May 23, 2002
TERRORISM:
WERE BUSH TEAM'S WARNINGS AIMED AT DEFLECTING CRITICISM?
KEY FINDINGS
** While
no one discounted the threat still posed by al-Qaida, the vast majority saw the
Bush team's recent warnings of imminent
terrorist attacks as an attempt to quell debate over "what the president
knew" prior to 9/11.
** Many
editorialists contended that U.S. intelligence agencies had 'fumbled badly'
before 9/11 and urged the U.S. to implement better intelligence coordination
procedures forthwith.
** A
handful of observers argued that if President Bush had acted on the mere
"threat of a possible attack" prior to 9/11, he would have risked
"paralyzing" the nation economically.
**
Writers in the Mideast charged the Bush administration with using
"media deception" for "propaganda purposes" at home and
insisted that GWOT was really aimed at Muslims.
MAJOR THEMES
WHY THE HYSTERIA NOW? Nearly all media were suspicious of the timing
of recent statements by Bush administration officials to the effect that
terrorist attacks against the U.S. were "not a matter of if, but
when." The consensus was that the
Bush administration was "running for cover" in the face of allegations
that it had been "asleep at the wheel" in advance of the events of
9/11. By focusing public attention on
possible future threats, most dailies argued, the administration was
"hoping to regain the initiative" and to ensure that it could not
again be accused of "not sounding a warning" in advance of an attack.
These critics also held that the Bush
team's "PR offensive" was designed to silence "the
opposition" in an election year. A
few observers linked the warnings by VP Cheney and others to the president's
ongoing trip to Europe, saying that the "latest terrorism alarms"
would "counter growing uneasiness within allied governments" over Mr.
Bush's "combative and unilateralist ways."
DIFFICULTIES OF INTELLIGENCE COORDINATION: While acknowledging the challenges of
intelligence-sharing, many editorialists found the "breakdown" in
communications among U.S. agencies "frightening." These observers stressed that both the
administration and its domestic critics should devote energy and
"imagination" to improving information-sharing among various
government agencies.
SCHADENFREUDE AMONG MUSLIM OBSERVERS: Editors in the Arab world and Pakistan took some
degree of pleasure in what they saw as Mr. Bush's pre-9/11 "faux
pas." A centrist Pakistani daily
maintained that the White House's "reported failure to consider a piece of
crucial evidence" shows that "leaders of great powers also have their
foibles and weaknesses." Egyptian,
Lebanese and Syrian dailies claimed the president was resorting to tactics
reminiscent of "dictatorships" that whip up nationalism "under the
banner of national security."
EDITOR: Kathleen Brahney
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This analysis is based on 58 reports from 25 countries, May 17-23. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed by most recent date.
EUROPE
FRANCE:
"The Boomerang Effect"
Jacques Amalric concluded in left-of-center Liberation
(5/21): "After the 'patriotic'
grace period that followed the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is right to be
concerned as the mid-term elections near....
While strong national sentiments continue to prevail, the belief that
the White House is infallible is beginning to suffer. First, because it has become obvious to
everyone that the war in Afghanistan has not put an end to the al-Qaida
networks...[and] one cannot say for certain that Osama bin Laden has been put
out of commission..... While the
warnings received by the Bush administration did not clearly mention the Twin
Towers or the Pentagon, the fact remains that an agency like the FBI proved to
have been less than engaged during the months preceding [9/11.]... Was George Bush, who was vacationing on his
Texas ranch, less surprised by the 9/11 attacks than he pretended to
be?"
"Bush Counter-Attacks"
According to an editorial in right-of-center Les Echos
(5/21): "Even if the revelations
made in the past few days raise more questons that they offer answers...what
could the U.S. president have done before 9/11?
Could he have risked economically paralyzing a nation based on the
threat of a possible attack? The real
question lies with the poor coordination between American [intelligence]
agencies.... The war is not
over.... In Tunisia and Pakistan,
terrorists have struck again. The world
cannot let its guard down."
GERMANY:
"Why This Hysteria Now?"
Stefan Kornelius had this to say in an editorial
in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/23): "Only one thing is certain: A new terrorist attack could hit New
York--but perhaps not. The danger of an
attack is not higher and not smaller than before September 11. The authorities only collected a few more
suspicious elements and the reason for this is probably that they only improved
their cooperation. Part of the truth is
also that security experts and politicians have warned again and again against
an inevitable next attack. But the U.S.
vice president, the FBI director and other government members in Washington
could have done so even before September 11.
Why then these diffuse warnings, why this hysteria right now? The explanation is that the U.S. government
is trying to...keep from being accused of carelessness, and...[also] prevent
the political nightmare that Congress has been promoting for days.... The president is on the defensive. But the apocalyptic warners in the government
will probably soon regret their over-zealousness. Those who constantly call for help will some
day in the future no longer be taken seriously.... Maybe, the terror-warners should dedicate
their attention to their internal communication and organization before they
permanently sound the alarm bells at home and in the world."
"Warnings Aimed At Europe"
Right-of-center Badische Neueste Nachrichten
of Karlsruhe (5/23) argued: "The
warning that the terrorist danger is not yet over is mainly directed to the
Europeans. Many have forgotten their
shock in view of the thousands of people who were killed in the World Trade
Center. Their contribution to the fight
against international terrorism is fatiguing, and many consider U.S. moves to
be even a campaign for war. That is why
it seems to be urgent that some people in the Western world are becoming more
aware of reality again. Maybe,
transatlantic warning calls will shake up the people again before this is being
done by explosives."
