In an
op-ed for The New York Times, Vanity Fair contributing
editor Kurt Eichenwald argues that former President George W. Bush
was “deaf” to warnings about a terrorist attack in the United
States.
Of course, this allegation isn’t new especially concerning the
presidential daily brief of August 6, 2001 which stated “Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in U.S.” But Eichenwald claims he has read
excerpts of previous presidential briefs:
While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts
from many of them, along with other recently declassified records,
and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s
reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that
infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has
been disclosed.
Yet by Eichenwald’s own admission, he has read only “excerpts”.
Which means he hasn’t read everything and therefore doesn’t have
the whole story. But even if he did I suspect he would only see
what he wants to see. I also find Mr. Eichenwald’s hyperbolic prose
lacking in journalistic detachment. It is troubling
when Eichenwald deploys phrases such as “neoconservative
leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon”. These
“neoconservative leaders” (who Eichenwald does not identify) didn’t
“assume” anything. Like them or not, they were appointed by
President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. It might be a minor
point but it certainly suggests that we look at things through a
particular lens which has been distorted by animus towards a
particular ideology.
I was struck by this passage in particular:
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect
criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had
not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true,
as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer,
there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the
government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was
being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been
assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in
Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas
on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias
Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after
arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not
connected, and Washington did not react.
Well, it’s more than disconnected dots. Remember that Moussaoui
was arrested by the FBI and the FBI office in Minneapolis didn’t exactly
have its act together despite efforts to enlist the help of the
CIA.
As for Kahtani, he is at Gitmo and is the
poster boy for those who oppose enhance interrogation
techniques.
Eichenwald ends his piece this way:
Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team
reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those
daily briefs? We can’t know. And that may be the most agonizing
reality of all.
Given that Eichenwald acknowledges that the Bush Administration
did not know when a terrorist attack would occur or where it would
take place, what should have they done? What would have been a
suitable reaction? Killing Osama? Assuming such an opportunity
could have presented itself, it still might not have
prevented the attack from being carried out. Or should they have
broken up al Qaeda cells in the U.S. with mass arrests? If the
liberal media objects to the treatment we dole out to terrorists
following an actual attack then imagine their reaction if there had
been no attack in the first place? Hindsight is always 20-20.
I am not suggesting that the Bush Administration couldn’t have
made different choices. Yet it’s impossible to know if they would
have made any difference. Despite the warnings, an attack of that
magnitude was simply beyond our experience.
In the grand scheme of things, Eichenwald’s article only serves
to a) fullfil The New York Times agenda of bashing Bush
and praising Obama, b) agitate those who tend towards conspiracy
theories and c) absolve al Qaeda of responsibility for its actions.
Those might not be Eichenwald’s intentions, but they are surely its
effect.
