Happy Easter!
Time for some catching up, since I haven't blogged in such a long time.
I was actually wanting to post some last weekend, but some technical problems prevented me from posting, but those have been resolved now, and the server is faster than ever, so here comes a new batch.
It's a strange feeling, being on a blog fast, when there is so much going on, what with the uprising in Fallujah, and the killing of the leader of Hamas, a discussion which I am glad I did not participate in (though I do not intend any disrespect to the participants - I'm just glad I didn't step in and put my foot in my own mouth).
The most immediate news I can think of to post about is the 9/11 commission, and its aftereffects, namely the disclosure that President Bush was warned about the events of 9/11 before they happened.
Now, I haven't read the briefing yet, and I may have to update this post after I do so, but I have read enough to write the following.
We've got to remember the five "W" (and one "H") questions when evaluating this briefing:
WHO?
Were there names mentioned? Did we know specifically who would be carrying out these attacks? Ok, we knew they were Al Qaeda operatives, but would we have been able to implement specific counter-measures without causing protests of racial profiling or other civil rights concerns? Given the level of protests after 9/11, I think the government would have been faced high levels of resistance from civil rights groups sympathetic to Islamist interests, unless classified information was disclosed giving up our intelligence advantage in fighting the war on terrorism.
WHEN?
The memo said that Al Qaeda operatives were in the country now, but there were no dates given for a specific attack. Could we have implemented a terrorist alert system before an attack without setting off civil-rights-groups alarm bells? Given that we haven't been able to do so even after 9/11, I don't think so.
WHAT? WHERE? HOW?
Did we know what the terrorists were exactly trying to accomplish? We know they were acting in America and were going to strike an American target. I know that the World Trade Center was considered to be a prime target, but it was well protected against any type of terrorist attack that had been tried before 9/11. Given the level of security, a benefit of a doubt could be given to anyone thinking that another site would be chosen for the attack. And even though an attack by plane had been speculated on in a work of fiction, I think most Americans were surprised by the method of this attack. As much as Condoleeze Rice has been criticized by the editors of leftist magazines like The Nation and Mother Jones, I think the tactics of this attack were pretty much unimaginable before they occured.
WHY?
We'll be arguing about this till kingdom come, it goes into ideological concerns and there's no definite answer. They hate us because we're too rich, because we're free, because we're not an Islamist-based country, because we support Israel, whatever. The way I see it, if you let a man with a bomb, or an airplane doing the work of a bomb, dictate your policy, you might as well elect that man your President-for-life, because you've just handed your decision making to foreigners.
I haven't heard anything from the 9/11 commission that has showed me that President Bush has treated the security of this nation as unimportant. There have been mistakes made, yes, just as mistakes have been made in any war -- intelligence isn't perfect, and you allocate resources and act as you think best. If post-9/11 measures had been made in order to prevent an attack, I think the same people who are attacking the President now would also have been attacking him pre-emptively, saying he was putting the country at risk, maybe even encouraging an attack through arrogant actions (similar to how they are claiming that ABM defense systems are encouraging nuclear war). It's all partisanship, plain and simple. Democrats are trying to bring this President down anyway they can, even though they wouldn't have done any better.