"There are some legitimate security issues, but I believe many of the objections the administration is making are not for security reasons, but to disguise mistakes that were made prior to Sept. 11"
About this Quote
A careful tightrope walk is hiding inside this sentence: acknowledge real danger, then accuse power of hiding behind it. Bob Graham opens with a concession ("some legitimate security issues") not because he doubts himself, but because he knows the trap. In the post-9/11 climate, questioning secrecy could be painted as naive at best, disloyal at worst. The concession buys him credibility with an audience primed to equate disclosure with risk.
Then comes the pivot: the administration's "objections" are framed as performance, not protection. "Not for security reasons" is a direct challenge to the era's strongest political shield, when "national security" became a kind of rhetorical master key that could lock any door without argument. Graham doesn't have to name specific documents or officials; he indicts the logic: security is being used as a costume.
The most pointed phrase is "disguise mistakes". It's an accusation of institutional self-preservation, but it also avoids alleging malice. He isn't claiming the government wanted 9/11 to happen; he's claiming it doesn't want to admit it missed signs, mishandled intelligence, or botched policy choices "prior to Sept. 11". That date functions as both a time stamp and a moral firewall: before the trauma, there was accountability; after it, accountability becomes politically radioactive.
Contextually, Graham (a senator closely tied to intelligence oversight and later a key voice around 9/11 investigations) is signaling that oversight isn't an abstract principle. It's a fight over who gets to write the official story: a narrative of unavoidable tragedy, or one with human error and preventable failures.
Then comes the pivot: the administration's "objections" are framed as performance, not protection. "Not for security reasons" is a direct challenge to the era's strongest political shield, when "national security" became a kind of rhetorical master key that could lock any door without argument. Graham doesn't have to name specific documents or officials; he indicts the logic: security is being used as a costume.
The most pointed phrase is "disguise mistakes". It's an accusation of institutional self-preservation, but it also avoids alleging malice. He isn't claiming the government wanted 9/11 to happen; he's claiming it doesn't want to admit it missed signs, mishandled intelligence, or botched policy choices "prior to Sept. 11". That date functions as both a time stamp and a moral firewall: before the trauma, there was accountability; after it, accountability becomes politically radioactive.
Contextually, Graham (a senator closely tied to intelligence oversight and later a key voice around 9/11 investigations) is signaling that oversight isn't an abstract principle. It's a fight over who gets to write the official story: a narrative of unavoidable tragedy, or one with human error and preventable failures.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by Bob
Add to List


