DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Thanks to C-SPAN, I heard and watched part of Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 committee on Friday. It was an intellectual battle. People on both sides of the issue feigned cordiality, but once the questions and answers got rolling it became apparent where the hostilities lay.

BEN-VENISTE: Good morning, Dr. Rice.
RICE: Good morning.
BEN-VENISTE: Nice to see you again.
RICE: Nice to see you.

I think it’s safe to say both Ben-Veniste and Rice were lying. Within a few minutes, the questioning became tense.

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of Al Qaeda cells in the United States?
RICE: First, let me just make certain…
BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited…
RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it’s important…
BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president…
RICE: … that I also address…
(APPLAUSE)
It’s also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you’ll just give me a moment.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you…
RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will…
BEN-VENISTE: … told the president.

And within two minutes, Ben-Veniste forced Rice to reveal the classified name of a classified document that Rice and Bush would prefer had never been made public. Rice wanted to elaborate, to diminish the impact of the damning title, but Ben-Veniste wanted to stop her.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” Now, the…
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste…
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the…
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point.
RICE: Given that — you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

The spin on this document is remarkable. The title of the document is a smoking gun, but the contents are a lot less interesting.

If you want to accuse the Bush Administration of not being prepared for a terrorist attack, this document serves as clear evidence: four weeks prior to 9/11 Bush received a briefing document titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” What more evidence would you need? The Guardian took this approach in a piece unambiguously called, Bush given hijack alert before 9/11

Fox News took (to no one’s surprise) a different approach. They focused on the Bush Administration’s official stance, in a story called Bush: Terror Memo Lacked Specifics. This story contains the damning PDB title, but it’s stuffed down in the 4th-last paragraph.

The news media is not impartial. Simply compare the headlines above.

To some degree, news consumers gravitate toward media sources that are compatible with their own views. Others consume whatever is convenient.

I’m not immune, of course. I read the SF Chronicle because it’s local, and because its coverage of political issues seems balanced — a sure sign that it’s not.

I don’t read Fox because I usually read the news at breakfast, and reading Foxnews.com often makes me ill.

Fortunately, in the case of this specific Presidential Daily Brief, the entire text has been made public, so everyone can make up their own minds about whether its warnings were “actionable.”