Hi, Gary--

Hmm.
Two observations:

1. It's an American journalism rule of thumb that most people don't read past the first two paragraphs of an article unless they have a special reason to do so, that is, a pre-existing interest in the topic or the reporter, or an itch to read more created by those first two paragraphs.

The conclusion you drew, that the US was on the receiving end of "retaliation in advance" and therefore caused its own disaster, is not the same one that I drew. What I read was, bin Laden and his friends, already paranoid and fanatical, took the reports of these high-level diplomatic discussions as further justification for their brutal plan, and knowledge of them may have helped determine the timing. I didn't see, as you did, the US blamed for the terrorist attack by anyone but the terrorists themselves, but I'm not disposed to read news stories that way.

2. This report appears to me to be of a kind with the reports of the diplomatic weirdness that happened between our diplomats in Bagdad and Iraqi officials just before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: people who should know better talking past each other without understanding the impact of their words and their silences.

What I read: American diplomats have discussions with other nations concerning a common problem, to wit, Afghanistan. Those involved in the discussions are highly-qualified and influential people. The Americans, however, are not players in the current administration, and so are only authorized to speak theoretically. I doubt the others present (except the Russians, who know us well) understood that, because power doesn't ebb and flow in dictatorships as it does here -- once in power, always in power, until the next coup comes along. The Taliban is predisposed to hate the US and believe the worst; the leak from their friendly neighbor, Pakistan, fed that.

In other words, this was an analysis of motive and timing, not of blame. Examining motive provides understanding of the crime, a powerful tool in prevention. It can, on rare occasions, provide justification. Not this time.

It's very important to understand all the nuances of the sequence of events that led up to this act of war, including any diplomatic errors that may have been committed. Our airport security is apparently very lax, but reports about that are not read as justifications for the terrorists' actions. (I have yet to see "US Airport Security Failures Invite Attacks. 'How Could We Resist?' Says bin Laden".) This article need not be read that way either.

Regards--
Mary Anne