Was the intelligence "actionable" or "historical"? If you actually know the truth, by all means, share with the rest of the class. But if you're like the rest of us, welcome to the remaining 99.9999 percent of the world's population left to draw its own conclusions on what really happened in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke wrote a book about how no one paid attention to al-Qaida and the Bush camp denied its validity. Congress opened a commission bent on investigating how the attacks could have been prevented, or even how they could have been different, and our national security adviser initially refused to testify. She eventually folded and then testified, only to refute alleged threats as history. The alleged threats contained in the president's daily briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, were disclosed in full. Then the president denied that they actually were important.
Allegation, denial. Inquiry, roadblock. We've come to expect nothing less. It's certainly not illegal, it's not obstructing justice yet and it's definitely a smart way to keep the White House's poker face intact. We probably will never know the truth about how seriously the Bush Administration took al-Qaida until 19 of them blew up our buildings.
Whom do you believe? What do you think happened? Do you think that President Bush sat on his hands at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, while he should've been talking to G8 powers about counterterrorism? That's an outright simplification. Ten days after "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." landed on Bush's desk, the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker who would never rendezvous with his cronies.
Was Richard Clarke like the girl behind you in class who always complains about having a headache and is invariably tuned out? Is it legitimately believable that the counterterrorism czar was flat-out ignored?
Unlikely, when you break down the allegations. Could more attention have been paid to the sleeper cells of terrorists in America? Fine, but then you risk compromising national intelligence.
Allegation, denial. Inquiry, roadblock. Let's have one more, though. Was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." really a warning? Interesting. "Your Roommate Determined to Screw You on Rent" sounds like a warning to me. "Bar Determined to Close Doors at 11 p.m." That's definitely a warning.
What we're all forced to decide in these coming weeks, then, is if the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were preventable. Was something of that magnitude, something of that brevity and influence, really capable of being nipped in the bud? Probably not. But it'll be fascinating to find out how much or how little really was destined to happen. Think of what our elected and appointed leaders have said so far in defense of their actions. Has it overwhelmingly swung your opinion in one direction or the other?
When this comes to a hilt, we're going to be presented with information that will surprise us all in one way or the other. We know the lines the major players will speak until then, but remember - you're still in that 99.9999 percent who ultimately will come to an individual conclusion.
