On stand, Rice strikes back

In a moment of high political theater even by Washington standards, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice offered the most vigorous defense yet of the Bush administration's understanding of the terrorist threat in the months leading up to 9/11 - an appearance that may blunt some of the criticism leveled by former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, even while ensuring that the controversy continues to dominate the national spotlight in the short term.

Testifying before the 9/11 commission, Ms. Rice catalogued the various early steps taken against terrorism, describing in some detail the Bush administration's first national security policy directive, which called for the elimination of the Al Qaeda threat. Maintaining a calm and dispassionate tone, Rice offered no apology for the administration's failure to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center, but noted the various obstacles working against the administration. These ranged from structural and legal barriers preventing the flow of information between and within intelligence agencies, to the tendency of democratic societies to respond slowly to gathering threats.

Significantly, Rice also offered a strong defense of President Bush's broader approach to the war on terror in the wake of 9/11, including his decision to invade Iraq - a move that, given the rising violence in that country, could ultimately prove more politically damaging than anything the administration did or did not do in the run up to the 9/11 attacks.

Above all, she remained firm in arguing that the attacks were not preventable.

"No silver bullet could have prevented the 9/11 attacks," she said.

To some analysts, Rice's testimony may reinforce an overall impression that the Bush administration was no better at dealing with the terrorist threat than the Clinton administration had been. As a result, "it keeps alive questions of the things they could have done," says Larry Korb, a defense and foreign policy expert at the Center for American Progress here.

The primary unanswered question from Rice's testimony, he adds, is why, if the administration took the terrorist threat as seriously as she claims, the principal actors did not get involved earlier. "If the top people are not involved, you don't have that same sense of urgency," says Mr. Korb, who served in the Reagan administration.

But to others, Rice's testimony served as an effective response to recent criticism - and will probably help ease some of the controversy. "I don't think the Bush administration could have been better served," says Michael McFaul, a security expert at Stanford University, and a longtime friend of Rice's. "This was a brilliant performance - and I say this as a critic of the Bush administration on a lot of things."

Rice's testimony, he predicts, will convince many viewers that the administration has "redoubled their efforts to fight terrorism - and will bolster them." Mr. McFaul notes that he disagrees with the administration's "bumper-sticker war on terrorism." Rice's statements made clear that they're not distinguishing between terrorists, but treating it as a broader war. "I think that is misplaced," he says. "But that won't affect the majority view."

Both Korb and McFaul agreed the political stakes surrounding the event had a noticeable - and unfortunate - impact on the proceedings: Democratic commission members often took a more antagonistic stance in their questioning, while Republican members tended to lob softballs.

Page: 1 | 2