"Vague Warnings In A Talk Show"
Stefan Kornelius declared in an editorial in
center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (5/21): "When Vice President Cheney warns in a
talk show against an al-Qaida attack 'today, in a week, or in a year,' then he
either knows much and should take concrete action against a threat. Or he knows little and only wants to keep
awake the feeling for a terrorist threat among the people. Much speaks for the second variant. Without downplaying the real danger
emanating from al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, it promotes panic and will
not really quench the people's thirst for information if the second most
powerful man of the United States develops scenarios of attacks but, at the
same time, concedes his helplessness towards the population. But despite all possible justifications, Dick
Cheney's remarks create a second effect:
They force domestic critics of George W. Bush's anti-terror policy to
remain silent, because, in situations of national threats, it is not
appropriate to burden the country with petty-minded party bickering. The one-sided orientation of the Bush
administration to domestic policy forces us to assume this. America, however, would be better off if the
government not only kept the spirit of war alive, but also if it reacted with
greater imagination to the threat.
Neither the chaos of departments and agencies in Washington nor a classic
warfare will be enough to defeat al-Qaida."
"Taking The Bull By The Horns"
Business Financial Times Deutschland of
Hamburg stressed (5/21): "As
serious as the spectacular warnings may be, the PR offensive from the weekend
shows [that the U.S. administration] is taking the bull by the horns. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and
Security Advisor Rice's TV appearances had only one domestic goal: to get a
breather at home. Eight months after
September 11, the bipartisan consensus in questions of domestic security has
vanished. President Bush...is now on the
defensive.... Only a few days ago, the
president could claim that the intelligence information was too vague, but
since Saturday it has been known that Congress issued warnings already in September
of 1999.... If further gaffes come to
the fore which indicate that the White House made mistakes, Bush will no longer
be able to downplay the affair."
"Red Herring"
In the view of center-right Hannoversche
Allgemeine Zeitung (5/21): "Of
course, there is a connection. Of
course, it was no coincidence that Vice President Cheney warned on Sunday
against new terrorist attacks against the United States. For the whole week, fierce discussions have
been going on in Washington. Did the
Bush administration disregard early warnings--thus making September 11
possible? It is no surprise the
political veteran Richard Cheney is forced to draw a red herring. Nevertheless, nobody should ignore Cheney's
statement as mere propaganda. Until
further notice, new terrorist attacks are at least imaginable. The United States clearly knows that the
Islamic world, following the war in Afghanistan, does not like the United
States more than it did before September 11 due to its Middle East policy,
which many consider to be one-sided, and due to the threats against Iraq."
"Guilt And Prejudice"
Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich maintained (5/17): "It is a
brazen move if low-ranking officials accuse the president of having made a
mistake. But that is precisely what
seems to be happening right now with the revelation that President Bush was
told in a pre-9/11 secret service briefing about an imminent terror attack by
bin Laden. Instead of a CIA scandal,
there is now the threat of a Bush scandal.
After all, the Democrats will not give up an opportunity to undermine
Bush's leadership. Elections will take
place six months from now, so anything goes, even if it means exploiting a
national tragedy for partisan purposes.
The Democrats, however, are in good company: The White House is
currently selling pictures showing the president in the fateful hours of
9/11. The proceeds will benefit the
campaigns of Republican candidates. It
may be sad, but the United States is on its way back to politics as
usual."
"Unheard Warning"
Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau
stated (5/17): "It is becoming
clear that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon did not happen quite as
unexpectedly as has been proclaimed since the attacks. It would indeed be strange if the CIA, which
had been following the activities of Bin Laden and his network since 1998, did
not do anything [about the collected information.] That would be more than bureaucratic
mismanagement. It is also odd that the
CIA claims to have known relevant names in the summer of 2001 and still has not
been able to present legally convincing evidence. There seems to be a lot of suspicion and
circumstantial evidence, but none of it is enough for prevention or
prosecution. And yet it was enough for a
war in Afghanistan with unavoidable collateral damage. An explanation would be in order."
ITALY:
"Rumsfeld: 'We Expect A Nuclear Attack Against The U.S.'"
New York correspondent Maurizio Molinari filed
from Washington for centrist, influential La Stampa (5/22): "In an administration that continues to
issue alarms, the Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, is the only one who
has not raised the national alarm, since 'the threats are vague for the
moment.'... This tense atmosphere makes
it more difficult for the Democrats to launch a political offensive and obtain
an independent investigative committee to examine White House responsibilities
for failing to prevent the September 11 attacks."
"FBI: Kamikaze Will Hit America"
Mario Platero filed from New York in leading business Il Sole
24 Ore (5/21): "It is possible
that the FBI and the administration warnings are a consequence of last week's
political criticisms.... But, perhaps,
there is something more.... There is a
widespread uneasiness after Vice President Cheney's and FBI Director Mueller's
alarms. You can feel it in the streets,
in the media, when you talk with people.
And this does not help the economy....
Indeed, the markets remain fragile.
After 9/11 everyone feared a new attack and the risk that the American
economy's weakness might be transformed into a serious recession. Now, the possibility of a new attack is back
and it confirms how difficult it is to solve the dilemma: that of vulnerability
and the need to limit freedom for the sake of security."
"The Missing Victory"
Sergio Romano opined on the front page of
centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (5/21): "The vice president's warning is, above
all, an act of prudence. After the
malicious FBI leaks...the administration does not want to be caught
unready."
