Monday, July 26, 2004

20/20: Amid all the criticism about what Bush and Clinton did or didn't do to stop terrorism before 9/11, there's the simple fact that the news media devoted essentially no coverage to the topic before then.

Granted, it's the government's job to protect us, not the media's (thank God). But the government can only tackle so many problems, and it takes its cues from the public as to what priorities to set.

If it's true that the Clinton administration refused several times to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, as some people claim, then that provides ample and compelling evidence that President Clinton ultimately failed in his duties as Soothsayer in Chief. During the 2000 campaign, neither Bush nor Gore commented about the attack on the USS Cole, other than to say it was a sad tragedy. And the Bush spent the first months in office facing seemingly bigger threats from China and North Korea than from a few misfit terrorist groups.

During the string of terrorist attacks in the 1990s, there was no public outcry or outrage. Each attack seemed like an isolated incident that should be handled through law enforcement. Few if any media outlets called for the military interventions that now seem obviously appropriate.

Before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was one of many rogue leaders pledging to destroy the United States. While he made the FBI Top 10 Most Wanted list, The New York Times openly questioned, in a front-page story in April 1999, whether Bin Laden was really responsible for any of the terrorist attacks.

The media doesn't have to answer for its mistakes the way politicians do. Except for the occasional opinion piece or blogger post, pundits don't hear their shrieks of predictions past replayed on CNN ad nauseum.

Why? Because their opinions aren't important. They weren't important then, and they aren't important now. Keep that in mind whenever you hear criticism about what politicians should have been doing to avoid whatever present catastrophe just occurred.