 |
Snap, crackle, pop Rice ShiftiesBy Rick Horowitz
Was Saddam Hussein a threat? A threat to the Middle East, and a threat to us? Just look at the evidence: Saddam Hussein had invaded neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. These are facts, and there are words for facts like these: Distressing. Worrisome. Troubling. There's another word for facts like these: Historical. I wouldn't even mention it, except that that last word -- "historical" -- has been getting quite a workout lately, in a somewhat different context. It's one of the words Condoleezza Rice keeps using to dismiss the importance of the now-infamous August 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief; that's the one (or should I say one of the ones?) that warned her boss about the threat from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Of course, to hear Dr. Rice tell it, it wasn't really a warning at all. The information in the brief wasn't very specific -- no when or where or how about upcoming attacks. The information wasn't completely corroborated. And most of all, it wasn't -- or so she insisted -- new. It was "historical." Which apparently meant "ignorable." Was the president inclined to see things differently? Hardly. His own recent wrigglings about the August 6 briefing could have come out of the very same phrasebook. "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack." Besides: "And you might recall the hijacking that was referred to in the PDB. It was not a hijacking of an airplane to fly into a building, it was a hijacking of airplanes in order to free somebody that was being held as a prisoner in the United States." Oh -- no problem then. What's for lunch? Except that there was a problem. Several problems, actually, starting with the fact that the information in the PDB wasn't as old as all that. Yes, it spoke about various al-Qaeda plots, and assorted bin Laden hints and threats, from the mid- and late 1990's. But this was being reported to the president back in the summer of 2001; the stuff was hardly ancient history. It was much more recent, for instance, than Saddam's invasions of his neighbors or his use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people. When it came to looking at Iraq, past was prelude. When it came to looking at al-Qaeda, past was...past. Second problem: Even old doesn't necessarily mean abandoned. The PDB made clear that bin Laden is one persistent fellow. "His attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks." Which is to say, a hint in 1997 could still be a horror-in-waiting in 2001, or 2002 or 2003 or... Third problem: It wasn't all old information anyhow. The PDB reported that al-Qaeda members "have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks." That's "maintains," you'll notice -- in the present tense. And then there's this disturbing little nugget, just a few paragraphs later: "FBI information since 1998 indicates" -- that pesky present tense again -- "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." Doesn't sound all that "historical" to me. Posted 4/13/04. Get
award-winning commentary from syndicated columnist Rick Horowitz twice
every week!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
