Final opinion on Dr. Rice's testimony
- An unspoken purpose behind her testimony was to support the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and similar legislation.
- She couldn't say as much publicly as she could in private session, so literally nothing she said was a surprise to the commissioners (not to mention anyone in all of BlogNet)
- Because of the previous item, her testimony yesterday will have little impact on the final report.
- The August 6th PDB, though…
JIM LEHRER: Governor, what would be on your standout list?
THOMAS H. KEAN: I'd agree with Congressman Hamilton in most of those areas. Certainly that whole, that whole business of trying to integrate, trying to get the agencies to communicate with one another, and the fact that their emphasis that we were structurally unprepared.
A lot of people put the emphasis on what could have been by some person here or some person there, but she didn't say it was people. She said we actually were structurally unprepared for what happened to us on Sept. 11. And the implication was that they have changed a number of the structures since 7/11... since 9/11, but there's a lot more to do. She said it was not impossible, although it's less likely, it's not impossible there would be another event.
JIM LEHRER: Based on what you have heard so far, Governor, do you agree with her, that it was not people, it was structure?
THOMAS H. KEAN: Well, I think probably the combination, but certainly she's right about the structures. There's no question that the FBI, the CIA, a number of those agencies were not structured really to take on the terrorism fight the way they... the way they should have been able to.
…
JIM LEHRER: Governor, speaking of priorities, on the charge from Richard Clarke that he made in his testimony before you all a couple weeks ago that the Bush administration, prior to 9/11, did not give an urgent priority to combating al-Qaida specifically and terrorism generally. Now you heard Dr. Rice, you heard Richard Clarke, where do you think the truth lies?
THOMAS H. KEAN: Well, as usual, you know, it doesn't lie entirely I don't think with one or the other. She had a very spirited defense today of the Bush administration and the fact that terrorism was a priority for the Bush administration.
On the other hand, some of Mr. Clarke's points are still there.[P6: emphasis added] I think it's one of things the commission has got to sort out. We've got to make judgments here, and some of the judgments are going to be very difficult. But whether or not this administration took terrorism seriously enough is going to be one of the judgments we're going to have to make.
JIM LEHRER: In fact, you are going to make that judgment? You're going to sit around the table and the ten of you are going to agree on whether or not the Bush administration did or did not give enough priority to this?
THOMAS H. KEAN: We're going to have to agree on the wording of the report, and the wording of the report is going to make some judgments. And I can't predict in advance what those judgments are going to be, but it's our job to sort it all out. We got a lot of testimony from a lot of people and we have to put it all together in the end.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, Governor, that this is an important issue, the priority issue?
THOMAS H. KEAN: Oh, it's a very important issue as to what the Clinton administration did, what the Bush administration did, how high a priority it was, whether the programs they both came up with were successful or unsuccessful, what could have been done if those hadn't all been done.