Editorial: Memo not a warning?

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 | 8:42 a.m.

At a May 2002 news conference, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice referred in general to the then-classified terrorism brief received by President Bush on Aug. 6, 2001. She said it indicated that any terrorism attack against the United States would likely take place overseas. And last week, before the 9-11 Commission, she described the memo as "historic," and "not a warning."

Yet when the White House, under considerable pressure, released some of the brief Saturday, included were the words, "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Even considering the advantage that hindsight brings, this still sounds like a current warning, and one not directed at overseas locations. The memo also included the alarming news that the FBI was conducting "70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Ladin-related." That's a lot of investigations, enough to warrant considerable presidential attention.

What we're hearing is that because "specific" intelligence was lacking, there was no reason to warn the country and increase airline security. Were they waiting for word about date, time and place? The brief cannot be used to say 9-11 was avoidable, but it can be used to say the White House has not been entirely forthright on what it knew before the attacks.