"The Long Season Of Terror"
Former Ambassador Boris Bianchieri observed on
the front page of centrist, influential La Stampa (5/21): "Eight months after 9/11, the United
States government is spreading clear and alarming rumors about possible new
terrorist attacks....people wonder why only now.... Indeed, there are at least three reasons for
this. The first has to do with the
seriousness of possible and credible terrorist attacks.... The second lies in the criticism levelled at
the White House by Congress and the
media for having underestimated the 9/11 risks.... The third, instead, implies the need for a
visible and dreadful enemy in order to keep public opinion on this issue
active.... And what about the rest of the world? What kind of risk does Europe run? I think that no Western country could feel
safe at the moment. By hitting the Twin
Towers, bin Laden has not only overcome CIA and FBI security measures, but
those related to immigration, too."
"CBS -- 'Bush Was Informed Last August
About The Risk Of Attacks'"
A report by New York correspondent Maurizio
Molinari in Turin's centrist, influential La Stampa said (5/17):
"While the September 11 attacks have thus far conferred on Bush a kind of
immunity in the fight against terrorism, everything is changing now, and it is
the very ability of the commander-in-chief to defend his country that is being
questioned. Yesterday, newspaper
headlines from coast to coast repeated a single concept: 'Bush knew.' And,
as if that were not enough, a front against the president is opening
among the Republicans as well. The
leader of this front is Richard Shelby, Deputy Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, who for months has advocated the need for the
resignation of the CIA director over his failure to prevent the attacks and now
has sufficient arguments to succeed."
"September 11, FBI Warned Bush But White
House Did Not Take Action"
Washington correspondent Vittorio Zucconi held
in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (5/17): "The accusation of having been 'asleep
at the wheel' is so serious, and the risk that the president's huge popularity
may collapse under the impact of these suspicions of ineffectiveness is so
high, that Bush's top adviser--National Security Advisor Rice--hastened to
appear on television to recount, live, the long series of 'generic, unspecified
warnings' received by intelligence and to repeat that the information was
'vague' and concerned possible attacks abroad.... The defense that the White
House tried to put up yesterday, first with Rice and then with White House spokesman
Ari Fleischer, was predictable and, at the same time, terribly
embarrassing."
"CIA Warned Bush: 'Usama Is Planning
Hijackings'"
Pro-Democratic Left Party (DS) L'Unita,
in a report by Washington correspondent Bruno Marolo, asserted (5/17):
"Now we know that Bush could likely have avoided being caught
unprepared. The CIA warned him one month
ahead of time that Usama bin Laden's terrorists were planning hijackings in the
United States. The news, reported by the
CBS, was confirmed by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Obviously the administration tried to
minimize its impact.... In reality, the
warning was a little less vague than the spokesman would like us to believe. Sources from the Senate Intelligence
Committee have indicated that the imminent possibility of hijackings organized
by al-Qaeda was reported by the CIA last August, in one of the daily briefings
for the President of the United States."
RUSSIA:
"It's Not Just Bush Presidency"
According to Semyon Lang in reformist Noviye
Izvestiya (5/21): "As the row
over the White House's connivance with terrorists grows worse, it is not just
Bush's second term in office which is at stake.
It is the prospects for U.S. special services to retrieve their
extremely extensive powers and, by extension, the establishment of supreme
executive power at the head of a system known in other countries as controlled
democracy.... September 11 has resulted
in restrictions on Americans' civil liberties unheard-of in peacetime. In Afghanistan, the CIA's 'army' is all on
its own, acting in parallel with the Pentagon troops."
"Bushgate"
Aleksey Lyashchenko averred in centrist army Krasnaya
Zvezda (5/21): "The U.S.
political elite, regrettably, is trying to play a trump card involving the
death of more than 3,000 people in an unprecedented terrorist attack. The Democrats are out to make the reports on
the president having known about the terrorists' 9/11 plans into
'Bushgate.'"
CZECH REPUBLIC:
"9/11 Was Helped By A Failure"
Adam Cerny judged in business Hospodarske
Noviny (5/17): "The official
admission of the U.S. government that it had received information about a
potential threat of having airplanes kidnapped some time before September 11
from the intelligence service both has and has not come as a surprise. It was surprising because the official White
House spokesman announced it. At the
same time, it should not be much of a surprise as certain information about it
has already seeped out before. The
information about a potential hijacking was treated as it were lies in that
nobody really imagined that a civilian plane would be turned into a deadly
weapon. Those responsible will be called
now to account for their omission. It
must be said that one of the reasons for their failure is the difficulty of
analyzing and categorizing all the information that intelligence services have
been providing, and consequently to find an appropriate channel to put a
message across to the right decisionmakers.
Moreover, even if the warning gets the attention, it is as risky to
raise an alarm as to ignore it. Should
the warning be exaggerated, or even false, there is a great risk that next time
nobody will take the alarm seriously. If
the warning is substantiated but is ignored, then the victim is caught
unaware. It will take a long time to
solve the New York attacks, but it is high time to ask why they were not
stopped."
DENMARK:
"Terrorism In The 21st Century"
Claus L. Mikkelsen penned this op-ed piece in
conservative Jyllands-Posten (5/23):
"Terrorism is a concept that can blur our sense of justice and
create a feeling of self-righteousness.
This can give us the sense that it is our 'right' to carry out political
and military activities in the Third World."
"What A Wonderful War"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende's
Washington correspondent, Poul Høi, judged (5/17): "The war has been a good thing for Bush
politically, but it is fast approaching its expiration date."
HUNGARY:
"So Who Hit First?"
