In the news:

Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers (washingtonpost.com)

Until now, the growing congressional scrutiny of possible warning signs before Sept. 11 has focused on the FBI's actions, including the bureau's handling of a memo written in July 2001 by an agent in Phoenix. A senior U.S. official who has reviewed the classified memo said yesterday that the FBI agent had made a "strong connection" between a group of Middle Eastern aviation students he was investigating and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. The link was included in the five-page memorandum sent to FBI headquarters two months before the attacks.

The story goes on to note that none of the students the agent refers to were involved in the 9/11 hijackings.

Political sharks smell blood in the water, and I hear the cries of "bring me the head of George W. Bush!" I wonder....

I wonder how many know how much information US law enforcement agencies collect every day. Beyond that, how many realize that the exchange of information is often less than zero. INS may have one bit of info, but that doesn't mean the FBI knows about it, and vice versa. They talk about correcting this, but it somehow never happens. Everyone wants to guard their turf.

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that those involved in carrying out the 9/11 attacks were planning something unprecedented. InstaPundit lists a few reasons why.) Knowing that, what could be done?

Issue a warning? Done. For several months leading up to 9/11 it was known that Bin Laden & Co. were planning some sort of Big Thing involving hijacking aircraft. So warnings were issued. Needless to say, big deal.

Put law enforcement on alert. And then...? I've heard on the radio cries that "airport security could have been increased." Toward what end? Special interest groups, focusing more on political correctness than valid law enforcement issues, have stifled the ability of police (at any level) to use profiling in the prevention of crimes. So you can list all the things to look out for when it comes to potential bad guys who want to swipe an airliner, but if one of those items is "male of Middle Eastern descent," you are prevented from doing a damn thing. Evidence of that? Witness all the cries of "racial profiling" over the increased security actions since 9/11. All of that shouting is coming after it's been demonstrated that the profiles are accurate! Performing these actions before 9/11 would have been politically impossible.

Besides, increasing airport security would have done nothing. The hijackers, until they took over their target aircraft, did not break any law. Oh, sure, they might have fit a profile for potential threat, but no one was allowed to act on those profiles (damn racists, you know).

Today, right now, what happens when security alerts are issued? People make a joke of them. California Governor Gray Davis gets an alert of an unconfirmed, unverified threat to California bridges, alerts the CHP, the California National Guard, the media, puts cops and soldiers on the bridges and...gets ridiculed (including by me, since I thought it was more than a little amusing that he thought all that show of force would stop someone from driving a truck bomb onto the Golden Gate Bridge and going "boom").

All in all, and until more information comes to light, it continues to look as though Bush & Co. knew something was in the works, something involving bin Laden & Friends and hijacking aicraft. Were steps taken? Oh, some were, but there are how many airports in this country? (Can't remember!) At any given moment in time there are some 4,000 aircraft in the air, some 500,000 people. Do you ground them all? And how do you know when to do so?

Last, all of this is currently coming about from reports from "reliable sources," which more and more appears to be leaks from Congress itself. Which means that some members of Congress knew as much as Bush is alleged to have known. What did they do? Damnit, if we're going to get to the bottom of all this, let's do so, and that means everyone.