I have no big reaction to the P.D.B. (President's Daily Briefing) that was released last night. Yeah, it does suggest that there was a bit of advance warning of the 9/11 plot but no, it doesn't convince me that anyone was negligent not to snap into action. I think Bush's foes have made a strong case that the White House should have been more focused on terrorism than it was but a weak case that someone there could have prevented the disasters of that awful day.
I was struck by the amazing contrast in how the P.D.B. of 8/6/01 is being reported, though. The following is the lede from The Washington Post…
CRAWFORD, Tex., April 10 — President Bush was warned a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI had information that terrorists might be preparing for a hijacking in the United States and might be targeting a building in Lower Manhattan. The information was included in a written Aug. 6, 2001, briefing to Bush that was declassified Saturday night by the White House in response to a request from the independent commission probing the Sept. 11 attacks.
And here's how the same story began if you picked up The Washington Times…
CRAWFORD, Texas — The Bush administration last night released the declassified contents of a presidential briefing document that contains mostly historical information about Osama bin Laden's terrorist plans — almost all of it compiled from open sources, including television and news reports.
Despite my view, I think the Post report is the fairer summation. Doesn't the writer of the Times piece strike you as a bit too eager to insist there's no story here and that Dr. Rice was correct to say it was a "historical" document? Usually in a news article, you lay out the charge before you provide the rebuttal.