Sunday, May 31, 2009

The 9/11 Trauma Defense

In recent weeks, former Bush administration officials have trotted out a feeble defense of the actions they took and supported to create national policy -- policy which has brought much failure -- which Richard Clarke calls the 9-11 Trauma defense and he knocks it all down in today's op-ed piece in The Washington Post.

I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years -- on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping -- were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney's admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.

Thus, when Bush's inner circle first really came to grips with the threat of terrorism, they did so in a state of shock -- a bad state in which to develop a coherent response. Fearful of new attacks, they authorized the most extreme measures available, without assessing whether they were really a good idea."

Read the whole thing here

No comments:

Post a Comment