The Economist on “The Blame Game”

The British magazine is always measured and even-handed since it exists outside the bubble of American debate. Here’s the conclusion of the Economist’s analysis of the 9/11 investigation:

Most important, Miss Rice argued, even if the administration had done everything Mr Clarke wanted, that would probably not have been enough to deal with al-Qaeda or stop the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Mr Bush, she said, was tired of “swatting flies”. Something more was needed, which the administration was working on throughout 2001. But it was too late.

And there, for the moment, the debate rests. The Bush administration was urged to do more before 9/11, and chose not to, for reasons that seemed right and reasonable at the time. It was working on a strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, but too slowly to do any good. Some of its members were more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Nothing here can be called indefensible. Whether this is the record of someone who treated al-Qaeda with the utmost seriousness is another matter.

Even the Clintonites appearing before the 9/11 commission cited the chasm between “pre-9/11” and “post-9/11” mentalities. Hindsight on the threat of Al-Qaeda is crystal clear now.