. . . When Will They Show It?

Reference: "So Many Voices, So Many Visions," by Tom Zeller, New York Times, 11 April, p. WK4.

Great article with big chart comparing Condoleezza Rice's testimony with Richard Clarke's book, Paul O'Neil's book (by Suskind), Bob Woodward's book (2002, not the forthcomingóI know, I get confused too), and Bell and Benjamin's "Sacred Terror." In chart, various key questions on 9/11, al Qaeda, and Iraq Waróeffectively all about "what Bush knew" and "when did he know it?" "Or decide it?"

All this analysis is really about piecing together the definitive understanding of the months just before and after 9/11, because we all know that that is the key task at hand right now in Washington: pointing fingers and assessing blame.

Reading this chart made me realize that basically all these books offer the same fodder: What-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it? Yes, these are all good books in their own way, but really only good for basically right in the here and now. For the public, who buy these volumes up, little light is shone on what we as a nation should do next. Afraid to face the strategic future, we are reduced to deconstructing the tactical past.

When I give my brief to audiences, the question I always field is, "Who really gets this stuff inside this administration? And how will we know when they do?"

So I've come to pitch my book as the anti-Clarke book: not the What-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it book, but the What-do-they-get-and-when-will-they-show-it book.