Doctor Rice: I've caught only parts of Condoleeza's testimony today. She wasn't particularly strong in response to the questions I saw. I'm sympathetic to Rice's main thrust: I've written before that I'm not convinced that anything but blind luck could've foiled the 9/11 attacks.

That said, Rice crumbled before the questioning of Tim Roemer, who proceeded in the fashion of a prosecutor -- trying to cut off or talk over parts of the testimony that didn't fit his ends. Certainly the administration must have foreseen that Rice would get adversarial treatment. She seemed unprepared. She's smart and articulate, sure, but she seemed out of her league. While not particularly defensive, she did seem to be on the defensive a bit. It will be interesting to see how this plays. From what I saw (a lot less than other bloggers, I'm sure), she was not an obvious detriment to the administration, in that she looked forthright, competent, and smart; but nobody honest at the White House is calling this a home run.

Along those lines, there's more of interest here:

But the fact remains, America still might have managed to avoid September 11 by serendipity. This is one of the great untold stories of the tragedy -- a story that the press still hasn't gotten right today.

The stroke of luck came in August 2001 when the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in Minneapolis. Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker," had aroused suspicion because was attending flight school but didn't seem to have any interest in learning landing or take-offs -- he just wanted to fly the plane. He had an expired visa and ended up in custody. Also taken in custody was Moussaoui's computer, which we know today contained a host of e-mails that would have revealed the identity of his fellow conspirators and tipped off the plot to hijack airplanes.

As any police detective will tell you, this is how most cases get solved. Legwork and logic can carry you so far. A little bit of luck is always necessary. But chance only favors the prepared mind and America wasn't prepared.

The problem was the severe restrictions placed on police investigations since the 1960s. A search of personal property can only be executed with a warrant and warrants cannot be issued -- as the Fourth Amendment states -- except upon "probable cause." Just what constitutes "probable cause" has been the subject of endless argument between the police and the courts. In August 2001, however, the FBI in Washington played by the rules. When Minneapolis agents asked permission to open Moussaoui's hard drive, the top brass said there was no probable cause. "All you've got is a guy with an expired visa taking flight lessons," they said. "Where's the crime?"

Colleen Rowley, the Minneapolis FBI staff attorney who wanted to investigate, became Time magazine's "2002 Co-Person of the Year" (along with two other "Women Whistleblowers") because she wrote a May 2002 memo to FBI director Robert Mueller protesting the 2001 decision. As Heather Mac Donald pointed out at the time, only when the issue was framed as "courageous women versus stupid men" did the press suddenly take an interest in the situation. Yet the fight over "probable cause" had been plaguing law enforcement since the 1960s. After playing Russian roulette with crime for forty years, we had finally hit a loaded chamber.