Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review June 21, 2002

Matt Towery

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Anticipating new terrorism: "Dirty bomb" is no fantasy! | For those critical of President Bush for his alleged ''prior knowledge'' of the Sept. 11 attacks, here's a little sample of what a new warning might really look like.

Highly placed sources told this columnist last week that U.S. officials fear the potential for another al-Qaida strike in the United States in the coming months. This past weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney echoed these general concerns by saying that another attack, perhaps of greater magnitude than Sept. 11, is not only likely, but is less a question of if it will come than when and where.

My sources suggested last week that the level of communications among al-Qaida cell groups had increased markedly in recent weeks. That we all now know. But they also implied that federal officials see in the enemy's recent communications a pattern that might suggest plans for an attack on America between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. Of course, this could mean anytime, or no time at all.

And what is the magnitude of these potential new attacks? Well, before addressing that issue, it would be wise to answer an e-mail received from a reader in Elyria, Ohio. He wanted to know if I still believe Bush should have been named Time's ''Person of the Year'' in light of the president's alleged negligence in not properly warning Americans of the potential of an attack last September.

This question goes to the heart of the issue of receiving and acting upon ''information before it's news.'' For example, not only has this column revealed a potential time period for which there is reportedly great concern, but it will end by reporting what several high officials believe to be a possible form of attack. It is a chilling scenario, and although the law of averages suggests that both the time frame and the manner of attack could well turn out to be wrong, if the president rather than a columnist were to make public this possibility, it would probably trigger mass panic.

Prior to Sept. 11, Bush -- like President Clinton before him -- received the exact same, highly detailed daily briefings about military and criminal threats of all types to American interests. These are highly sophisticated reports that go far deeper than the sources any writer or reporter could ever hope to access.

I think Clinton would explain to the reader in Ohio that, as president, he too received numerous briefings that reported potential attacks on this nation, and on Americans abroad. Indeed, evidence was emerging as early as this past weekend suggesting that Clinton may have received a briefing in which the potential for attacks on government buildings in Washington, using hijacked planes, was discussed.

Clinton received daily briefings filled with all types of credible threats. But had he or Bush acted on every single threat received, they would have shut down, at one time or another, every aspect of our lives.

And so what do these high-level sources -- who before the government, or anyone else, helped reveal to readers of this column that suicide bombers could become a reality in America -- now say is a potential means of attack?

Officials are now concerned that al-Qaida is making rapid progress in the attempt to create, deliver and detonate a so-called ''dirty bomb'' -- a weapon consisting of a core of radioactive material wrapped in conventional explosives.

Are they right? If so, does the president know about it? And if he does, should he appear on national television and paralyze us with fear, given that he would likely not be sure of a date or location?

The answer is that, just as a writer's sources can be incorrect (as in this case we hope so), so too can the president's be uncertain, even though the intelligence he receives is of course the most highly classified and accurate in the world. The president must always weigh the likelihood that his attack-scenario information is correct vs. the damage that unwarranted panic and intrusion into the lives of Americans might bring.

Yes, to the reader in Ohio, not only should Bush be ''Person of the Year,'' he should be joined on the list by all the men and women who are working silently in a race against time to protect our nation, on battlefields and throughout our land.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR columnist Matt Towery's column by clicking here.

05/16/02: The oddity of Carter's legacy
05/09/02: Replay of 1992 coming?
05/02/02: The hottest family on television might have to abandon the United States
04/25/02: One step ahead of devious minds capable of unthinkable crimes?
04/18/02: Alaskan battleground?
04/11/02: How the peaceful fairways of the world's most revered golf course, may serve as a brilliant strategic battleground the most recent round of "cola wars"
04/05/02: The most likely immediate threat to our national security is being ignored
03/14/02: Clinton's influence looms
03/07/02: Poll turns up surprising views on Bush and more
02/21/02: The recession is over --- so why are the sophisticates still using scare tactics?
02/14/02: This Enron story directly affects our own pocketbooks
02/07/02: The epicenter of quiet but powerful shifts in the American political landscape
01/31/02: A little bipartisan hope
01/24/02: Secrets of the past can often provide guidance for dealing with the future
01/18/02: And I thought explaining Jane Fonda was tough
01/09/02: Dubya falling into Dems' trap?
01/02/02: A few adjustments and 2002 might turn out all right
12/27/01 Rudy, the 'perfect excuse'?
12/19/01 Haig the madman?
12/12/01 That senator with the funny name

© 2001, Creators Syndicate