Foreign affairs writer Gabor Zord noted in
conservative Magyar Nemzet (5/22):
"In the 9/11 case the United States does not appear to be an
innocent victim.... The U.S. president's
preliminary knowledge (of the possible terrorist attack) most likely will not
be investigated before the broad public.
Only the intelligence committees of the legislature will be entitled to
proceed, behind closed doors."
"Tragedy Of Errors"
Senior columnist Janos Avar put forth this view in liberal Magyar
Hirlap (5/18): "The whole story is a tragedy of errors. Everybody knows now that they should have
been paid more attention before 9/11.
The American press has jumped vehemently onto the hushed-up blunders of
the U.S. administration. President
Bush's 'invulnerability' has paralyzed
the Democrats up till now. Now they have
become bold, too. These two facts
indicate well that the usual 'punching bags', the Mossad and the CIA, could not
have had anything to do with the plan.
Poor President Bush. It will be
quite difficult for him to climb out of this scandal."
LITHUANIA:
"The Stink Of Elections Above The Rubble Of Skyscrapers"
Editorialist Violeta Mickeviciute opined in
second-largest Respublika (5/20):
"The news that George W. Bush knew about terrorist plans to seize
the planes was a sensation.... The
accusations are blatant; G. W. Bush and his team's lack of professionalism is
seemingly unmasked again.... However, as
sure as the Democrats' outrage against the Republican president sounds, it
could be used to criticize their own president just the same way.... Osama bin Laden did not manifest himself for
the first time on September 11, 2001. He
was nailed down as the biggest enemy of the United States and number-one terrorist
after bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.... However, Bill Clinton did not hurry to blast
'Al Qaeda.'... Contrary to the
statements of the White House, fighting the new war without a clear front line
and terms, criticism inside the country is very useful. It would not be tolerable if U.S. security
agencies plunged back into lethargy because they are anxious about unsavory
work results after September.... The
closer to autumn, the less the burnt taste of September 11th is felt in
America.... When Congress and the White
House plunge themselves into the purposeless search for the guilty, it will
become clear--America is relocating all forces to another front line--the
elections."
TURKEY:
"The Terror Atmosphere"
Sami Kohen concluded in mass-appeal Milliyet
(5/23): "It looks as if the Bush
administration has begun to disseminate news of terrorist alarms to compensate
for its failure to evaluate intelligence reports properly prior to September 11
attacks. If you listen to Vice President
Cheney, a new terrorist attack is very certain, the only unknown thing being
when.... Of course, listening to such
reports all day frightens and demoralizes Americans.... Terrorism is like an earthquake. You cannot know when it is coming, but you
can take precautions to minimize the risks.
That's what the United States is trying to do at the moment. An enhanced security system, more
coordination among intelligence units and tracing the financial sources of
terrorist networks are all part of this effort.
Meanwhile, the administration is trying to make Americans fully aware of
the reality, although it may be scary for them."
"Which Terrorism To Stand Against?"
Turgut Tarhanli judged in liberal-intellectual Radikal
(5/21): "The recent allegations
about intelligence reports on the September 11 attacks have put the Bush
administration in a difficult position.
More interestingly, Number Two in the administration, who certainly had
a responsibility for not taking action on the intelligence reports, is now
warning against the danger of 'more serious attacks' than 9/11.... The overall image the administration is
pursuing is that potential threat is a permanent fact and it can hit the world,
not just the United States, at any time and any moment. It goes without saying that these terrorist
risks should be taken seriously. One
wonders about the timing though, i.e., the allegations about the Bush
administration's incompetence in taking care of the previous attack coinciding
with the warning about new possible terrible terrorist attack scenarios."
"War Within War"
Washington reporter Ali Aslan argued in
Islamic-intellectual Zaman (5/19):
"The White House does not hesitate to call anyone who criticizes
the administration a 'separatist.'...
The warlike situation puts George Bush in the position of a military
commander rather than a civilian leader, and provides immunity. The whole thing, of course, works to the
benefit of the Republican Party. People
support the state due to war psychology and fear of terrorism. This only enhances the power of the ruling
party."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT:
"Hot Summer"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram's senior
columnist Salama Ahmed Salama asserted (5/20):
"It is notable that the current American administration is the most
proficient in use of media deception techniques for propaganda purposes, for
concealing shortcomings or, to create psychological and media confusion or to
manipulate public opinion in certain directions."
"Facts"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram's
editor-in-chief Ibrahim Nafie insisted (5/22):
"For years Washington believed terrorism constituted internal
opposition to Third World countries' regimes--including Egypt's. That is until
September events made the United States look like a Third World country using
laws she had not used in over two centuries and going to war without
calculating the consequences and the mistakes continue along with the
confusion. September-gate proves the New World Order needs to be more fair so
that there will be no more Septembers."
LEBANON: "Bush's
Dictatorship"
An editorial by Samer Al-Husseini in pro-Syria Al-Kifah
Al-Arabi argued (5/20): "We
never expected the current American Administration to use intimidation and
threats locally. President Bush's
response to the Democrats for criticizing him for ignoring warnings by the U.S.
intelligence of Al-Qaida plans, reminded us of dictatorships that curb the
opposition under the banner of national security.... The White House acknowledgement that it
ignored warnings by the U.S. intelligence agencies is equal to Watergate or
'Monica-gate.'... This new scandal
unveils President Bush's political idiocy....
Now he is trying to re-create fresh fear of Al-Qaida in order to reunite
Americans under the wing of his war on terrorism.... It appears that the Bush administration might
add Democrats to its 'axis of evil.'...
