Beating around Bush on terror

On September 11, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address &...

int(3)

On September 11, 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address ‘‘the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday’’ — but the focus was largely on missile defence, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration’s thinking on the very day that the US suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour.

The speech — postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker — mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to US. The text also implicitly challenged Clinton administration policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat — long-range missiles. ‘‘We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway,’’ according to excerpts of the speech. ‘‘(But) why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?’’

Story continues below this ad

The text of Rice’s 9/11 speech, which was never delivered, reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances. Although the administration did address terrorism, it devoted far more attention to pushing missile defence, a controversial idea both at home and abroad, the review shows. Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism rated lower on the list of priorities, as outlined by officials in their own public statements on policy.

The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice’s speech, since it was not given. The White House did confirm the accuracy of excerpts given to The Post, and former US officials provided a detailed summary of the speech. ‘‘The President’s commitment to fighting terrorism isn’t measured by the number of speeches, but by the concrete actions taken to fight the threat,’’ said James Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications, when asked about the speech. ‘‘The first major foreign policy directive of this administration was the new strategy to eliminate Al Qaeda that the White House ordered soon after taking office. It was eliminating Al Qaeda, not missile defence, not Iraq, and not the ABM Treaty,’’ he said.

In his first address to Congress, on February 27, 2001, Bush acknowledged the danger of bomb-wielding terrorists, but also promoted missile defence as the priority in protecting the US. ‘‘Our nation needs a strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century, threats that are more widespread and less certain. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses,’’ he said.

One of the few presidential statements citing bin Laden and Al Qaeda was on June 30, 2001, in a letter renewing Clinton administration-era sanctions on the Taliban. .

Story continues below this ad

The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy. On August 2, 2001, Cheney emphasised the bold new plan to craft a 21st century approach to security. ‘‘We’re fundamentally transforming the US strategic relationship around the world as we look at missile defenses and modifications to our offensive strategic arms,’’ he had said.

And two days before 9/11, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Rice said the administration was ready ‘‘to get serious about the business of dealing with this emergent threat. Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now.’’ In the speech, Rice was to point out that the US had spent $11 billion on counter-terrorism, about twice as much as it spent on missile defence, during the previous year, although the speech did not point out that that was when President Clinton was in office. —(LAT-WP)