Let's see if I can get this right.

The United States knew or should have known that al Qaida was planning to hijack planes with box cutters, then fly them into buildings, because there were warnings that this could happen.

Imminent threat, perhaps?

Not my words:

Clear warnings: Clinton administration officials say they bluntly warned the incoming Bush administration of the imminent threat from Al Qaeda

Well, I guess we could argue about whether it was an "imminent threat," but certainly considering Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole, there was something which might have been capable of developing into an imminent threat, based on.... intelligence?

Intelligence which should not have been ignored! say the Democrats.

But because Bush, this thinking goes, ignored the imminent threat, 9-11 happened.

Well, Bush better not ignore any more imminent threats! (Not that the Democrats would ever do anything like that.)

Megan McArdle offers an excellent analysis of the predictive value of intelligence, and concludes:

Clinton didn't know. Bush didn't know. We didn't know. And the uncomfortable possibility remains that there are more events that we not only don't know about--but can't know about. Deluding ourselves otherwise isn't helping. And if it causes us to take costly, fruitless measures to reassure ourselves, it could actively hurt us. (Via Will Collier.)

Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that Bush had not invaded Iraq. That we just stopped with Afghanistan, and hoped that al Qaida had just stayed out of Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein would watch his step.

How many Democrats warned that Saddam Hussein's regime had WMDs? (I doubt I could count them all.) Would Bush be vulnerable now to a claim that just as he "ignored" a threat from al Qaida, now he was ignoring an imminent threat from Iraq, that this was very dangerous, and that something must be done?

After-the-fact "imminence" tends to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't deal. And suppose 9-11 had been prevented! We'd never have heard the end of it. Here's Neal Boortz (via Glenn Reynolds) reflecting on the Rice testimony:

....[I]magine if on September 10th, 2001, President George W. Bush, citing increased "chatter" about an attack on the United States decided to shut down all airports nationwide. Furthermore, in an address to the nation he announces that Osama Bin Laden is behind the threats and has decided to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. Can you imagine the response? The same people pinning responsibility for 9/11 on the Bush administration for not doing enough would be calling for his head. And then, when nothing happened as a result of all of these measures, people would be blaming Bush for overreacting. Anyone who believes otherwise needs their head examined. Remember the Air France planes we grounded not that long ago? The U.S. got blamed for being too aggressive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You can be sure of one thing. There'll be lots more of this stuff.

Because the election isn't even imminent yet!

UPDATE: Be sure not to miss Gregg Easterbrook's hilarious alternative history -- the impeachment of George W. Bush for going after the Taliban on August 7, 2001. (Via InstaPundit.) It turned out the threat just wasn't imminent after all!