Osama Bin Laden succeeded in shaking, not only the American military and
economy, but also American democracy."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Warnings
Against (Possible Terrorist) Attacks"
London-based, pan-Arab, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published this
commentary by editor Abdulrahman Al-Rashed (5/23): "We cannot blame the United States,
Nairobi, Tanzania or even a closer country such as Pakistan, for warning (its
citizens) against terrorist actions by Arabs or Muslims. Those countries have suffered extremely (from
terrorist actions) and it is their right to put their security interests before
our feelings.... It is in our interest
that no Arab hijacks a plane and explodes it into a city or a building. It is also in our interest that no Arab
throws a biological or chemical bomb into an underground train.... We should worry about the threats by Arabs
(to carry out terrorist attacks) and we should not be upset by the U.S.
warnings."
"U.S. Incitement To Violence"
Saleh Abdullah Al-Jumah insisted in
Riyadh-based, moderate Al-Jazira (5/20):
"All initial beliefs among Arabs and Muslims that the media
campaign for the war against so-called terrorism was not targeted against them
have quickly evaporated. As the picture
became clear, Arabs realized that the war was aimed against them and their
religion, from the inside and outside.
Therefore, the repeated U.S. and Britain reassurances that it wasn't
aimed against Muslims were meant to throw dust in our eyes.... No one believes the joke of the 'war on
terrorism' except those who regard Afghan and Palestinian civilians--women,
children and the elderly--as terrorists.
Hatred and hostility is imposed upon a nation by an 'enemy' nation [the
United States]--and not by such false accusations as that school curriculums
are provocative. Any nation which falls
victim to a media and military campaign will not receive its aggressor with
flowers, but with a minimum level of self defense--hatred--and that is the
minimum required by faith."
SYRIA:
"Political Bomb"
Riad Zein, commentator for government-owned Syria
Times, pointed out (5/19):
"President Bush is being criticized for concealing information from
the Congress on intelligence reports said to have warned U.S. officials about
imminent terrorist operations against American targets prior to (September
11.)... The White House has acknowledged
that Bush received information a few weeks before the attacks warning about
hijacking American planes. But Bush
recently defended himself, stressing that this information did not actually
refer to attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Bush administration has covertly put
pressures on the Congress not to open an investigation on the entire
affair.... Dick Cheney warned Democrats
against seeking political advantage from recent criticism.... Is this whole affair a political bomb for the
Republican administration, or is it a new political campaign by the Democrats
to prepare for winning the forthcoming presidential campaign?"
TUNISIA:
"Bush Under High Pressure"
Editor-in-chief Mustapha Khammari told readers
of independent, French-language Le Temps (5/18): "The shock wave that shook Washignton
last September has led directly to the White House.... It seems that President Bush was informed
about the risk of a highjacking of American planes a few weeks before the
terrorist attacks.... It is hard to
believe how such information would not have led American authorities to protect
the public by reinforcing airport security....
Even if we try to connect everything that happens in the United States
with the evolution of events in the Middle East, and believe that Mossad could
use the opportunity to 'punish' Bush because he prevented the assassination of
Arafat and the invasion of Gaza, American authorities should still tell the
whole truth to the American people and the world. The opacity of information and keeping of
secrets risk giving credit to (his) detractors, who think that President Bush,
ill-advised by Cheney and Rumsfeld, looked for a pretext to undertake a
struggle against terrorism and to place American forces in Afghanistan."
"Bush And 9/11 Attacks: Beginning Of The
End For The American President?"
Editor Mohamed Ali Ben Rejeb observed in
independent, French-language Le Quotidien (5/18): "Bush knew about the September 11
attacks.... Today, after these
revelations, we have the right to wonder if Bush actually wanted these attacks
to occur in order to legitimate a war he wanted to conduct in Central Asia,
especially in Aghanistan, and to gain the support of the international
community.... Will September 11, the
event that made President Bush popular in the United States, be the event that
will precipitate his downfall?"
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA:
"Bush's Men Bay At Wolves"
The liberal Sydney Morning Herald
editorialized (5/23): "Suddenly, senior officials of the Bush
administration are issuing dire warnings that more terrorist attacks on the
United States are inevitable and perhaps imminent.... It is fair to ask why President George Bush
and his lieutenants have chosen just now deliberately to raise fear levels
among U.S. citizens, the markets and the international community--particularly
when, by the administration's account, the threat is unspecific, the evidence
shaky, and the possible targets and timing of an attack are unknown. The answer lies partly in domestic
politics.... By refocusing public
attention on future threats, the administration hopes both to regain the
initiative and to ensure that, should there be an attack, it cannot again be
accused of not sounding a warning. It
must also hope that, with Mr. Bush having just begun a visit to European
capitals, the latest terrorism alarm will counter growing uneasiness within
allied governments over his combative and unilateralist ways."
"Hindsight A Poor Weapon"
The liberal Canberra Times' editorial
emphasized (5/22): "There is
another risk that has to be carefully weighed. This is that the
terror[ism]...works.... It...[works] not
by the immediate carnage--horrible as that is--but by so affecting the
survivors and forcing them to change their lives so that the wider damage to
the social fabric that the terrorists want has occurred. Security-consciousness is one thing, and, in
the modern world, Australians, like others, need more of it. But the last thing we want is a community
paralyzed by paranoia, overt and intrusive security and significant diminution
of ordinary freedom of movement and association."
