PrintJanuary 17, 2007
Speaking of blame
Peter Mulhern today looks at the blame game that would follow a serious terror attack. I have a similar sort of question.
If Al Queda's #2 man Zawahiri puts out a tape or a fax vowing to attack the US for what it's doing in Iraq, then years later an American city gets nuked followed by a 911 Commission-style investigation that finds the nuclear attack went from campfire idea to authorized plot right after that Zawahiri tape, then is the action cited by AQ in that tape the action that caused the nuclear attack to have been set in motion?
I ask this because the 911 Commission, the Sen Select Committee on Intel, the Der Speigel independent investigation, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed's own testimony in the Moussaoui trial all say the 911 plot was set in motion (authorized by UBL) in Khandahar, in late 98/early 99. The only time he was in Khandahar during that period was for his big press conference in which he declared it was the right and duty of all Muslims to seek to posess wmd. That time frame was between 12/16/98 and 12/27/98. After that we know he went to his falcon hunting lodge-we know this because the US had a capture kill opportunity on him there with eyes on target (Richard Clarke screwed it up when he tipped off the UAE who had a prince there with UBL-see also 911 Comm rpt). So the 911 plot was set in motion between 12/16/98 and 12/27/98.
"On December 18, 1998, tapes and faxes from AQ were sent out. "We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment." The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest's secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda's #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998."
Immediately afterwards, the 911 plot was authorized by UBL. No other plots were set in motion for another year.
Does that mean that the 911 attacks were "Clinton's fault" or that they were done because of a war on Iraq that the average American doesn't even know was going on from 91-03? (specifically Operation Desert Fox/the post-impeachment wag the dog attack on Iraq?)
The point is the same as in your article: the blame game has been politically distorted to the point where now people seek to argue over which police chief to blame and which example of societal oppression drove the murderers to commit murder....
...rather than blaming the murderers for the murdering.
So when the next attack comes (and there will be another on the US someday), will people blame Bush, Clinton, Bush sr, or the next President? I guess the answer is simple, they'll blame whoever is the most politically expedient, and the blame people place will be the blame that makes the cold, unbearable truth the easiest to bear; the blame will fall upon the best scapegoat and be the best excuse for each person placing the blame.
It's much easier to do than to wake up and smell the Jihad.
