April 10, 2004

Interesting debate
Posted by Jon Henke

A new-to-our-blogroll blog "For What It's Worth" is doing something interesting.

Instead of just opining and linking in the manner of most blogs....I'll be posing pointed questions for conservatives to answer, so I can better understand where they're coming from.
We've all debated these issues before. Generally, I find, "debate" means "two people talking past each other". Rarely is "listening" a part of the equation.

So, this could be interesting. Here's his first question:

I ask the question not because I want to pin "blame" Bush and Rice for 9/11. I am really, really uninterested in the finger-pointing. On the other hand, I don't buy Condi's line that she could not have possibly foreseen an imminent attack inside the U.S.

So I ask: "Is It Unfair To Point Out That Bush And Rice Should Have Anticipated An Imminent Al Qaeda Attack On U.S. Soil?"

I'd argue that...yes, it is. One might argue that they could have anticipated that an Al Qaeda attack would occur in the US at some point, since the evidence and our assumptions about OBL's intent were consistent with that. But, so what? We've known that since 1993, or so.

Today's release of the August 6th PDB seems to make that point. The information within was historical information - as Condi said, and Ben-Veniste already knew. One passage may be portrayed as "sufficient warning"....

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Yet, the "that time" in question was 1998. And, per the memo, we also learned this in 1998....
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
Remember all the airline warnings, reinforced cockpit doors, and the invasion of Afghanistan in response to this information? No....neither do I.

Clearly, the "noise in the system" provided insufficient data....it just was'nt actionable intelligence. Not in 1998. Or 1999. Or 2000. Or 2001.

Could Rice have anticipated that an attack might happen? Well, sure. One could happen at any time. That's always true. But could they have anticipated that an attack was going to happen? No.

At any rate, that's my answer. I'd be interested in reading more points of view, though, especially in the context of civil debate. Go to his post and answer the question for yourself.

TrackBack

Comments

"Point out," as though it's even a remotely reasonable "observation". Preposterous. I don't know what "conservative" has to do with anything -- this is just a common sense factual matter, not a question of philosophy of government. Introduction of that term confirms we're in shallow waters.

No offense, but this is not remotely an interesting debate. It's silly. You're obviously right that clairvoyant apprehension of the 9/11 plot was possible from '98 on -- but not remotely likely, given the lack of information.

The TV generation and some Beltway lightweights live in a make-believe world of perfectible intelligence and military operations. In the real world, now and then, surprise attacks are pulled off. Of course, since they don't understand that, it's easy to see why they're utterly unable to comprehend that offense and pre-emption are the best strategies to protect and open society. Insh'allah, people who do will continue to call the shots, thus lowering -- but not eliminating -- the odds of additional and catastrophic surprise attacks.

Posted by: IceCold at April 10, 2004 09:36 PM

I love that website....reading it, I get the vibe that he regards conservatives as such strange, alien creatures that they should put a few in the zoo for the "normal" people to observe.

Very creepy....

Posted by: shark at April 10, 2004 10:34 PM

As the blogger running "For What It's Worth," I'd respond to IceCold by saying a few things:

First, I'm glad to get any feedback, so thanks for taking the trouble to comment at all.

Second, I'm just starting to figure out how best to shape questions--I really, really don't want my questions to turn people off. For example, I agree with IceCold that the using the phrase "point out that" was a very unfortunate way of framing the question--it has a "when did you stop beating your wife . . . " type of built in premise. I see exactly what he means, and am going to reword the question as soon as Blogger fixes whatever it is that's technically preventing me from updating posts right now.

Third, I also agree with IceCold that it's wrong to imply that this question is necessarily one that "conservatives" are naturally going to take one side of. To the contrary, the issue is indeed, as IceCold points out, a matter of evidence that shouldn't implicate ideology. But I don't think my asking this of conservatives proves that the site is "shallow waters": anyone paying attention can see that the reality, regrettably, is that there is a definite partisan split on the question of who's more credible--Rice or Clarke. As a Democrat who finds Clarke more credible, I was plainly generalizing by implying that only "conservatives" would take up Rice's defense. It wasn't my intent to assert that idea--only to invite responses from those I thought most likely, as a general proposition, to articulate the Rice position that she did everything possible to thwart an attack but that there was simply no way of foreseeing an imminent al Qaeda attack in the US. Again, I totally agree that the answer one gives really should be fact-driven, not based on ideology.

Fourth, I'll conclude this long comment by defending myself more vigorously on one point: I just disagree that it is "preposterous" merely to ask the question whether an imminent al Qaeda attack of some sort in the US was foreseeable. I asked the question based on specific premises that are tied directly to Rice's testimony. I would invite IceCold look at the specific points I based my question on? If he had, I don't think he would have called my question "preposterous," or if he still thought so, would at least try to engage the points I make directly. In any event, those premises, drafted Friday afternoon, have turned out to be consistent with what we now know from the PDB--not that the PDB is any kind of "smoking gun" (I don't think it is). But it certainly makes it legitimate to raise the issue in the way I did.

