I know that I am not the almighty predictor of events simply because I stated within minutes of the second tower falling that the U.S. government knew in advance that it was going to happen. Chances are that most skeptics of the power that is wielded by the U.S. government (yet that also holds it captive) were saying the same thing. Now we all know that we were right.

One can see how the logic goes. There certainly was little danger in the feds allowing a little terrorist attack to take place, and the benefits were obvious from day one. It is well known that the Bush administration has seen what little opposition it had prior to 9/11 fall by the wayside since. Tax cuts with massive increases in military spending seem only logical. Suddenly all those bumper stickers that said "Don't blame me, I voted for the guy who won the election!" disappeared while Bush's marginal popularity suddenly soared to record heights with an Islamic enemy to fight against (a lesson he learned from papa). Certainly we all now believe in the true danger presented by "rogue states" and feel that a space defense system would be the best tool for picking off terrorists before they walk onto planes, or for at least picking off the planes once it is known that terrorists might be aboard. Opposition to Alaskan oil drilling actually died off too, but the necessary 60 votes in the Senate didn't come through, or another Enron… er, … Bush victory would have been realized.

Vladimir Belous, a former top Soviet general, stated last month that: "The U.S.A. today can not only make its own policies, but determine the policies of other countries; this is today's reality." One could reasonably argue that this was a reality prior to 9/11, but it is unlikely that Bush could have made such outright statements as his "for us or against us" line that shortly followed the attacks. 9/11 clearly made what may have been an unspoken reality into a spoken, active reality.

The question now is not whether there was adequate warning of the attacks, but whether there was the will to deal with that information since an actual attack would provide such a boost.

There is notable evidence that knowledge of the attacks went well beyond the "who ought to know" of the U.S. government. Amr (Anthony) Elgindy, a well-known short-seller in the U.S., liquidated $300,000 of his children's trust fund on Sept. 10, telling his broker he expected the Dow Jones to drop to 3,000 points (it was just below 10,000 at the time). According to reports from late 2001, there were various massive sell-offs of American and United Airways stock on the day preceding the attacks, well beyond those of any similar days in preceding weeks. I imagine that if the names of these sellers were made public, we would see some interesting names on the list (government jobs just don't pay as well as the private sector). If you were one of these traders, you're fine if you were on the "who ought to know" list—of course, if not, you are being watched very closely, if you have not already been contacted.

Indeed, even the death toll of the attacks, though it is clearly a horrible atrocity, is surprisingly low. Everyone remembers early estimates reaching 20,000 or even 30,000. The buildings, we were told, would hold 50,000 people on a regular workday, and one was cut-off about two-thirds of the way up, while another was cut almost in half. The less than 3,500 total, including plane passengers and Pentagon deaths, indicates that the buildings were surprisingly empty for 8:30 and 8:45 on what must have been an "irregular" workday. Stories continue about all the FBI members as well as various CEOs and senior staff members of various companies who chose to take the day off.

Of course, these messages have a funny effect when considered in the U.S. media. Every time a message is printed that seems to imply wrongdoing by the U.S. government, Attorney General John Ashcroft or the FBI states that another attack is imminent—understandably taking up headlines. After all, what media source would want to be in the same boat as the government—not informing the public of an expected terrorist attack? But they tread on dangerous ground, those who dare suggest that George Bush spends his prayer time thinking about how to dodge difficult questions or win another election. Bush's "for us or against us" statement might mean that perhaps the next attack will be directed at my city should I fall out of line. In this way, the Bush administration and the Republicans still have a rather massive ace up their collective sleeve—but it will need to be played in the right place at the right time.

I imagine it is quite likely that another large scale attack, smaller than 9/11 but a terrorist attack nonetheless, will either take place or be publicly foiled in late summer or early fall of this year. Time Magazine's recent poll states that 70% of U.S. citizens expect the U.S. will be able to stop any potential attacks, suggesting that the pressure is on the FBI and CIA to come through, but strategists will obviously need to weigh the impact that U.S. casualties have on the viewing/voting public versus meeting the public's expectations prior to an election. A few more innocents in coffins might make a better front page than a couple of live extremists being led away in handcuffs—but we will have to wait and see what sort of decision they make.

At about the same time, a new offensive by the U.S. military will need to begin and a new enemy with a name and a face (a war on "terrorism" is only exciting for so long) will need to be identified. Granted, this may be the long awaited attack on Iraq or the other "axis of evil" members, but the imaginative cogs of Whitehouse strategists can probably do better if they want an effective November 2002 congressional campaign. They will need to show the U.S. public that terrorists lurk behind every telephone post and that only the Republicans' somewhat global yet somewhat protectionist views will both fight for them and safely protect them—hopefully while keeping the economy chugging along and cutting taxes.

U.S. enemies are chosen without any prevailing logic, so the choice is quite difficult to predict. Consider Bush's recent claim that normalized relations with Cuba "will only be possible when Cuba has a new government that is fully democratic." However, the U.S. has "normalized" relations with China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and various other states that don't meet this requirement. Indeed, a majority of the prisoners taken to Guatanamo Bay were Saudis, but for some reason (obviously not oil) Saudi Arabia doesn't even show up on Bush's evil list.

So keep an eye on the front page, or the screen depending on your preference, and be ready for whatever is thrown at you. Ari Fleisher and the Whitehouse team have no intention of giving up an inch (although Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon will have to, since they had their wrists slapped for planning to distribute lies). Intelligence (the key term in CIA) is used for more than collecting information, it is also used for analyzing it—and since such work is not being used for diverting terrorist attacks, as is now apparent by the events of 9/11, it is possible that it is being used to understand the public and how to keep it onside for a few successful elections.

Copyright © 2002 Kelly Blidook. All Rights Reserved.

Kelly Blidook is a member of spark-online's editorial board. Though Canadian, he cannot help but be affected.