« He's Coming For You |
Main
| House of Saud »
April 11, 2004
Easter Fools
The president today, defying all sense and logic, continued to assert that the August 6 PDB "was no indication of a terrorist threat." This is the PDB titled "Osama bin Laden determined to attack the United States" which contained the information that they had been conducting activities -- inside the U.S. -- consistent with planning for hijackings and had cased federal buildings in New York. No indication of a terrorist threat. That's what he said. The president.
He went on to trot out the administration's most favored bullshit on this issue: that they had not been given a place and time of an attack. If they had been given such information, Bush said, he would have "moved mountains" to stop it.
Pandagon has a brilliant send up of this argument in the form of a calligraphic invitation from the terrorists. It seems this is in fact the threshold for action.
Let's get to some quotes.
THE PRESIDENT: My response was exactly like then as it is today, that I asked for the Central Intelligence Agency to give me an update on any terrorist threats. And the PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat. There was not a time and place of an attack. It said Osama bin Laden had designs on America. Well, I knew that. What I wanted to know was, is there anything specifically going to take place in America that we needed to react to?
As you might recall, there was some specific threats for overseas that we reacted to. And as the President, I wanted to know whether there was anything, any actionable intelligence. And I looked at the August 6th briefing, I was satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into. But that PDB said nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America -- well, we knew that.
source
Yes, dude, there was something specifically going on in America that you needed to react to, namely, an active arm of an international terrorist organization casing building in your most populous city.
Furthermore, since when is hating America, in your view, not actionable? Last time I checked we were sending the entire world spiraling into chaos and division because of some people who "hate America." Seems like you pretty much want to take over any country that ever had lunch with someone who hates America.
The last paragraph of his statement is truly astounding.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's what the 9/11 Commission should look into, and I hope it does. It's an important part of the assignment of the 9/11 Commission. And I look forward to their recommendations, a full analysis of what took place. I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack. Of course we knew that America was hated by Osama bin Laden. That was obvious. The question was, who was going to attack us, when and where, and with what. And you might recall the hijacking that was referred to in the PDB. It was not a hijacking of an airplane to fly into a building, it was hijacking of airplanes in order to free somebody that was being held as a prisoner in the United States.
So, to summarize the president here: The only time it is valid to expect our government to take proactive steps to thwart a terrorist attack is when they have unambiguous information as to 1) Who is going to attack, 2) When they will attack, 3) Where they will attack, and 4) What weapons or tactics they will use in the attack.
He then says that the intelligence spoke of hijacking airplanes to free somebody, not of flying them into buildings. So what was being done to prevent hijackings in order to free somebody? Were we not interested in stopping such a plan? Do you use different tactics to stop hijackings based on what the hijackers intend to do with the plane once they've taken it?
This man is in really big trouble. This is indefensible. More later.
Posted by ahecht at April 11, 2004 9:47 PM
Previous Comments
One thing that never seems to get aired here is the sheer inertia required to change the policies of a country as big as the United States. (Carryover in personel, especially in the state dept, explains a lot of this.) We have a system that only changes in a major way under two circumstances: a long effort, or a profound shock.
Through long effort, the reach and effectiveness of the CIA/FBI have been reduced to a fraction of their former selves. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a 'peace dividend' included the savage cutting of the CIA budgets including letting a lot of senior operatives with skills in the Middle East retire unreplaced. Laws were enacted to hamper the CIA in dealing with 'criminal' elements and communication between the two agencies.
The president's PDB includes a LOT of threats, foreign and domestic. Every day. Every SINGLE day. Some are immediate (China downing an Air Force Recon plane) and some are less so. In order to act forcefully and promptly without a lot of resources (recall the much diminished CIA), the president absolutely requires a public outcry or the cooperation of the legislative branch. Jeez, his political opponents cannot even agree to let his judicial candidates COME UP FOR A VOTE without using parlimentary scams. If he had said on, oh, June 2001, "I need 150M in funding for the CIA to help track down terrorist threats" how do you think they would've reacted? Especially on such vague hints that where in the Aug 6 PDB? He would've been laughed off the hill by Dems AND conscious-minded republicans.
It's small-minded to give blame for an event that had been building at LEAST since 1993. He did no less than a democratic administration would have done (before sept 11) and probably a bit more after that date. Even Mr. Finger Pointing Book Writer (sorry, his name escapes me, heh) admits that even if ALL of his policies had been enacted, it would NOT have stopped 9/11. Period.
Posted by: Johnie K. at April 11, 2004 11:09 PM
Johnie,
I agree with you that it is unlikely that 9/11 would have been prevented, and I have said so in many posts. I also agree that our institutions do not change quickly.
I disagree, however, that an institutional change or tons of money was required in this case to show due diligence. Whether or not action on the part of the government would have stopped 9/11 is largely irrelevant as it amounts to predicting the future (the future of an alternate past). Understanding in hindsight that the events would not have been stopped has no bearing on our determination of what should have been done. In analyzing what should have been done, we have to pretend that it hasn't happened yet. It is valid to expect that our leaders did whatever they could, not knowing at the time whether their actions would have the desired effect.
I assign no blame for the events of 9/11 except to the hijackers and those who supported and enabled them. This isn't about assigning blame for that tragic day. It's about finding out who knew what when, and what they did when they knew. We know who perpetrated these terrible acts. Now we must determine what, if anything, could have been done to possibly stop or lessen the tragedy. Blame for failing to prevent an act is different than blame for the act itself.
It is my opinion that, given the information our leaders had before 9/11, some steps could have been taken to stall, disrupt, limit, or perhaps avoid the attacks, and it would not have taken the heroic measures you describe.
For example, if we were aware of "activities in the United States consistent with plans for hijacking," why not alert Air Traffic Control? Imagine a memo to ATC explaining clearly that any plane that does not respond to radio calls and/or deviates from its flight plan is to be reported immediately at the highest levels. Such an alertness could have -- I say could have -- at least mitigated the destruction and death. Perhaps the second plane wouldn't have made it to New York, or the third to the Pentagon, potentially saving hundreds of lives.
I would also point out that the August 6 PDB does not stand alone. This was not the first the president or his advisors had heard of this threat, so action based on it would not have been as out of the blue as you suggest. If the president had requested $150 million from the Congress, and explained that there was increasing information indicating a plan to attack the United States and he wanted to step up investigations both here and abroad to avert a potential catastrophe, I believe he would have most likely gotten the money easily. If he had shown Congress that PDB, I honestly don't think it would have been a problem.
Posted by:
Anthony at April 12, 2004 12:01 AM
