -- it is difficult to fully comprehend the nuanced testimony given by the top security and spy officials of both the Clinton and current Bush administrations.

That was not the case in the Watergate days. There were very few, if any, Republicans or Democrats who were willing to step out in front of the oncoming train of criminal indictments that were obviously heading toward President Nixon's men, so there was a minimum of obfuscation and finger-pointing to get in the way of a factual investigation. That was not necessarily what happened this past week in front of the 9-11 commission. As dedicated and responsible as each of the 10 members appears to be, it is also clear that some are trying to protect either President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush as their respective administrations come under fire for not doing enough -- or whatever they could -- to prevent Sept. 11.

Like most Americans, I could not watch the entire hearings and I am not privvy to all the information that the commission members have at their disposal, so it would be folly to suggest that I know as much or more than they do about what did or did not happen. But I do know what I heard the various witnesses testify to what they knew and what they did relative to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

And, lest we even try going there, forget entirely about the finger-pointing that is taking place between and among the CIA, FBI, NSC and the various White Houses as each one tries to put the best light on what they did or did not do. Besides, that really isn't the point of the commission's work. What they are charged with accomplishing is telling the American people what happened, why it happened and proposing what to do in the future so it never happens again.

Protecting this country in the future is what is most important. We can't do anything about what has happened other than to learn from the mistakes that were made. And, I am sure, there were mistakes. But not necessarily culpable ones.

As former Clinton NSC adviser Sandy Berger told the commission, reading the book from back to front serves no purpose other than to prove that hindsight is much clearer than foresight. Likewise, it does the people of the United States no good to try to assess blame based on what we know today, after connecting the dots that in most cases didn't even exist before Sept. 11, 2001. We can certainly judge both President Clinton and President Bush on their various actions based on what they knew at the time, but any other assessment would be unwise and unfair.

From all I have heard so far, it seems that the systemic problems that existed prior to the World Trade Center bombings, and which have been addressed since then, are more likely responsible for what happened rather than any overt decision to ignore what, in hindsight, appears obvious. I am biased in that opinion, of course, because I don't believe any person who is president of this country would deliberately -- for any reason -- risk the security of our country and its people.

Having said all that, there is one looming issue that still needs to be addressed. And that is the very damaging testimony by former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who said that President Bush did not give due attention to terrorist activities by bin Laden and al-Qaida. Bush officials were told point blank that al-Qaida was the biggest threat facing this country, and yet for eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001, his people did little to address that threat.

Whether that is true or not -- and there is some reason to believe there is truth in there given former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's charges that President Bush was more interested in Saddam than Osama -- it can be cleared up by the one person who seemingly knows what happened.

So far, Condoleezza Rice has refused to publicly testify before the commission -- she only has agreed to a private meeting with the commissioners. Whatever the principles involved of not testifying publicly, the wound is too raw and the country nowhere near healed enough to ignore this gaping hole. Given the charges by Dick Clarke during his appearance on the bandstand, Rice would serve the president best by making clear what happened on her watch.

Was she told of the threat by al-Qaida and did she and the president fail to prioritize it or, despite President Bush's efforts, did it happen anyway? It is a simple question that I am certain Rice can clear up in front of the commission and in front of the American people who just want to know what happened.

There are spooks at the CIA but we do not fear them. We thank them. But there are ghosts -- from Watergate to Sept. 11 -- that will continue to scare us until we are comfortable that they have been dealt with.

Condoleezza Rice can help us scare them away.