To watch the good work of the 9-11 commission is to see a vigorous inquiry mixed with wishful thinking, as if its members are hoping that by reviewing the past they will somehow change it, either to find that the attacks did not occur as perceived or that the administration was in part responsible for their success. Neither is likely to be the case: The horrible events of that day occurred for many reasons, including human fault and, as National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice kept insisting in testimony yesterday, systemic failure.

But the commission is not a court; its role is not to pronounce guilt. It will work best if it sticks to its mission of recommending reform that improves domestic security while protecting individual rights.

If before her testimony yesterday, the public knew Dr. Rice was bright, articulate and forceful, it now also knows she is an able politician. She stayed on message throughout her testimony, returning whenever possible to five themes: 1) The Bush administration closely followed the policies of the Clinton administration. 2) Even carrying out all the recommendations by Richard Clarke likely would not have stopped the attacks. 3) The broad dysfunction within security agencies and among them, especially between the FBI and CIA, could not be solved in the short amount of time (233 days, by her count) the administration was in office before 9-11. 4) Homeland Security is a major example of how the President Bush has “hardened” the country to deal with terrorism attempts since the attacks. 5) There was no response to terrorist events such as the attack on the USS Cole because the White House wanted to act strategically rather than piecemeal. Dr. Rice also showed her skills by understanding that each commissioner had only 10 minutes to question her and by filling the time on her own when allowed.

The commission has been feuding with the White House for months over access to documents, but the most talked about paper was one it had seen, an Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” This, said Dr. Rice, was not a warning in the sense of what is normally included in a warning but included historical information about previous al-Qaida activity. The document is not available to the public so there’s no saying what sort of document it is, but given the amount of interest in it, the White House would be wise to review it to find a way to release most or all of it.

As in previous testimony, some Democrats on the commission seemed intent on blaming members of the administration while, yesterday, Dr. Rice wanted to blame only structural shortcomings – it wasn’t her or any other person who was at fault, she implied, it was the system. Given how much is already known about agencies that did not talk to each other and the kinds of decisions made during the summer of 2001, this portion of the debate over why 9-11 happened is largely pointless. Worse, unless handled carefully it will make its recommendations seem like the product of politics. The commission members are all skilled at asking difficult questions; they would improve their effectiveness if they made certain all of their questions were strictly about finding facts and not scoring points.

What was known, when it was known and what was done about it are all matters of importance in a final accounting of 9-11. Dr. Rice said much on the record, but added little to the understanding of events.