Congressional Record: March 23, 2004 (Senate)
Page S2955-S2957
THE 9/11 COMMISSION
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about
the 9/11 Commission which, of course, is right now beginning to
interview some of the most high-level people in our Government. The
Commission has an important and, I would say, sacred mission, and that
mission is to find out what happened and why so many people were killed
in the tragedy of 9/11. Of course, many of those people were from my
city and State--the vast majority. Some of those people I knew: someone
I played basketball with in high school, someone who was a businessman
who befriended me on the way up, someone who was a brave firefighter
from the Marine Park neighborhood from where I come. And the families
mirror--of course with greater intensity--the determination of the
American people to get to the bottom of this.
The unfortunate situation is the 9/11 Commission--which is bipartisan
and has an important mission that transcends any politics, any one
administration, any one Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State or
President--is being thwarted as it tries to do its work. They have
not been given documents. They have been delayed. Even to this day,
Condoleezza Rice has said she will not testify to the Commission in
public, even though she was in probably the most sensitive staff
position there could be in regard to figuring out the signals before 9/
11 and what should be done as a result of 9/11.
I think this is regretful. I think this shows, unfortunately, a
pattern in this administration of not wanting facts, of sort of making
up your mind first and then trying to get the facts to fit that.
It is no secret I have been sympathetic to the President on the war
in Iraq. I disagree with certain things he did, but I voted for the
war. I voted for the $87 billion. I think we have to fight terrorism.
And I do think it is easy to second-guess. I also believe we could get
so hamstrung and do nothing that the terrorists would gain more than
they have.
Having said that, if there is one thing we thrive on, if there is a
thing that is a hallmark not only of winning a successful war on
terrorism but of defending the very democracy the terrorists hate and
fight, it is that all information come out so we can make an accurate
assessment.
I have to tell you, as you look at it, it seems this administration
does not want all the facts to come out and, in fact, oftentimes
thwarts facts coming out; and then, when they hear facts they do not
like that come out not because of administration auspices, they start
kneecapping the bringer of bad news.
This has not just happened in one instance; this has happened in
instance after instance after instance. Today there is a whole machine
discrediting Richard Clarke--certainly disagree with his arguments,
certainly disagree with his interpretations of what happened in the
White House.
There are two sides to every argument. But to say Mr. Clarke--who,
until 2000, according to the newspapers, was a registered Republican,
whom I know well, whose sole mission was to defend us against
terrorism--to call him names and say he is motivated by partisan
politics and he has one friend in the John Kerry campaign, that does a
disservice to America; to do the same thing to Mr. Foster, who had
numbers on how much the prescription drug bill would cost; to do the
same thing to Ambassador Wilson; to do the same thing to Chief of Staff
General Shinseki, this is a pattern that does not do the President, the
White House, or the administration proud. In fact, it has an
antidemocratic tinge to it that should make all of us worry, that
should make all of us troubled by what has happened.
Probably the last analogy to 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. And what did this
country do? What did Franklin D. Roosevelt and the leaders of this
country do? They said: We need to find the facts as to why we were so
unprepared. Might those facts have damaged people in office? Surely.
But, nonetheless, pursue the facts we did, and a comprehensive report
on why America slept was issued.
This 9/11 Commission is in that tradition. Yet this 9/11 Commission
has been thwarted every step of the way. Governor Kean is a Republican,
greatly respected, not a partisan man. The vice chairman is Lee
Hamilton, whom I served with in the House--the same way, a Democrat,
but not regarded as partisan. In fact, sometimes the
Democratic leadership in the House would tear their hair out at Lee
Hamilton's bipartisan nature.
Yet there is almost a fear of facts coming out. What does this say to
the American people? Do we believe our country is right? I do. Do we
believe, unlike other countries, that we search for the truth, even
though that truth sometimes creates bad currents, dissension, whatever,
but that truth is the hallmark of our democracy? I do. I think the vast
majority of Americans do. I think if you ask President Bush, he would
say he does.
But yet, over and over again, with the 9/11 Commission, with Richard
Clarke, with Mr. Foster, with Ambassador Wilson, there has been not
only an aversion to facts coming out but a kind of ``McCarthyism'' in
sort of calling names at the person who had a different interpretation
instead of debating whether their interpretation was right or wrong.
This is bad for our democracy. This does not bring credit to this
President or the Presidency. This has to stop. I hope today, as the 9/
11 Commission begins to interview a series of very important
witnesses--two Presidents, two Vice Presidents, many of their leaders--
maybe we can turn over a new leaf; that maybe, instead of stonewalling
and name-calling and hiding from the truth, this administration will
say, look, when you are President you have the powers of the
incumbency, but it is also a tough country to govern and sometimes you
have to take one for the truth, you have to take one because the facts
do not quite square how you thought they did, and explain that to the
American people.
