Last week, the news media and some members of Congress worked themselves into a frenzy over the revelation that an intelligence briefing made to President Bush last August mentioned the possibility of airplane hijackings. Although no information in the briefing indicated that the hijackings would be used in the kamikaze-style attacks of September 11th, the news caused an uproar because, critics claimed, it should have been released earlier.

The media worked overtime, jumping to conclusions and making false accusations that suggested a cover-up. The New York Post screamed in large type on the front page: “9/11 BOMBSHELL: BUSH KNEW”. Political opportunists quickly seized on this, asking questions using the accusatory “what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it” language of scandal that entered the political lexicon during Watergate. Congressman Dick Gephardt, the top-ranking Democrat in the House and possible presidential candidate against President Bush in 2004, did not stray too far from the boilerplate phrasing: “I think what we have to do now is to find out what the president, what the White House knew about the events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it.” Democrat Hillary Clinton, another possible presidential candidate, took to floor of the Senate and “demand[ed] answers immediately”. President Bush, meanwhile, showing his penchant for understatement, noted, “I sniff some politics in the air.”

While it is true that the particulars of the 6 August 2001 intelligence briefing were not previously released—it is not standard operating procedure to make CIA briefings public, for obvious reasons—much of the information that has now come to light had already been made public in some form or another prior to the September 11th attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration had been warning airlines for months of possible hijackings; unfortunately, the intelligence community was not able to detect that the hijackings would be anything other than standard hostage-takings. While it is deeply regrettable that this was not known, it does not rise to the level of scandal or cover-up, and it certainly does not involve the President himself as the critics claim. At best, the statements of the President’s critics are grossly misleading and irresponsible, at worst, they’re outright lies propagated purely for partisan gain.

Thankfully, the noxious cloud of political hot air has dissipated somewhat since last week, and cooler heads are beginning to prevail. Gephardt and Clinton, sensing that their politicized accusations were beginning to backfire, have retreated a bit from their earlier finger-pointing. Now that the furor is subsiding, we can focus on the facts, which make it quite clear that the threat of terrorism was taken very seriously since the opening days of the Bush Administration:

• January 2001: The FAA issues the first warning to airlines about the possibility of terrorist action against American citizens and/or American interests.
• March 2001: With information pointing to increased “intelligence chatter” coming from bin Laden’s organization, the White House Counterterrorism Security Group begins working on a strategy to target al Qaeda.
• April 2001: The FAA encourages airlines to “practice a high degree of awareness” to defend against possible threats.
• June 2001: The FAA issues four more alerts, this time mentioning hijackings specifically. Also, the State Department, citing a “threat spike” picked up in intelligence reports, cautions Americans that they are at an increased risk of attack. The Counterterrorism Security Group begins planning responses to various types of attacks.
• 5 July 2001: President Bush, meeting with his national security team, asks for a review of action taken in response to the terrorist alerts. The President, recognizing the difficulty in fighting a decentralized, distributed network like al Qaeda, compares it to “swatting at flies”. As for bin Laden, President Bush seeks a way to “bring this guy down”.
• 6 August 2001: The CIA presents President Bush with an intelligence report stating that al Qaeda is interested in hijacking planes in order to trade hostages for the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the jailed leader of the terrorist cell that orchestrated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb attack.
• 18 August 2001: The FAA issues a memo to airport security staffers advising them on how to detect hidden and non-standard weapons. The security advisory mentions the possible use of everyday items such as keychains and pens as weapons.
• 4 September 2001: Top-level Cabinet officials and national security advisors approve a draft of the plan to destroy al Qaeda. The plan reportedly includes the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
• 10 September 2001: The al Qaeda plan is ready to be presented; a meeting is scheduled for 12 September 2001 to discuss the plan with the President.

How can people accuse the Bush Administration of covering up knowledge of a hijacking threat when the FAA had been notifying airlines of that threat for months before the attacks? How can the Bush Administration be accused of knowing about September 11th in advance based on the 6 August 2001 briefing when it mentioned hijacking only in the traditional hostage-taking sense?

We’ve seen first-hand over the last eight months how difficult it is for the intelligence officers to distinguish between real threats and bogus reports. As a nation, our pre-September 11th mentality was to dismiss intelligence information unless it was highly specific and credible. We knew al Qaeda was a threat—and President Bush was handling that threat long before September 11th—we just didn’t know when that threat would be realized or what form it would take. We now err on the side of caution, disclosing many threats that never occur. How many terrorism warnings have we had since September 11th? How many of those have resulted in actual attacks? The media, which complained about the over-disclosure of threats in the months following September 11th, is now complaining about the under-disclosure of them prior to September 11th. Which is it?

Meanwhile, there are troubling new reports that another attack is imminent, and that it may be massive enough to make September 11th look like a mere rehearsal. The water supply in Orlando, Florida has been threatened. There are warnings that apartments may have been rented in high-rise buildings around the country and planted with bombs. Threats of radiological “dirty bombs” and small-scale “suitcase nukes” have been reported since last October. Most worrisome, though, is that the volume of “intelligence chatter” is now reaching the same levels that it did in the weeks leading up to the September 11th attacks. The next attack may be coming soon. Let’s not lose our focus on the real threat.

Although it seems obvious that there were failures in intelligence and our interpretation of it, we must also realize that, even with a perfectly functioning intelligence apparatus, we’re still vulnerable to attack. Because it is simply not possible to detect every plot against us, we can’t assume that each successful attack points to failure on our part. That said, I agree absolutely that we must try to understand how we mishandled intelligence prior to September 11th, but let’s do it in a calm, rational way, far away from professional politicians. Our goal should be fixing the problem, not affixing the blame. Forgive my skepticism, but judging from the hotheaded handwringing that has taken place already, holding hearings in some Congressional kangaroo court will do little more than provide a podium for people whose primary concern is their next election.