Financial Sense   Home  l  Broadcast  l  WrapUp  l  Storm Watch  l  About Us  l  Contact Us

The 9-11 Commission Part 1
by Joe Duarte
April 5, 2004
Originally posted on March 24, 2004
at www.joe-duarte.com.

According to an online poll at The Wall Street Journal.com, with over 4147 votes, as of 4:42 A.M. Central Time on 3-24-04, 39% of the voters thought that the Clinton administration bore more responsibility that the Bush team for failing to prevent the 9-11 attacks. 28% voted that neither could have prevented the attacks. 22% thought Bush bore more responsibility. And 11% voted that both were equally responsible.

The poll asked responders one question: “Which administration (Bush or Clinton) bears more responsibility for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks?”

Much can be gleaned from this poll. First, it is unscientific. Second, the Wall Street Journal may have a more conservative audience to draw from, although it is not as decidedly right wing as Investor’s Business Daily.

Third, and more important is the fact that after the dramatic testimony of the Defense and State Department heads of both administrations, the conclusion that the press, and a significant proportion of the United States seems to have reached is that 9/11 may have been preventable, although a fourth of the responders agree that neither Bush or Clinton could have prevented the attacks.

But perhaps the most important fact that this poll reveals is that the largest group held Clinton most responsible for failing to prevent the attack.

The commission’s findings spread the blame between the two administrations, citing multiple examples of misjudgments and missed opportunities. The Wall Street journal cited several instances from the commission’s report, including: 1) “in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency believed it had tracked al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to a hunting camp in Afghanistan. The Clinton administration declined to launch an attack, though, for fear of hitting officials of the United Arab Emirates, who were at the camp at the time.” 2) “after taking office in January 2001, Bush administration officials spent months considering a new strategy toward al Qaeda and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan but took little action before Sept. 11. For instance, the administration didn't make any diplomatic efforts to get Saudi Arabia to help crack down on al Qaeda during that time and applied little pressure on Pakistan, whose security forces had been big backers of the Taliban.”

The Washington Post was more aggressive in its assessment: “The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks issued a stinging condemnation yesterday of the U.S. government's failed hunt for Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network, finding that both the Clinton and Bush administrations focused too heavily on diplomacy that did not work and were reluctant to consider aggressive military action.”

The Post added two other interesting observations: 1) “reports by the commission's investigative staff portray the Bush administration as giving terrorism scant attention during its first eight months, noting that officials did not draw up concrete plans to confront al Qaeda and its Afghan protectors until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks.” 2) “The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.”

The Journal noted that in the increasingly heated political climate, the revelations of the committee “Mr. Bush may have been helped, by the fact that the commission staff reports don't draw sharp distinctions between the way the Clinton and Bush administrations handled the terror threat, and in fact cited more missed opportunities on President Clinton's watch. The two reports, (compiled by commission staff) focusing on diplomatic and military efforts to fight terrorism, generally steer clear of outright conclusions, leaving most of them to the commissioners themselves to make in the final report this summer.”

Several major analytical points were offered by Stratfor.com: 1) “From a geopolitical point of view, the importance of these hearings is simple: The United States has entered a period in which public discourse will be framed in terms of the past more than the future. The battle for the past is critical. If a public perception emerges that holds that Bush was derelict on al Qaeda and obsessed with Iraq, his ability to conduct the ongoing conflict will be increasingly constrained.” 2) “There is no question that Bush did not take al Qaeda as seriously as he should have. What is not clear is whether Bush committed a unique blunder in the eight months he was in office before Sept. 11, as compared to Bill Clinton's actions in the eight years that he was in office. The most reasonable view is that Bush continued Clinton's myopic and ineffective policy.” 3) “Neither administration took al Qaeda seriously enough, and neither administration had a plan for solving the Iraq problem. Both Clinton and Bush wanted to get rid of the Hussein regime and commissioned endless studies about how to do it, but neither acted resolutely.” 4) “Moreover, the American public was not clamoring for a solution. They were watching Nasdaq. Clinton and Bush reflected that.”

Conclusion

The 9-11 commission results are peeling yet another layer of tradition from the White House. Just as Watergate opened the floodgates into dishonesty, this report is showing that judgment is often cloudy and that even though the U.S. is superior to other countries in many respects, it is not infallible. Most of all, the results show that even the “best and brightest” have bad days, and that when many bad days are strung together, terrible things tend to follow.

The early results indicate that both the Bush and Clinton administrations got caught napping. A case can be made for Clinton’s greater culpability, mostly based on the fact that he had 8 years in which to do something about al-Qaeda. But, that would be less than fair in many respects, and would be highly influenced by 20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking.

Early indications of public opinion, as in the Wall Street Journal poll above suggest that Clinton is going to take the brunt of the blame, although, more scientific polls are likely to follow.

The bottom line seems to be that while the U.S. was busy with the business of being the U.S., meaning doing business, and advancing capitalism, al-Qaida was busy plotting its master stroke.

Nobody really saw it coming, although there were subtle signs and indications that perhaps it was coming.

Few saw Pearl Harbor coming either.

The War on Terrorism is just beginning. And by the looks of it, the market may be starting to once again come to grips with that fact.

PART 2   l   PART 3

© 2004 Dr. Joe Duarte
Dr. Duarte's Bio and Archive

Joe Duarte, M.D.

Joe Duarte M.D. is founder and Editor in Chief of Joe-Duarte.com. Dr. Duarte is a board certified anesthesiologist, a registered investment advisor, and President of River Willow Capital Management, where he manages individual client accounts. His latest books "Successful Energy Sector Investing" and "Successful Biotech Investing" (Prima/Random House) are available on line at amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, borders.com, Traders Press, and all major online and brick and mortar bookstores in the U.S., U.K. Europe, and Australia. Dr. Joe Duarte’s Daily Market I.Q. is a subscriber service that provides daily intelligence, trading strategies, and technical analysis at www.joe-duarte.com.