I see my colleague from Oregon in the Chamber, and I know he is going
to speak on the same subject.
But, again, this 9/11 Commission is extremely important. As Santayana
said: Those of us who don't learn the lessons of history are condemned
to repeat them. As a New Yorker, I believe that particularly in regard
to 9/11. If we cannot get a full, unvarnished, nonpartisan reading of
the facts--an analysis of why we were caught so unprepared on that
awful day, 9/11--it will hurt us in fighting this war on terrorism,
which I believe will be with us for a generation.
If we start off in a way that we are afraid of the facts, if we start
off seeming to believe only one side is right and the motivation of
anyone who disagrees is suspect, I fear we will not win the war on
terror because we will not learn what has happened and we will not be
able to correct the mistakes that have been made by many different
people of both political parties in the past.
My final plea to our President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is, don't
hide the facts. Don't be afraid of the facts. Don't try to undermine
those who will present the facts. Our country will be better and
stronger for it if you can stick to those rules.
[[Page S2956]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for
taking this time. I want to spend a few minutes trying to put in
context the debate about Mr. Clarke's new book. It seems to me that
first and foremost this debate is about more than ``he said/she said.''
Invariably that is what these discussions become fairly quickly. I want
to review a couple of instances that have caused me to be particularly
concerned about the way the Clarke book has been handled.
When former Ambassador Wilson was concerned that the administration
had no evidence that the Iraqis had attempted to buy yellow cake from
Nigeria, there was a very significant effort to try to discredit him.
When former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, a close friend of the Vice
President, in effect talked about the administration going after Saddam
Hussein, everybody in the administration said he was all wet as well.
Now we see the same tactic employed against Mr. Clarke, who served both
Republican and Democratic administrations, beginning with the Reagan
administration.
Having worked closely with Mr. Clarke on a number of issues relating
to cyber terrorism, Mr. Clarke has been very critical of actions taken
by executive branch officials of both political parties.
My sense is that, when you look at what people such as former Post
reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said over the years, you
don't go with a story unless you have two independent sources to
confirm it. What you have this morning is Mr. Clarke in effect
confirming Secretary O'Neill's account of the administration's focus on
Saddam Hussein.
That is particularly important. These are two people with a long
history of working in Washington, DC. Both of them have been fiercely
independent. Both are known for calling the issues on the basis of how
they see them. In effect, you have Mr. Clarke now confirming Secretary
O'Neill's account with respect to the focus on Saddam Hussein.
There is an old saying that all roads lead to Rome. It seems the
administration so often clearly believes that no matter what the
evidence was at any particular time, essentially everything led to
Saddam Hussein.
It is clear that Saddam Hussein, throughout his leadership in Iraq,
consistently looked for opportunities to inflict pain and trauma on the
people of that country. It is beyond question that this was an evil
individual. But at the same time, it is critically important that we be
in a position to follow the facts.
I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have always tried to
work in a bipartisan way. I see the Presiding Officer of the Senate,
Mr. Smith. He and I together have tried to set an example of
bipartisanship. That is the way we need to proceed in this critical
area. When you have the Clarke book backing up what former Secretary
O'Neill said, that ought to set off alarm bells. That ought to set off
alarm bells with respect to exactly how information is filtered now in
the executive branch.
I am hopeful we will see this independent inquiry get to the bottom
of the situation and find out exactly what transpired after this
critical situation with the attack on our country. It is important that
our Nation get the facts. It is important that they are found in a
dispassionate fashion. Now with this new book by Mr. Clarke making it
clear that he shares the judgment of Secretary O'Neill, it ought to
renew a concern in the Congress and a concern on a bipartisan basis
that this country has a right to know, this country has a right to the
facts. Certainly the question of responsibility for 9/11 is an issue
the American people should be able to see in a dispassionate fashion,
what really happened and how it happened. If anything, the events of
the last week reaffirm in my mind how important it is that the American
people get the real story.
I yield my time. I note the Senator from North Dakota is on the floor
as well. He and I have worked together on many issues. Certainly on the
foreign policy arena, we share the view that these issues have to be
worked on in a bipartisan way. I will continue to focus on the evidence
and focus on that evidence no matter where it leads.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me follow on the comments of my
colleagues from New York and Oregon. The issue of 9/11 is very
important. I have spoken a couple of times about it previously, only
because we created a commission to take a look at what happened with
respect to 9/11, events leading up to it and following, to try to
understand what happened, how did it happen, and what lessons can we
learn.