CHINA/HONG KONG SAR: "We Deserve An Answer"
The independent, English-language iMail
asked in its editorial (5/20): "How
much did the United States government know beforehand of the September 11
terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center?... It is no secret the FBI, CIA and National
Security Agency have little time, let alone respect, for each other. This was borne out in the days that followed
September 11. Each agency operated in
its own little world of intelligence gathering.
Each had nuggets of information pointing to a possible terrorist attack
on the United States, but because there was no co-ordination between the
various security agencies no one could put the pieces together and come up with
an intelligent opinion. What has become
clear following last week's revelations is that the Bush administration and the
U.S. security services underestimated both the ingenuity of Osama bin Laden and
the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack on home soil.... Not only do the American people require an
answer, the international community requires one as well. After all, foreign nationals from many
nations died in the World Trade Center, not just Americans "
"Lessons To Be Learned"
The independent, English-language South China
Morning Post contended in an editorial (5/19): "The questions that Americans should have
been asking in the wake of the horror of the September 11 terrorist attacks are
finally emerging. Answers are clearly
needed and President George W. Bush's administration must not ignore the
demands.... There is a growing belief as
details emerge that the intelligence and security networks are not as efficient
as they could be.... The widening
scandal has opened debate when it is most needed in the United States. Such questioning can only be good at a time
when few have dared criticize the administration for fear of being branded
traitors. Hindsight should not be used
to point accusatory fingers. Rather, it can teach valuable lessons."
"Common Ground"
The independent South China Morning Post
noted (5/18): "Southeast Asian
countries are taking long-overdue steps towards standardizing laws against
terrorism and cross-border crimes. The measures will be difficult to put into
place and enforce, but all efforts must be made to make the region safer. Porous borders, especially between Indonesia,
Malaysia and the Philippines and Laos, Myanmar and Thailand, have fostered
extensive criminal activity. Extremist
groups and criminal networks have flourished and made drug trafficking, money
laundering, kidnapping and piracy widespread.
Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, it has
become clear that controls need to be implemented and coordinated.... The diverse economies and legal and political
systems of ASEAN countries make putting rules into place a daunting task. But with the threat of terrorism so great,
the effort obviously has to be made. If
we are to truly feel safe, nations in the region must cooperate more and act
swiftly to find common ground."
"Shadow Of Terrorism Hard To Erase"
Chinese-language Sing Pao Daily News said
in its editorial (5/21) that "U.S. Vice President Cheney's warning of more
terrorist attacks on the United States is valid. The experience gained from the six-month
anti-terrorism war is that although al-Qaeda's terrorist camps and even its
leaders can be wiped out by strong military force, the spirit of terrorism
still remains. Although U.S. and Western
media provided in-depth coverage of the U.S. military victory in Afghanistan,
the Islamic world and media emotionally lean in the direction of bin Laden and
his spirit of holy war, which exists regardless of whether he is alive or
dead.... That spirit may become further rooted in the younger generation if he
becomes a martyr. From this perspective,
it is very unlikely that the United States could win the war on terrorism in
the long run if it does not conduct a self-examination of its...economic and
cultural policies all over the world."
INDONESIA:
"U.S.-Malaysia Drawer Closer In Fight Against Terrorism"
Leading independent Kompas commented (5/17): "The terrorism issue has transformed the
pattern of U.S.-Malaysian relations dramatically. The common commitment to fighting terrorism
has made relations between the two countries closer after being disturbed by
human rights issues.... This fact again
shows that U.S. domestic interests are above everything. The principles of democracy and human rights
may be pushed back if they have no relevance and urgency for the United States'
current interests. That's American
pragmatism."
MALAYSIA:
"Scaring Away Blame"
The government-influenced, English-language New
Straits Times ran this editorial (5/22):
"The U.S. administration appears to be overcompensating for the
rising odor of suspicion that it might, just might, have been napping in the
weeks prior to the September 11 attacks....
With the benefit of partisan-enhanced hindsight, these fault-finders are
looking for a failure to 'connect dots' that might or might not have been
there. Nevertheless, even the tiniest
hint that the president might have done nothing to avert the worst terror
attack in U.S. history hurts--although, at the time, a lunge at the panic
button would have required the kind of paranoia that might not have deemed Bush
fit for office. Now, however, paranoia
has its uses. The best way to make sure
that no guilt attaches for a future incident is to anticipate one now with a
degree of certainty that covers all bases. Vice-President Dick Cheney's warning
that another attack on the United States was 'not a matter of if, but when' is a political strategy to excuse the past by
scaring up support for what is being done to make up for it. Soon after September 11, the CIA and FBI
sounded the same alarm to shift some attention from their immediate culpability. It hasn't worked. There have been undeniable lapses in U.S.
intelligence. But these must be
rectified in the full glare of scrutiny, not behind a coating of teflon
designed to slip off blame."
PHILIPPINES:
"Bushwhacked"
An editorial in the independent Philippine
Daily Inquirer emphasized (5/20):
"Bush himself has denied receiving any advice that pointed
specifically to spectacular suicide attacks.
But the flap has already cost the U.S. president...some political
points. While some three-fourths of the
American public still approve of his performance since that fateful day, a
quick weekend poll showed that only a plurality now think that he did
everything he could have done to prevent the attacks. This is a matter of some concern to Bush's
partners in the international war on terrorism, because it unnecessarily calls
the intelligence-gathering process--[which is] vital to coalition
dynamics--into question.... But our
interest in the matter lies elsewhere; for us, the matter has less to do with
the military and more with the practice of partisan politics in the world's
oldest republic.... Dick Cheney...scored
the Democrats for 'making political capital' of the issue. At first blush he makes sense.... Cheney's cheerleading cheerfully assumes that
opposition in wartime is tantamount to disloyalty.... However...the Republicans have already raised
a staggering $33 million in fund-raising....
