Does Rosa Brooks Believe 9-11 Was 'Fictional and Entirely Implausible'?

May 18th, 2007 7:17 AM
Does L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks think 9-11 was "fictional and entirely implausible"? I ask, because in The GOP's Torture Enthusiasts today, that's how she describes a similar scenario that Brit Hume sketched during this past Tuesday's GOP presidential debate.

In inviting the candidates to discuss their views on interrogation during this past Tuesday's get together, debate moderator and Fox News DC Bureau managing editor Brit Hume said the following:
The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.
Brooks sniffed at the scenario, calling it "the kind that most intelligence experts consider fictional and entirely implausible."

Really? Entirely implausible to imagine three targets hit by suicide bombers and another attack planned? Let's see, if I recall correctly, on 9-11, three targets [the two WTC towers and the Pentagon] were hit by suicide bombers. A fourth attack, possibly on the White House or the Capitol, was planned. It was averted thanks to the heroic efforts of passengers aboard United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Brooks mocked the candidates for their responses, calling them "a group of middle-aged white guys competing with one another to see who could do the best impersonation of Jack Bauer." For good measure, she claimed that Brit Hume "appears to have been watching too much '24' himself." Aside: why do liberals gratuitously drag race into these discussions? As for being "middle-aged" [which I suppose septugenarians McCain and Paul would take as a compliment], the Constitution requires presidents to be at least 35, and even Obama would be 47 by inauguration day. So what's Rosa's point?

In any case, it's not that the Republicans have been watching too much "24." It's that Brooks has apparently forgotten our recent history.

Contact Mark at