Clairvoyance
Apr 11, 2004
Notwithstanding that their intelligence hinted at the fact, I don't fault the Bush administration for not realizing that al Qaeda would attack the US by hijacking one or several airliners.
Obviously, a given government, be it the Bush administration or any other, can't possibly act on every single indication of threat, they have to use their judgement and expertise, combined with solid intelligence, to figure out which ones are probable and which ones are not as probable. I believe Richard Clarke, saying that the administration considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent one, but I don't fault them for it.
The declassified intelligence report was right to doubt the supposed threat of terrorists hijacking US airliners, and to describe it as "sensational reporting". Now that we have all the answers, it's quite easy to criticize the Bush administration for not seeing it coming, but I don't think anyone else saw it coming, either. I'm talking about the attack using airliners, not terrorism in general.
Like everybody else, I remember 9/11 extremely well, it's like it happened yesterday. I also remember how I could not believe it was true, it couldn't be. It was the kind of thing that, while barely plausible in a Die Hard sequel, it's not something that could realistically happen, in real life. But it did, and it forever changed the definition of "realistic".
I don't like the current US administration, in fact, I think it's probably one of the most catastrophic administrations to ever hold office in the US. I expect George W. Bush to tell the truth, which he does not; to make decisions in the common interest of the American people, which he does not; to sustain healthy relationships with other nations, which he does not; to work for economic prosperity for the US, which he does not; to uphold the constitution, which he does not (let's not discuss these issues right now, you may disagree, but you know what I'm talking about).
I could go on and on, but one thing I don't expect of George W. Bush is for him to be clairvoyant: to have the ability to perceive matters beyond the range of ordinary perception, which is exactly how unlikely, how unbelievable, I think every one of us perceived anything like 9/11 to happen.
But that does not change the fact that 9/11 did happen on his watch. It might have happened on anyone else's watch as well, that we don't know. But we do know that 9/11 happened on his watch, which is why I think he should approach the issue with some fucking humility, instead of portraying his administration as one closely watching al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
Comments
Politics, so dirty, huh? I hate the fact that being a politician has become a career rather than a service. 150 years ago or so, it was just like you being the president of your favorite club - still have to work your normal job, plus serve. Just like the rest of us.
I think all the finger pointing is worthless AND expensive.
Comment by David Collantes at 21:15, 11 Apr, 2004 #
I don't think Bush, or any President, could have prevented 9/11 directly, but when all the intel points to hijacking planes, why was airport security still so lax? A hijacked plane is still a pretty bad thing to happen, so where was his response to those warnings?
Comment by Greg at 03:25, 12 Apr, 2004 #
Greg: I don't think "all the intel pointed to hijacking the planes". Here's a quote from the memo:
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that [...] bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft"
I think, realistically, (that word again) there must have been a flood of reports, all kinds of intel, pointing in a million different directions, towards lots of different threats, and that intel pointing towards airliner hijackings were of the more "sensational" kind. At least of the uncorroborated kind, according to the declassified memo.
One can argue, however, that regardless of threats of terrorism, airports should be secure anyway. And, I'm sure that was an important issue, just not an urgent one.
Here's something you don't see every day: me defending the Bush administration.
Comment by Tomas at 09:26, 12 Apr, 2004 #
I think the question you must ask is; has George W. Bush made the world a safer place for westerners after 9/11?
I'd like to see some statistics that proves that Bush Jr. indeed has made the world a safer place, as he claims. Or did he just use 9/11 as an excuse to settling old scores, ignoring the possible outcome of yet greater danger by doing so.
Comment by talisyn at 11:54, 12 Apr, 2004 #
Apart from finger-pointing and blame-shifting (just pointless), we have to realize here the basic problem is that information collected is not properly analyzed.
CIA, FBI, NSA, are getting pretty good at collecting chatter, but as far as reviewing and analyzing the information, they are lagging behind in man-power (read translators). Funding is an issue. More than that it is the lack of care or concern.
Mostly America has ignored terrorism as "somebody else's problem".. "we are invincible". As that false sense of security was shattered, we are grappling with unforeseen challenges and problems. And that is why blame-shifting and finger-pointing is useless. How about solution-finding?
But then again, most of America (and the world) is prone to quickly point a finger, find a scapegoat. Its in our personality.
Comment by Sunny at 14:40, 14 Apr, 2004 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.