Responsibility, Control, and Terrorism

The 9/11 Commission is a sham. If were only really about making the country safer. Instead, everyone’s searching for someone to blame. The those on the left think that the Bush administration is at fault. This is either an election-year ploy or they really believe it. I’m rather inclined to think that some have actually talked themselves into believeing that Bush is responsible. Take the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle, for example:

The most striking impression of the president’s third prime-time news conference was his determination — to the point of stubbornness — to refuse to acknowledge any mistakes. He was asked the question in various ways: Does he feel any personal responsibility about Sept. 11? Does he feel a need to apologize? Does he regret any of his actions — such as the war on Iraq – – after the attacks?

The editors find it appalling that Bush hasn’t acknowledged any responsibility for 9/11.

Others, on the right, think that President Clinton is to blame for not taking serious enough action against Osama Bin Laden. As much as I dislike Clinton’s foreign policy, and while I agree he could have done more, Bill Clinton was not responsible. Clinton made some reprehensible mistakes, but he didn’t drive a 767 into a building.

The 9/11 Commission should be interrogating al Qaeda if they’re looking for responsibility. Instead, they look for responsibility here. If we can find who is responsible among the victims, then we have a perceived control over the situation. Those are responsible can be dealt with, and everything is hunkey-dorey.

In reality, we must deal with an enemy we can’t control at the moment. An enemy that is responsible for the death of thousands and who is bent on adding thousands more to the count. Shouldn’t the 9/11 Commission be focusing its efforts in the direction of preventing terror rather than ascribing blame to the victims?