Their secret--they sold photos of Bush aboard Air Force One talking by
phone to Cheney hours after the terrorists attacked. The picture is a good one, but it also paints
a thousand words--all of them synonyms for political capital."
"Anti-Terrorism Treaty"
George Amurao observed in an article in the
independent weekly magazine Philippine Free Press (5/18): "As Filipino and American soldiers
combed the jungles of Basilan for the elusive Abu Sayyaf bandits last week, the
Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand signed an anti-terrorism treaty that they
hoped would prevent Muslim extremists from setting up an Islamic superstate in
Southeast Asia. It had taken the three
countries four months to negotiate the treaty, basically aimed at destroying
the Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist group linked to Osama bin Laden's terror
network al-Qaeda."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA:
"Alert To Alerts"
In the editorial view of the centrist Indian
Express (5/20): "For possibly
the first time in its 17 months of existence, the Bush administration finds
itself running for cover. The accusation
that it did have information of terrorists possibly hijacking U.S. passenger
planes before 9/11 happened and did not respond adequately to it must rankle a
U.S. president who has long traded on his image as an aggressive patriot. But the issue that could bother him even more
in the days ahead is the fact that his administration chose to withhold, from
the public, the information on what it knew about possible strikes. While most Americans would forgive their
president for not having taken preemptive action...events that could never have
been imagined before--whether it is aircraft crashing into the twin towers in
New York, or terrorists storming Parliament in New Delhi--only underline the
requirement for unceasing vigilance and the need for governments to be alert to
every hint of trouble, long before it actually visits the lives of its
citizens."
PAKISTAN:
"Bush Faux Pas"
An editorial in the centrist News
indicated (5/23): "The White
House's reported failure to seriously consider a piece of crucial intelligence
about the possible hijackings of U.S. aircraft by persons of Middle Eastern
origin over a month before the September 11 attack is as surprising as it is
bizarre.... The faux pas by President
Bush shows that great leaders of great powers also do have their foibles and
weakness. Although the debate about
whether the White House--which includes the president and the intelligence
outfit that keeps him posted about security concerns--took the warning
seriously or not is continuing, it has certainly done much to reduce the
smugness of those who laid much (faith) in the judgment of the leader of the
greatest power on earth.... Americans
will have to live with the sad reality of having a leadership that is unable to
quite see an obvious threat for the overlay of security fears. It will be an unhappy feeling for a people
who have since recent times seen themselves as having a divine right to rule
the world and a determination to prove it by an application of their absolute
might."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA:
"Focus America's Rage On The Terrorists"
The liberal Toronto Star opined
(5/19): "America's presidents, top
policy-makers and spy chiefs knew for years before jets dove into the World
Trade Center and Pentagon that such a nightmare attack could one day come. They
just didn't know when.... Given that
explicit warning, and others, can President George Bush be faulted for not
doing more to protect Americans? That's
for congressional investigators and the voters to judge, as a fury of
second-guessing engulfs Washington and adds spice to the November mid-term
elections. But knowing what terrorists
might do is a far cry from knowing what they are doing, and how to thwart
it.... In the dark world of terror, no
crime is unthinkable. In retrospect it
is frighteningly clear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation fumbled badly
before 9/11.... Now Americans
understandably want to know what Bush knew, and when, despite his effort to
clean up the mess by naming Tom Ridge homeland security chief, and demanding
far better interagency coordination.
Still, as Congress begins its probe Americans should not become so
distracted by the blame game that they lose sight of the main thing. Bush, federal agencies and Congress must
remain focused, and press their anti-terror efforts. Only the terrorists profit
from disarray."
"Early Warning"
Under the sub-heading, "Don't Turn Sept. 11
Investigations Into Partisan Attack," the nationalist Ottawa Citizen
stated (5/18): "Newspapers this
week are reporting that there were advance warnings about the World Trade
Center attack, and that a memo from the CIA to President George W. Bush in
August spoke of possible airplane hijackings by al-Qaeda members. These
tantalizing tidbits have sparked suggestions by Mr. Bush's political opponents
that perhaps he could have done more to prevent the September 11
attacks.... Congress should ask whether
September 11 could realistically have been prevented. Its investigation should not be a witch-hunt,
a whitewash, a political competition or a coverup. An open society has no reason
to fear an objective investigation, and every reason to welcome one."
"Democrats Find Their September 11
Issue"
The conservative National Post insisted
(5/17): "What does not look even
remotely plausible is the suggestion that the president might have prevented
the terrible slaughter of Sept. 11 had he used information that was at his
fingertips. The Democrats are only
hinting at this for now, and will doubtless be cautious about turning up the
volume. They have very little ammunition
at present, certainly not enough to do serious damage to a popular
president. We believe that any inquiry
would reveal only what is already clear--that there was insufficient inter- and
intra-agency information sharing at the CIA and FBI. Congressional scrutineers will likely decide
that Americans can be protected properly only if a cabinet-level czar is in
place to knock heads together--which is the conclusion Mr. Bush reached last
autumn."
ARGENTINA:
"Scandal Tinged By Elections"
Gustavo Sierra, leading Clarin's
international columnist, stressed (5/20):
"The Bush administration is trying to cover up one scandal with a
greater threat. Yesterday morning, Vice
President Cheney gave interviews to all the political talk shows on U.S. TV to
say that 'what's coming may be much worse.'
