WP, pg1: 9/11 Panel Roiling Campaign Platforms ("shaking up campaign")

[DeepModem Mom]

9/11 Panel Roiling Campaign Platforms
Members' Lobbying Is Driving Politics

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 9, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission is shaking up the 2004 presidential campaign, helping to make a key political issue of its recommended changes in the nation's intelligence system and reshaping the anti-terrorism platforms of President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry.

The commission's report criticized U.S. intelligence failures and cited systemic flaws in intelligence gathering. Since the report's release three weeks ago, the lobbying by commission members for action on their recommended policy changes not only has forced Congress and the White House to respond but also has driven the politics on one of the campaign's most important issues, the war on terrorism, analysts and advisers to both campaigns say.

Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has seized on the report to bolster his anti-terrorism message and beat back accusations from Republicans that he is indecisive. He endorsed the panel's 41 recommended policy changes two days after they were issued, called on Congress to skip its August recess to write them into law and asked Bush to extend the life of the commission. This allowed Kerry to "become the leader on the 9/11 issue" for the first time, a senior Kerry adviser asserted. Now, the report is the heart of his anti-terrorism platform and campaign strategy....

The president has made clear he wants to go slower than the fast-tracked pace Kerry and the commission members want. The Bush campaign has accused Kerry of blindly endorsing the commission's work for political gain. Kerry is showing his "anti-terror agenda is whatever can get him short-term political advantage," Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said in an interview....

***

The report has resonated with the public, leading strategists from both sides to say the Bush and Kerry campaigns must contend with the recommendations. The paperback version of the report is a national bestseller, a first for such a commission report, and polling shows nearly two-thirds of voters approve of the panel's deliberations. A Pew Foundation poll conducted a few days before the report was released indicated the commission enjoyed strong and similar support among Republicans, Democrats and independents. A new Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans want the commission to continue its work....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50674-2004Aug8.html

[Dover]

1. Sales of the Commission's report does not translate to public endorsement

I'd really like to see those polls, see what questions were asked and see if anyone bothered to ask just how many Americans are familiar with the recommendations presented by the Commission.
Maybe the pollers should ask how many people think the report is a whitewash and diversion from the real issues that led to 9/11.

[SquireJons]

2. Counterpoint

"Maybe the pollers should ask how many people think the report is a whitewash and diversion from the real issues that led to 9/11."

From the progressive point of view, everything that Washington does is a whitewash and a diversion. When in fact it's really compromise. And any idealist hates compromise. But it is the backbone of our political system.

The members of this panel had an incredibly hard job to do. And they did it well. I think that is the view of the majority of Americans, what ever their political stripes. I may not agree with everything that they say or recommend, but I agree with the majority of it. Yes, there are sins of omission, but that was necessary to get unanimous adoption of the final report. It would have been a national disaster if there had been separate Democrat and Republican reports from the same commission.

I haven't read all of the proposals, but I do believe that this country is very venerable. The shrub mis-administration has done nothing notable to better prepare the country. Instead they sought their own political agenda of rolling back civil liberties. Who knows what the Kerry administration will do or be able to get through congress. Ideally, a blue ribbon panel of industry experts would assemble to put together recommendation to improve our security. These recommendations would then be reviewed and accepted where ever possible by all branches of US government.

But we don't live in an ideal world, and this panel is as good as anything we can hope for. They took the job seriously, and we should take their recommendations seriously.

[Dover]

3. Counter/Counterpoint...........The BIG Picture includes BIG profits

WOOLSEY'S WEB: STRUCTURAL CORRUPTION & IRAQ

WALTER F. ROCHE JR. HAS AN ILLUMINATING PIECE TODAY in the Los Angeles Times on the clan Woolsey -- exposing some of the Iraq contract connections of Suzanne Woolsey, the former CIA Director's wife. In January 2004, she became a director of Fluor Corporation, which has $1.6 billion in Iraq related contracts. She also serves as a director of the Institute for Defense Analyses which also has war interests, and received modest compensation for that role according to the article.

James Woolsey serves as Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton with at least $89 million in Iraq defense contract interests. Roche's article also points out that Suzanne Woolsey is also affiliated with Paladin Capital Group, a venture capital firm where her husband serves as a principal and director.

A reader of The Washington Note entry on Woolsey tipped me off to James Woolsey's Paladin connection last week -- and I was somewhat stunned by the brazen language of the "Paladin Homeland Security Fund" that Woolsey helps direct. I realize that many intelligence and military officials make natural fits for defense related firms when they leave public service -- but I think that big, inappropriate lines get crossed when individuals help fan wars, in which people die, and financially benefit from the result. A recusal from war profits should be standard for talking heads and policy commentators when it comes to sending American men and women into harm's way.

Here is the "statement of concern" for the Paladin Homeland Security Fund:

The end of the Cold War has proven not to be the end of global conflict. Today, conflict often manifests itself in a new form of guerilla warfare: terrorism. This form of conflict extends vulnerabilities beyond military institutions to civilian populations and commercial infrastructure. As the emergence of sophisticated communication and information networks blurs many of the past separations between government and industry and between domestic and global interests, security needs transcend traditional borders between nations and between governments and industry. The events and aftermath of September 11 highlight the need for both governments and industry to address these security concerns. As a result, recognition of the need for homeland security products and services to address these threats is growing. The nation and the world now look to find new ways to take advantage of the shared concerns between governments and industry and to develop new methods to collaborate for security and for technological and economic benefit. These concerns, together with the changes in the global business environment, offer substantial promise for homeland security investment.

Roche's article hits the bull's eye on the increasing web of interests between those who blur the lines between their public and private roles, something we heard a lot about regarding Richard Perle -- but Woolsey adds much more texture to this trend since he was the first to allege the still unproven connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.




...CONT'D > http://www.thewashingtonnote.com /

[SquireJons]

4. Counter/Counter/count...er , wtf

It seems to me that the issue of this article is the revolving door policy between public officials and private companies, whatever their line of business. This is a serious issue, but separate from the very real need of immediately improving our ability to detect an up coming attack and our ability to react to one once it occurs.

Of course it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to simply change our policy toward Israel and the Middle East. But that's another issue as well.