Josh Marshall nails the 9/11 commission hootenanny and in so doing, nails us all

What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened.

One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

Anyone who's reading the series on Brain & Brand -- yeah, yeah, I know, it's long and windy -- will recognize there's a whole lotta R-Complex playing out here. These people are some of the best educated the world has to offer, but if you look for common sense, there's no pattern, there's none there.

But why should there be? Sheltering is vital to life and, let's face it, sheltering in idealism is bi-partisan. But shelter, formed in a hurry -- backfilled, if you will -- won't stand. It never does. Ideology, in service of only itself, only respectful of its is own perfection, is doomed. It is cheerleading. It is not Leadership.

If you dig deeper and give our more primal motives the credit they deserve, there's no surprise whatsoever in the 9-11 Commission proceedings. We are creatures of hope. But we're also practitioners of sloth, vengeance, lust and pride. You're not impressed by that evaluation? Me neither. Actions count. Results matter.

Now, stop being so smug and smart.

How often do we call a spade a spade? If you don't name it, you can't fight it. And if you don't fight it, you can't slay it.

The facade of this week's proceedings is what gives me the giggles. Richard Clarke, a man with previously impeccable credentials, has come forward with a book, and now testimony, which say, essentially, I said what I had to and kept my larger concerns within the group.

And?

His critics--his previous evangelists--are now accusing him of everything from grandstanding to disloyalty to perjury to treason.

So what? The obvious, which doesn't get acknowledged or pricked by media or responsible folks is this: When you're IN, nobody does much to OUT themselves--at least not on purpose, or without motive. Clarke maintains he was asked during his four-administration tenure (Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43) to spin the facts in a positive light.

Duhh?

But for the political players, this draws claims of "Shocked, shocked, that [spinning] is happening here."

What a cruel and dishonest ploy. What damage to the nation. What a farce.

How? Who amongst us has not been in that position? If our careers extend longer than 12 months, who amongst us hasn't honed this spinning skill to a craftsman's edge? Likewise, what "Leader" worries that the everyman will consider the details for a simple second beyond the ONE minute that evening news gives it before it launches things into the ionosphere? And so, there's a creepy aspect to language that flows within organizations: If it's said, it becomes "Truth."

But logic, nor media proof, neither, finally, is Truth the high ground in question here.

"Perception" of victory is.

We weed and weave stories and directions so as to lie to our supporters and to fudge our detractors. We spin an imaginary unachieveable future. We create depression where we hoped to create enthusiasm. In this, we foment institutional distrust and further the innate belief that a "A Company" or "An Organization" can't have my best interests at heart. Here, the subtlle irony kicks in for me: The "CEO" administration is falling back on techniques that highlight the dark side of popular perceptions of the CEO. This is that they are self-interested, vicious, arrogant and intolerant of criticism.

Welcome to R-Complex territory.

Sad.

They're not fooling anybody. The M.O. is painfully obvious to persons with two opposable thumbs and a resume: This is the common fight for the primacy of a perceived competitive advantage we've all witnessed occuring on high before. The old ways die messily, swinging fists, swords, memos or layoff notices, and leaving bodies in their wake. 12 months or 12 years later the fight is proven to have been a folly--by tragedy (another WTC? Or 6? Via ship? Or by RV?) or by mere whimpering failure (the truth and dissembling by the responsible is revealed, post election.) Everbody has a martini, shakes their heads in mock chastisement, and moves on to begin repeating the mistakes of the past under the guise of "reform":

[Wiki]...fed clues from a source with inside information, Feynman famously showed on television the crucial role in the [1986 Challenger] disaster played by the booster's o-ring seals with a simple demonstration using a glass of ice water and a sample of o-ring material. His opinion of the cause of the accident differed from the official findings, and were considerably more critical of the role of management in sidelining the concerns of engineers. After much petitioning, Feynman's minority report was included as an appendix to the official document.

...After much petitioning...

Space.com:
On Sept. 29, 1988 shuttle Discovery returned America to space. It wasn't long before the shuttle program regained confidence, renewed its status as a symbol of technical superiority and resumed its role as an icon of the American spirit of exploration.

Then on Feb. 1, 2003 Columbia and its crew of seven astronauts was lost.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board will say that despite the success the shuttle program has enjoyed, NASA has become too familiar with the program, like an old friend whose buddies have overlooked its quirks and flaws. In a word: operational. Instead, NASA must treat each shuttle mission as a test flight.

...quirks and flaws...

Karl Weick, U of M Biz School: There is an interesting story ... about ... Wernher von Braun. When a Redstone missile went out of control during prelaunch testing, von Braun sent a bottle of champagne to an engineer who confessed that he might have inadvertently short-circuited the missile. An investigation revealed that the engineer was right, which meant that expensive redesigns could be avoided. You don't get a lot of admissions like that in organizations today. But all it takes is one such story to make an individual in the company buck up and say, "Hey, these folks are serious about facing up to failures, so I'm going to take a chance and speak up." [This interview is no longer online--link archived on this server]

In each of the above cases, scientists and administrators--Smart Professionals--were balancing organizational imperatives against the realities of life. I use that in Italics for a reason. They were leading. Von Braun took a step to deny the realities he'd been handed. He really wanted to know. He wanted to lead, not to appear as a leader.

That's an important distinction. One has to earn leadership by unconventional acts. More and more, the simple act of tellling the truth qualifies as unconventionality. A brand, a person, a group becomes differentiated by merely being honest? It seems so. But who amongst us is willing to do that, to take that step? Who do we vote for or follow, once we're tired of and inured to mediocrity?