In any event, I would be very sorry if IceCold's icy reaction throws cold water on my whole concept and drowns the baby in the bathwater. To continue the metaphor, I'm only taking my first baby steps as I try, in my small corner of the blogosphere, to change the tone of the debate. Anyone who at least agrees with me that that is a worthwhile project will, I hope, work with me instead of turning away when from the whole idea if I slip up: as I hope I've proven, I'm perfectly willing to revise any question if it's unfair.

Finally, I thank Jon Henke for giving a little publicity to my idea of creating a blog on which I and others can try to listen, learn, and exchange ideas in a civil, respectful manner.

Hoping you'll visit, J.B.H.

Posted by: J.B. Howard at April 10, 2004 11:18 PM

Oh, c'mon. It's as clear as day. Why can't you see it? Stop this noise. They didn't care. It wasn't important -- it was not part of the agenda, it did nothing for policy, there was nothing to gain politically...no poll-worthy talking points, it did not further their plan, nothing to see here, move along. This is all so /dev/null. Sheesh. I can't believe you're still discussing this.

Posted by: Becky at April 10, 2004 11:33 PM

That's right Becky. You explained Clintons actions towards Bin Laden PERFECTLY!

Posted by: shark at April 11, 2004 12:39 AM

JB Howard, I'm curious to know why you think Clarke is credible, given the many instances that his statements in 2004 directly contradict his statements in 2002. Also, it is quite clear that the 9/11 commission was far more adversarial towards Rice than it was towards Clarke, and that diminishes the commission's credibility.

That aside, I do not believe that anyone could have foreseen the attacks of 9/11 with the information we had at the time. I will need more than the assertion that OBL wanted to attack the US. With the benefit of hindsight, we are able to piece together many disparate bits of knowledge and see that they were related to the attack. But the trick is taking that information and predicting the attacks before they happen, something no reasonable person could have done.

What I'd like to see from the 9/11 commission are ways to improve our intelligence gathering and analysis so that an attack like this never happens again. But what we're getting from it is a highly partisan circus, where voices that criticize the administration are lauded and voices that defend the administration are badgered and bullied.

Posted by: Steverino at April 11, 2004 08:09 AM

Well, his comments section is evidently inoperative. I would have posted the following:

I can confidently predict that bad things are going to happen in your future. Further, those bad things will have to do directly with the following: 1) your job; 2) your health; 3) your personal relationships; 4) the national economy; 5) your family; or 6) your personal possessions. They will be caused or exacerbated by your personal behaviors. Now, I ask, having been properly warned, exactly what actions are you currently taking to either prevent or alleviate the pending disasters?

Are you: 1) cross-training diligently, costantly updating current skills, learning new and valuable skills, saving at least 15% of your earnings to tide you over just in case; 2) exercising properly (Olympic-style training, perhaps), eating exactly the right diet, getting medically examined every other week or so as a preventative measure, having a full DNA workup looking for heritable problems; and getting full MRIs, CATscans, etc every other month; 3) fully vetting and caring for all personal relationships, devoting hours each day caring for the needs of everyone you know and care about; 4) teaching yourself (if necessary) micro and macro economics, spending and saving in apprropriate amounts to help the national economy, forgoing raises so your company can hire additional workers and bolster the economy, refusing to take tax breaks and deductions so more money is available to offset problems for others caused by the national economy; 5) doin all the preceding for your family to protect them as you;ve protected yourself; and 6) properly logged, tagged, and insured your possesssion, properly protected it all, and stand on guard against bad things happening 24/7?

If so, perhaps I should vote for you next time.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at April 11, 2004 12:14 PM

Shark...perhaps, perhaps not. I think Clinton was more engaged as far as bin Ladin was concerned. He tried -- he attempted (and failed miserably, I admit). But, he didn't ignore the AQ threat. This administration *did* ignore the threat...at least their actions say as much. I cannot understand how can you criticize the actions taken by the Clinton administration and defend the inaction of the Bush administration. Isn't one just as bad as the other?

I'm so crazy over this -- and I'm angry. Very angry. I think our government let us down -- if the fault begins with the Clinton administration, so be it. But, it was continued by the Bush administration. They are just as much to blame. And don't give me this 233 days BS. That's damn near a year. I cannot believe a person of moderate intelligence could read the 8/06 PDB and then leave for a month's vacation. If I pulled that sort of crap at my job, I'd be canned in a second.

They knew and they did nothing. Nothing. And they still have done nothing. Blame whomever. I could care less. It happened and it didn't have to. Period. The end.

Posted by: Becky at April 11, 2004 06:02 PM

Becky ... look at the dates in the PDB. Most of the info was developed in '97 and '98. Why aren't you asking the same questions of the administration that supposedly was so focused on Bin Laden?

Why aren't you asking to see Clinton's PDB's? Why aren't you asking why, if they knew AQ was recruiting in NYC, they didn't DO something about it?

Why aren't you asking why THEY didn't catch the planning and logistics that were being done on THEIR watch?

Why aren't you angry about the more than 2,000 days they WASTED in their pursuit of Bin Laden?

Posted by: McQ at April 11, 2004 06:19 PM

Becky -- "blank out".

It's too bad. Your questions demand answers, McQ.

Posted by: Billy Beck at April 12, 2004 03:14 PM