I don't quite understand the relevance of Condi's "no one saw it coming" excuse for 9/11. Putting aside the question of whether anyone actually did predict that terrorists would hijack plans and pilot them into buildings (they did), in what way is the method of attack more important than its existence? Put differently, we certainly saw a terrorist attack coming. Bill Clinton had been saying there was an 80 percent chance of a major strike in the next decade. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time. So if it had come by dirty bomb rather than 747, would Condi be wandering around the country saying, "Well, we certainly saw that coming?" Hell, if it had merely come by terrorists downing aircraft, we would've seen that coming too -- and stopping it would have been no different than stopping the hijacking of planes.
Of course, this is actually just a dodge, a way to avoid responsibility for preparations that should have been taken in years prior, and intelligence that should've been heeded in months preceding. And it should be called such. Rice saw a terrorist attack coming. As National Security Advisor, she failed to prevent it. If she failed because she didn't see this type of attack coming, well then, that's all the worse. With a dirty bomb, she could at least blame insufficient congressional appropriations for radiological detectors. Claiming that the terrorists outthought you, however, is not an exculpatory assertion.