This is a White House tactic aimed at putting out the fire triggered by
information which allegedly said that Bush 'was aware' of the imminence of the
September 11 events.... The purpose of
this maneuver is to minimize the political damage this scandal can cause on the
Republican Party in a half-term election year.
The Democratic Party knows that, with this scandal, they found the most
vulnerable side of the Republican Party....
If voters find out that they were cheated, they will massively punish
the Republican candidates by voting against them. Therefore, Democrats don't seem willing to
miss this opportunity."
"Storm In A Glass Of Water"
Claudio Uriarte, leftist Pagina 12's
international analyst, held (5/18):
"Actually, the information by which President Bush 'knew'--prior to
the September 11 attacks--that something was going to happen and did nothing to
prevent it is merely a storm in a glass of water, as anyone with basic
understanding of how U.S. antiterrorist intelligence works in the Untied States
can confirm.... He couldn't have done
too much, except for militarizing the life of the nation and terrifying
millions of people into getting ready for an attack that might never
occur."
"Bush Had Been Warned Of Terrorist
Attacks"
Jorge Rosales, daily-of-record La Nacion's
Washington-based correspondent, remarked (5/17): "The White House admitted that, one
month before the attack, President George W. Bush and his key Security
officials had been warned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack
commercial planes. This led to a strong
offensive from Congress, promising to start a thorough investigation on the
performance of the Republican administration prior to September 11. The information disclosed last night by
CBS...fell like a bomb in U.S. society.
Up to now, no one had questioned the government's performance in the
September 11 events because everyone believed that it had been taken by
surprise by them. And now people begin
to understand why Bush mentioned bin Laden's name with such anticipation and
signaled him as being responsible for the attacks.... The Bush administration yesterday made a
major effort in trying to neutralize the impact these revelations may have on
U.S. society in a key election year.
Nevertheless, this is bound to become a scandal of unforeseeable
proportions."
BRAZIL:
"Paranoia Calls For More Paranoia"
An opinion piece in Rio's conservative O
Globo stressed (5/23): "How do you explain the series of statements by
U.S. authorities on the risk of new attacks in the U.S.?... Such declarations don't prevent attacks nor
do they help people to protect themselves better. And they damage important sectors of economy,
such as tourism and air transportation. Maybe only some paranoia may explain
such great paranoia. One can imagine,
for example, that Washington is reacting to accusations that the September
attacks could have been predicted. The
current alarmism would, then, be a type of attempt to over up for the past
failure.... Or, by adopting the principle that paranoia calls for more
paranoia, one may expect that this previous defense would be of another nature:
To prepare public opinion to approve an American offensive against some point
of what Pres.Bush has baptized as 'the axis of evil.'"
"Announced Attack"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo's editorial
maintained (5/21): "The possibility
of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. is 'almost certain',
according to Vice President Cheney. This
is enough to make the statement much more political than technical, at a moment
when the Bush administration is facing the worst political crisis since
September 11, and the White House has been toughly criticized for withholding
information regarding the attacks.... Cheney's
statement that there will be another attack against the Untied States seems to
have a double purpose. On the one hand,
it tries to recreate the climate of national union against terrorism that has
benefited Bush so much. On the other
hand, it has a preventive effect. If another attack does occur, then the
administration cannot be accused of not having warned the nation in
advance. Cheney's strategy is not
original and may momentarily satisfy some public opinion sectors. It is unlikely, however, that it will
restrain the investigative work of both the media and opposition
politicians."
"Fatal Omission"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo featured this
editorial (5/18): "The national
unity around President George W. Bush following September 11 is finally
beginning to fall.... Bush is facing his
first major domestic crisis since the terrorist attacks. Some analysts have already outlined parallels
with the Watergate and Monica Lewinsky cases.... Bush is right when he states that the charges
are of an electoral nature. The
Democrats, who want to recover control of the House in November, have to end
the climate of unanimity that has dominated the U.S. political scene since
September 11. Actually, it is even
surprising that opposition politicians and the media have taken eight months to
recover from the attacks and begin to question the Bush administration's
attitudes."
MEXICO:
"Inevitable"
Lucrecia Santibañez judged in Monterrey's
leading El Norte (5/22): "Currently it seems that all the U.S.
justice and intelligence agencies are dancing to a more coordinated rhythm....
Everyone believes that another terrorist attack is imminent, it is not a matter
of if, but when...and that the U.S., regardless of all its money, intelligence
and sophisticated resources will not be able to prevent it. In other words, the
responsible people for national security admit their defeat before the battle
begins anew. ... This type of statement transfers the responsibility of taking
action to the general public.... Secondly, it serves to scare and
justify.... Finally, it distracts the
public's attention. For months, questioning any USG action taken after the
terrorist attacks... was considered treason.... Gradually, Americans have
started to regain their voice."
"U.S.:
Hour Of Uncertainty"
An editorial in far-left Jornada stated
(5/20): "In recent days, the U.S
press has released information indicating that the government had information
about the September 11 attacks two months before the tragic events
happened. Yesterday Vice President
Richard Cheney said that a new al-Qaida attack is 'almost certain.' These type of statements are a new alibi to
justify military actions in the name of the 'war against terrorism' that would
otherwise be considered imprudent and unsustainable. It is difficult to explain why the world's
largest superpower has risked so many resources in a supposed confrontation
with a band of fanatics. In light of
this incoherent policy, it is not surprising that U.S. support has begun to
dissolve. If the White House continues
to lie, the 'war against terrorism' could become the next Iraq for Bush
junior."
##