I have been very distraught that the 9/11 Commission has actually had
to issue subpoenas. This Commission that we, with the President, have
impaneled to find the answers of what happened and what we can learn
has had to issue subpoenas to our government to get information. I
don't understand that. Why on earth should this Commission have had to
use any subpoena power at any time?
Why would not the administration have said to all of the agencies
under their control, anything this Commission wants, anything they ask
for--they are doing the country's work--provide complete information?
Instead, they have met with roadblocks. I do not understand that.
I learned this morning that National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice is willing to testify but not in public and in limited
circumstances. The fact is, on Sunday she was a guest on all five
network morning shows. She has plenty of time to do that, but somehow
there is not enough time to appear publicly before the 9/11 Commission
to give testimony. I do not understand that. I believe and hope that
all Republicans and Democrats, this President and this Congress, just
want the unvarnished facts, what happened and what can we learn from
it.
I know in recent days there have been discussions about a number of
books that have been written. I was on the floor also and spoke about
former Treasury Secretary O'Neill's book. The Secretary described
circumstances where almost instantly, in meetings in the White House,
the question posed by the President and the Vice President and Mr.
Wolfowitz and others was, What about Iraq? Let's get the evidence on
Iraq. Suggesting that there was only one issue, and that was to use 9/
11 to get Iraq.
My colleague from Oregon said it well. The leader of Iraq was a
murderer. We are unearthing football-field-sized graves in Iraq.
This man was a butcher, no question about that. But there are bad
people around the world who are in place now and there are no plans in
this Chamber or at the White House to go after them.
The pretext of dealing with Iraq was that they had weapons of mass
destruction, we were told. The CIA and others provided secret briefings
to us, and Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and many others provided the
evidence. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ``We know where those weapons of
mass destruction are, where they exist.''
The Secretary of State went to the United Nations and laid it out
with pictures and slides and said, ``Here is the evidence.'' It turns
out that evidence wasn't accurate. So Mr. O'Neill writes a bit about
that. Now Mr. Clarke writes a book about it. He is not a Democrat; he
is a Republican. There is now an industry in the last 24 hours to try
to destroy his credibility. I don't know Mr. Clarke. I don't believe I
have ever met him. All I know is that legitimate questions are being
raised about these issues, about intelligence, about Iraq, and about
the commission that has been impaneled to look into 9/11.
It all has the same kind of origin; that is, let's not ask questions,
let's not disclose this or that, let's keep it all secret, if we can.
Part of this shroud of secrecy that Mr. Krugman writes about, in fact,
I believe in this morning's New York Times, also relates to something
we learned last week that is of incredible importance. We learned last
week that this issue of the Medicare bill being discussed on the floor
of the Senate--adding prescription drugs to Medicare--that the
estimates of the cost of that proposal that were given to Congress were
wrong and, in fact, the administration had estimates that would have
had a substantial impact, perhaps, on the debate on that legislation.
They had those estimates, but the
[[Page S2957]]
person who had them, the chief actuary--again, no Democrat, just a
career public servant who, by all accounts, is a wonderful public
servant--had the estimates and was told: If you provide the real
estimates to Congress, you will be fired.
If anything demands an investigation, it is that. It demands an
immediate investigation. If you cannot rely on information coming from
the executive branch about programs we are considering on the floor of
the Senate because someone threatened to fire someone if they tell the
truth to the Congress, there is something radically wrong. So it
doesn't matter whether it is Mr. Clarke who writes a book and describes
what he found in the White House. He also worked, as you know, for the
Clinton administration. He worked for the first George Bush Presidency.
He has worked for George W. Bush for the last couple of years. He
writes a book and raises serious questions about the information that
was used to decide to focus on Iraq rather than on al-Qaida. I think
many of us now, at least in the rearview mirror, look at that and say
moving from Afghanistan to Iraq and not continuing to focus on the
destruction of al-Qaida may have been a serious mistake.
How did that happen? Why did that happen? These are legitimate public
policy questions. I suppose there is politics in some of it. I think
the well-being and future of this country depends on our getting this
right. We talk about the quality of intelligence and the questions
about that, and whether intelligence information was misrepresented.
Look, the next potential terrorist attack against this country will
be thwarted--if it is thwarted, and we certainly hope it is--by good
intelligence. We must rely on our intelligence system. Is there
something wrong with that system? If there is, it must be fixed now. It
is not sufficient just to say, somebody wrote a book, so let's trash
this person time and time again. That is not what we ought to do. We
ought to get to the bottom of what is happening here, what caused all
these things to happen, what can we learn about it and what can we do
to protect our country.
Mr. President, I yield the remaining time I might have to the Senator
from Delaware, Mr. Carper. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 7 minutes.
____________________
