DOTS ALL, FOLKS
By JOHN PODHORETZ
NY Post
<font size=4>
August 4, 2004 -- THIS weekend, the Bush ad ministration took various pieces of data, turned them into data points, and placed each point on a piece of graph paper just like we did back in high school.
Data point No. 1: Multiple sources indicating al Qaeda fully intends to try and hit us before the election.
Data point No. 2: Hard evidence from the hard drive of an al Qaeda member featuring very specific information about five buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington. The information gathered on the buildings was several years old. But the United States only found out that al Qaeda had it over the weekend.
Then the Bush administration drew a line from point 1 to point 2. If al Qaeda wants to hit us and it has all kinds of material on those five buildings, then prudence dictates that we intensify our efforts to protect those buildings in order to stave off an attack.
<font color=red>
In other words, the Bush administration connected the dots. <font color=black>
Remember how the Bush administration was attacked during the 9/11 Commission hearings precisely because it didn't <font color=blue>"connect the dots"<font color=black> before 9/11? On March 25, the editorial writers at The New York Times excoriated the administration for what they called <font color=blue>"the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists."<font color=black> The Times even praised the Clinton administration by contrast for being more serious about terrorism than the Bushies were.
The conclusion of the 9/11 Commission was that there had been a <font color=blue>"failure of vision,"<font color=black> an inability to see into a likely future in which al Qaeda would hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
Administration critics were particularly insistent on the predictive value of the Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, with the headline that read <font color=blue>"Al Qaeda Determined to Strike In U.S."<font color=black> How could the president not have sent everyone to battle stations to find the data to connect the dots that would have prevented 9/11?
<font color=red>
This weekend, the administration did exactly what its
critics said it should have done before 9/11. It connected
the dots. It raised the threat level to orange and let
America and the world know which specific buildings were
under threat.
<font color=blue>
And how have some administration critics reacted?
They accuse Bush of playing politics with terror. Of lying, in other words, about the peril we're in.
<font color=black>
Let's go right to the source, The New York Times editorial page: <font color=blue>"The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way,"<font color=black> the editorialists wrote yesterday.
This is true. And it's entirely beside the point. So al Qaeda collected the data about the five buildings before 9/11. The data they gathered are still relevant.
Take the Citigroup Center. Aside from heightened security, nothing has changed about the place: 53rd Street still runs west, 54th runs east, Lex goes downtown, Third goes uptown and the garage entrances are where they were. The information may be a few years old. But it isn't dated.
No matter, saith The Times: <font color=blue>"This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain." <font color=black>
No, what The Times and others chastising the
administration for the supposedly suspicious timing of
this terror alert are demonstrating is that they were
simply "using" the connect-the-dots argument <font color=blue>"for
political gain." <font color=black>
It's only four months since one-time counterterrorism
chief Richard Clarke electrified the nation by going
before the 9/11 Commission and claiming that Bush had
failed to grasp the threat from al Qaeda. Clarke went so
far as to apologize to the families of those killed on
9/11 for the failure.
This was the first successful political assault on the
president's chief strength — his leadership of the War on
Terror. By portraying Bush as having somehow allowed 9/11
to happen, Bush's enemies finally found a way to seem
harder-line and more serious about the subject than the
president himself.
No matter. They didn't mean it. They don't mean it. They
just want to destroy him, and they'll say or do or argue
just about anything to see that it happens.
Some of the attacks on Bush are crazy. Some are
intellectually indefensible spin, and therefore nothing
less than contemptible. This latest attack goes in
the <font color=blue>"contemptible"<font color=black> pile. <font size=3>
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
NEW YORK POST |
