Security Plan Starts With Bush
The Denver Post
May 26, 2002

The White House is obsessed with damage control. Senior officials are scurrying to convince us that President Bush did all he could to protect Americans from the September 11 attacks. Vice President Cheney even went so far as to accuse questioning Senators of making "incendiary suggestions" for political advantage.

No one doubts the President would do anything in his power to protect Americans. But the questions raised by his briefing on possible terrorist attacks over a month before they actually occurred must be asked and answered. It is not un-American to challenge the President. It is, however, foolish to hide information or stifle questioning under the pretext of being at war.

We can't go back in time and make things right. We can, though, do better next time. Understanding the intelligence and White House failures is essential to fighting terrorism. The drumbeat today is about the "imminent" and "inevitable" next attack. The Administration seems to be trying to cover its bases so it can't be criticized again for failing to warn the American people of danger. That's just not good enough.

It's time to get beyond all this. The President needs to present a clear and consistent plan for protecting our country against terrorism. So far, we've heard constant references to being at war, to winning battles in Afghanistan, to disabling al Qaeda. But we know Afghanistan is very unstable. We know that al Qaeda is reorganizing and planning new attacks. Now we need to know what we are going to do about it.

Homeland security is the current buzz phrase. The President can give it meaning by granting real authority to Gov. Tom Ridge, his homeland security director. The White House and intelligence agencies failed to put together the pieces of the terrorist puzzle they had in hand before September 11. The President could remedy this disastrous breakdown by making his homeland security director responsible for coordinating intelligence on potential terrorist activities.

The President's key staffers also failed him before September 11. He apparently never heard about a high level meeting at the White House in July of 2001 where the government's top terrorism official, Richard Clarke, discussed the imminent threat of an attack. Perhaps no one on his staff deemed this important enough to alert the President. He needs to find out why this failure occurred and ensure that it can never happen again.

Next, as we hear daily of inevitable attacks, the President can give Americans clear guidance on our individual roles in fighting terrorism, what to look for, how to be vigilant, where to report our concerns. At the same time, local law enforcement agencies need to know how to deal with an attack, where to go for better intelligence when warnings are issued and how to coordinate their own information. We need to know that someone is in charge of putting the pieces of the puzzle together this time. Rather than just talking about thwarting terrorism, the President needs to tell us how this will happen.

Beyond the war in Afghanistan, the Administration must outline what the next step is in the battle against terrorism. We know there are groups around the world who want to harm us. What are the immediate plans for dealing with these groups, beyond sending a few special forces troops to train other countries' armies?

What is the long-term plan for protecting America? As the Middle East has shown, massive firepower cannot protect us from suicide bombers. We must have a plan for dealing with the roots of terrorism-poverty, hopelessness, repression and inhumanity. We must be willing to engage even unsavory countries to get their help in suppressing terrorism.

The knowledge that there was information that, if properly analyzed, might have prevented the attacks of September 11 should motivate us to demand a thorough review of our anti-terrorism efforts. It should motivate the President to give the American people a detailed plan for protecting America and preventing future attacks. Someone needs to be clearly in charge of homeland security. It starts with President Bush.