By DAN K. THOMASSON
Scripps Howard News Service
12-APR-04

WASHINGTON -- It was inevitable that the investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 would become a political exercise aimed at discrediting George W. Bush. If nothing else, conducting this inquiry in the midst of a presidential campaign assured that, and as a result the panel's contribution to helping ward off future attacks will be much diminished.

Doubts about what Democrats on this commission want it to conclude were dispelled by the performance of Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey during the genuinely hostile interrogation of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

At best, it could be described as uncivil and accusatory, leaving the clear impression the only answer she could have given to satisfy these two would have been an admission that her boss was guilty of a grievous dereliction of duty and that maybe Richard Clarke, the self-styled whistleblower on White House failures, should be president. Republicans on the commission earlier had gone after Clarke.

Placing the blame squarely on President Bush's shoulders also seems not a little bit the goal of the 9/11 victims' relatives, whose interest in the inquiry appears far more rooted in vengeance than in finding ways to prevent a recurrence. They were out in force in the hearing room to applaud the smirking, camera-mugging Ben-Veniste and the belligerent Kerrey in unseemly demonstrations that should have been stopped immediately. All Americans are sympathetic to the survivors, but no more so than they are to hundreds of others who have experienced the horror of terrorism firsthand and have whined about it far less and received far less compensation for their losses.

It is unclear what is to be gained that already hasn't been evident almost from the start. Neither Bush nor President Bill Clinton under conditions at the time could have prevented the attack. In the almost nine years before it took place, two administrations, aided by a broken intelligence apparatus, were unable to find a solution to what we now know was a pending terrorist threat. Even the Aug. 6, 2001, daily presidential briefing finally declassified by the White House about al Qaeda's potential in this country contained only vague references to possible terrorist activities. It is far less sensational than we in the media have made it.

Should Bush have issued orders that would have necessarily disrupted the country's daily commerce on the strength of such skimpy information? Maybe that would have been possible under the most extreme circumstances, but how would he have done it without causing national panic and strong opposition from Congress? Besides, the infamous briefing paper clearly states that the FBI was conducting 70 different field investigations into possible al Qaeda activities (apparently without coming up with one shred of specific information). Neither Bush nor Clinton should have relied on the FBI.

For this, the blame belongs to Congress, which over the years has refused to exercise proper oversight of the FBI or the CIA. In fact, the systemic problem that Rice correctly identified as contributing directly to 9/11 was a result of a misguided division of intelligence responsibilities that Congress adopted and allowed to stand for more than 50 years. The FBI was given sole responsibility for domestic intelligence, and the CIA foreign. Not only did the agencies not share, they barely spoke, at least at the operative level, until well beyond the attack on America.

If this commission has any responsibility for improving our chances of avoiding another catastrophe, it should determine whether the FBI, despite all its claims of reform, is culturally capable of a meaningful counterintelligence function. There are many doubters. But the current White House inexplicably opposes the creation of a British-style MI5 agency to coordinate both domestic and foreign intelligence gathering despite the pain and suffering the current system has caused. Is it too much to hope that the commission provide and the government accept a well-thought-out recommendation for meaningful intelligence revisions? Probably.

Otherwise, what seems to be left to the panel is the daunting task of gauging whether Bush (and Clinton) took terrorism seriously, a fairly subjective determination. Both men say they did. Their detractors say they didn't. It really depends, doesn't it, on whom one wants to see win the election in November. Americans are likely to forgive Bush's pre-9/11 oversights, but may not his actions since, particularly regarding Iraq.

Perhaps we should quit spending money on politically motivated finger-pointing and settle on the real 9/11 culprits -- Osama bin Laden and our own complacency that for too long lulled us into ignoring the realities and traumas of an increasingly violent world.

(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)