Moving Expectations

Twice during her public testimony before the 9/11 commission, Dr. Rice noted that "if we had known that an attack was coming... we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it."

I thought that seemed a bit hyperbolic at the time, but, like "tired of swatting flies", I understood it to be just a figure of speech. Then it got repeated a bit more, that phrase, in the kind of repetition that makes you think it was on a talking points memo:

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, ...[said] on The Early Show..."Trust me, if the President of the United States thought that there were operations to hijack planes to crash into New York City and Washington, D.C., he would have moved heaven and earth to prevent it."

And already it was losing its effectiveness. So I wasn't surprised when the President ad libbed a bit on Sunday when discussing the declassified PDB (which has yet to show its teeth, I predict):

In his first comments since Saturday's release of the presidential daily brief, Bush said if there had been any specific intelligence pointing to threats of attacks on New York and Washington, "I would have moved mountains" to prevent it.

I'm not trying to cast doubt on the President's statement. I do believe he would have done what he could have to prevent the attack if he had understood it was coming.

Still this notion that there was no action to be taken that he hadn't taken does beg the questions of expectations with regard to what should have been our response to the August 6th PDB. Richard Clarke clearly believes the President should have began shaking the trees (another figure of speech that's growing a bit hackneyed). Another Richard (Perle, former Pentagon adviser who was an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration) said there was "not enough specificity to take any action. What could a president have done under those circumstances? Shut down the United States? Grounded all aircraft? Gone into a panic mode?"

Which reminded me of the ethics question of whether the government should alert the populace if it knew that a meteor was definitely going to destroy earth and nothing could stop it. Would it not be better to let them enjoy their last few days in blissful ignorance rather than going into "panic mode"? Personally I think I'd really rather not know. But then again, there are some people I should probably try to set things right with and what better use of my last moments on earth?

I mention this because Perle's response reminded me of "Jersey Girls" 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser's (a portrait in stoic determination if ever there was one) oft repeated comment* that had her husband known that AQ was plotting to hijack airplanes, he most likely would have left the WTC tower he worked in immediately upon hearing the first plane hit. Then at least he would have suspected it was an attack and not remained in his office. It's normal to play a event like the murder of a spouse over and over in your mind, looking for any "if only" scenario that might have brought about a different outcome, looking for any glaring error on the part of those we entrust to prevent such things.

It's tempting to conclude something snarky, like "Bush could have left the mountains (and heaven and earth) where they are, but he might have at least picked up the phone and lit some fires under the FBI and CIA on August 6th." Admittedly, however, that strikes me as unfair. I don't know that he didn't, nor do I know that it would have changed anything. It was a very different world before 9/11...our expectations have changed...God grant our leaders the wisdom to see the warning signs next time.

*I've looked high and low for this online to no avail, but I've heard he say it more than one on the Today Show.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

I find it hard to blame Bush & Co for not preventing 9/11. Even with all that's come out.

But it's evident that they could have done quite a bit to ameliorate the effects - even without issuing a warning about possible terrorist attacks in NYC/Washington.

Shortly after 9/11 I read a survivor anecdote that stuck in my mind for quite a while because of what it said about what preparedness could have done. When the plane hit North Tower, a former Londoner in an office in South Tower heard the impact and said immediately "It's a bomb, let's get out." He evacuated his entire office (twenty people or so, as I recall) and they were actually just out of the elevator when the second plane hit South Tower. The account was written by one of the Londoner's co-workers who, looking at where the office was, had concluded that the Londoner had very likely saved all their lives by his instant reaction.

One reason why so many people died in South Tower was because there was no evacuation plan and none had ever been rehearsed. People were being told to go back to their desks after the building had been hit.

What if? We all have to think this. I think - about the people who died when the towers fell on them, about the people who died because there was no coordinated plan to evacuate the buildings - What if Bush & Co had decided, on the strength of the August 6 memo, to at least have some theoretical plans ready for likely eventualities - what'll we do if the terrorists strike the WTC? What'll we do if the terrorists strike the Pentagon? What'll we do if the terrorists hijack planes? When the first contact from a hijacked plane was made, what if it had met with an immediate response rather than a bewildered "this can't be happening"? Not to broadcast the possible menace publicly, but to pass word along to the people who would obviously be contacted first if a terrorist hijacking happened, to make plans.

Instead, Bush went on vacation.

[praktike]

Perle's nuts. He's not interested in reality; still talking about installing Chalabi, whose virtue appears to be that he hasn't called our response in Fallujah "collective punishment."

Today on "This Week," George Will looked like he was going to strangle Perle.

But one thing that emerged is that there is a bipartisan consensus emerging that it's time to bring in the UN. Biden says he's got a deal lined up. Isolationist realists on the right and left just want to bug out and let the UN clean up the mess. Hawkish realists want more troops. Liberal internationalist hawks are still dreaming of turning Iraq into a democracy, and they've been pro-UN all along.

Is Biden full of it?

[bob mcmanus]

Yes. Biden is full of it. The French are not going to send troops (they have some in Afghanistan & Africa, so don't have many to send),
without getting some contracts, etc. The Bush administration are not sharing the pork until they absolutely understand they are gonna lose. Bush is never gonna believe he is going to lose, probably not even after it happens.

[Gary Farber]

I think it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the administration to have acted on the August 6th PDB by greatly increasing the number of federal marshals on airplanes, and by mandating that all cockpit doors be kept locked throughout flights.

It might have been too late to get the various agency watchlists shared by September 11th, starting cold on August 6th, but it might not have been. It's something that should have begun during the Clinton Administration, of course.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, it was their watch, and they bear a significant amount of responsibility, regardless of how much also falls upon the previous administration.