And more observations

Are We Safer?
Since 9/11,the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be? The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue. Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure.

Well isn't this interesting?

The 9/11 Commission unanimously believes that we are safer now than we were before 9/11. This is a clear validation of what Bush has been saying. How the Kerry campaign manages to spin this, with the help of the biased media, should be fascinating to watch.

UPDATE: It has already begun. ABC quotes the report's statement that we are "not safe" without pointing out that the report also says "we are safer" in the previous sentence. (Talk about selective quoting!) They also state that the report "could be trouble for Bush". Did they even bother to read it?

MSNBC states

"we are not safe" yet. "Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable," said the panel's chairman, Republican former Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey.

but fails to point out that the report says "we are safer".

The Drudgereport has this:

The 9/11 commission report offers a broad critique of a central tenet of the Bush administration's foreign policy _ that the attacks have required a 'war on terrorism'... The report argues that the notion of fighting an enemy called "terrorism" is too diffuse and vague to be effective. Strikingly, the report also makes no reference to the invasion of Iraq as being part of the war on terrorism, a frequent assertion of President Bush and his top aides... Developing...

There is no mention of the "war on terrorism" in the Executive Summary.

In the full report, the phrase "war on terrorism" appears 18 times; pgs 348, 350, 352(3), 375(3), 380, 391(2), 458, 486, 515(2), 576, 580.

On page 379, the following argument is developed:

Now threats can emerge quickly. An organization like al Qaeda, headquartered in a country on the other side of the earth, in a region so poor that electricity or telephones were scarce, could nonetheless scheme to wield weapons of unprecedented destructive power in the largest cities of the United States. In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests "over there" should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America "over here." In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just "terrorism", some generic evil.2 This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism-especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.3

This is not a repudiation of Bush's "war on terrorism", but a reminder that we should not forget who the enemy is in the war on terrorism.

This is the sort of pettiness that will dominate the debate over the next few days.

UPDATE II: Drudge is getting this from WaPo, which can only be said to be "making a mountain out of a molehill". The "broad critique consists entirely of what I've quoted above. One paragraph in a 585 report is called "a broad critique of the central tenet" of Bush's policy on terrorism.

Then there's this incredible statement:

Strikingly, the report makes no reference to the invasion of Iraq as being part of the war on terrorism, a frequent assertion of President Bush and his top aides.

Someone please call WaPo and tell them they're reading the 9/11 report! Hello, earth to Washington. Why would the Iraq war be mentioned in a report on an event that ocurred 18 months earlier?

The Post is cherrypicking a comment the Commission made on page 384 to make a point that the Commission does not make.

Every policy decision we make needs to be seen through this lens. If, for example, Iraq becomes a failed state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for attacks against Americans at home. Similarly, if we are paying insufficient attention to Afghanistan, the rule of the Taliban or warlords and narcotraffickers may reemerge and its countryside could once again offer refuge to al Qaeda, or its successor.
Recommendation:
The U.S. government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help.

UPDATE III: The Wall Street Journal had a much more measured response to the same section that WaPo jumped all over last night.

Notably, the Commission performs a service by defining the threat we now face in refreshing fashion. "The enemy is not just 'terrorism,' " it says. "It is the threat posed specifically by Islamic terrorism." Bush Administration officials say the same thing privately, but they have been reluctant to state this publicly lest they offend the broader body of peaceable Islam. But it is hard to defeat an enemy without defining who it is. And the fact that Islam has a problem with its radical factions is something that Muslims themselves have to face up to.

This failure to speak candidly has ramifications at home, too, specifically in the Transportation Department's continued failure to endorse racial profiling in airport security checks. The policy reduces the government's credibility among ordinary Americans who understand that the policy defies common sense. Commissioner John Lehman noted at one hearing that any airline that set aside more than two Middle Eastern-looking passengers for secondary security clearing at any one time still faces large anti-discrimination fines.

Note how the Journal, quoting the same section of the report as WaPo, has a completely different take on its meaning.