Bush will try to fix that problem at the U.N., speaking directly to the international community, and detailing what one administration official called Hussein’s “decade of defiance.” He is expected to challenge the U.N. community to take significant action to bring Hussein back in line, or to step aside and let the United States do it. The question is: Will the president’s high-profile address be enough to begin restoring the public relations damage done in recent weeks?

It’s not clear whether the White House communications breakdown reflects the departure of Karen Hughes, Bush’s longtime confidant and media advisor who left in July, or whether the administration chose, for strategic reasons, to send out mixed messages. But White House officials must be aware that they have created more confusion than clarity with their recent missteps:

• Addressing a group of veterans late last month and echoing the administration war hawks, Vice President Dick Cheney insisted that sending weapons inspectors back to Iraq would be a waste of time. They “would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions,” Cheney said. He was quickly contradicted by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who told the BBC the administration would seek the return of U.N. weapons inspectors. Moving forward, that now seems to be a central plank in the administration’s policy.
• In late August, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that al-Qaida terrorists were operating inside Iraq with Hussein’s blessing. Today, the administration has essentially dropped that as a pretext for the war, simply because it cannot be proven. “They are no longer relating it to al-Qaida,” reported Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien after meeting with Bush.
• Last week Rumsfeld submitted a 2,300-word Op-Ed piece to the Washington Post, making the case for a preemptive military strike against Iraq, only to withdraw it at the 11th hour because “the timing wasn’t right,” according to Rumsfeld’s spokesperson.
• On Friday, Bush cited a satellite photograph showing suspicious construction inside Iraq as evidence that Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency that suggested Hussein was just months away from obtaining nuclear weapons. “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” said Bush. The next day, NBC News reported Bush had misspoken about what the satellite photograph showed; the U.N. agency insisted Bush had misrepresented its findings.
• Wednesday’s New York Times reported that despite the administration’s repeated dire warnings about Hussein’s arsenal, senior intelligence officials have yet to prepare a definitive, cross-agency assessment of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities.

Nonetheless, senior White House aides insist everything is going according to script. And that even though the war message appeared to be in disarray over the summer, they were determined to wait until after the Labor Day weekend to launch, or market, their war. “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” That’s what Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, told the New York Times last week, in a quote that quickly gained infamy for its brazenness. (ABC News’ must-read Beltway blog dubbed Card’s quote “completely priceless.”)

For now, the White House’s idea of a meticulously planned media campaign seems to consist of simply ratcheting up the war rhetoric, which Cabinet members did last Sunday on the television talk shows, apparently hoping to capitalize on the high emotions surrounding the Sept. 11 anniversary memorials.

On CNN, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke gravely about the specter of Hussein unleashing “a mushroom cloud,” while Rumsfeld told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Hussein might soon attack America and kill “tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.”

The administration seems to have set extraordinarily low thresholds for success. After spending a combined 30 minutes last Friday on the phone with leaders of China, Russia and France, one White House aide told the New York Times that while none of the leaders were any closer to supporting a war, “they all agreed that Iraq posed a threat.” But didn’t they all agree that Iraq posed a threat last year, before the White House began beating the drums of war?

The poll numbers tell the communications story to date. Just 27 percent of respondents think Bush has clearly explained the U.S. position with regard to possibly striking Iraq, according to a Sept. 5 CBS News/New York Times poll. Asked by ABC News at the end of August whether Bush himself had a clear policy on Iraq, only 40 percent thought he did, down 5 percentage points from just two weeks earlier. Those are hardly sterling numbers when the policy in question involves launching a new war.

The fact is, most polls show that the more Bush talks about war, the less support there is for military action against Hussein. And the percentage of Americans who support a unilateral invasion without U.N. approval, which is what administration hawks have been advocating for months, can be measured in the high-teens and low 20s.

Those numbers could change in coming weeks, with the White House’s all-out P.R. offensive. But to date, even those who support regime changing in Iraq have given the White House’s efforts low marks. “It’s more of a summer of public disarray by the administration,” Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Fox News. “Instead of making the case unambiguously with a single group of people singing from the same song sheet, they’re singing different lyrics to the same music, and they’re undermining their case.”

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., aired similar complaints recently, suggesting the White House badly mismanaged the war message over the summer: “They rattled the sabers without explaining why.”

Lieberman’s remark hints at another crucial goal for Bush’s speech. For months, Democrats have been reluctant to stake out a strong antiwar position. But as voters have become more ambivalent about an invasion, Democrats have become slightly more outspoken. If Bush is persuasive in his speech, public opinion may rebound, and the Democrats would find it politically difficult to oppose the war.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the White House lost important ground during July and August, when neo-con hawks outside the administration, trying hard to influence decisions being made inside the Oval Office, were running wild on news talk show programs and newspaper Op-Ed pages ginning up talk of war. All the while the administration refused to lay out an official rationale for war, insisting the timing was not right.

It was during those months that enthusiasm for war declined steadily. According to a recent ABC News poll, support cratered 13 points during just two weeks in August, from 69 percent to 56 percent. Support has fallen 22 points since last November, according to ABC.

Today, there’s a whiff of desperation in the air, with the White House and its allies in the press realizing that the reasons they’ve been floating this year for going to war have not been embraced by most Americans. Suddenly, there’s a need for bolder accusations and more dire predictions.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which has been churning out bomb-Iraq columns with numbing regularity, dedicated substantial space to the fringe conspiracy theory, dismissed by prosecutors, that an Iraqi restaurant worker colluded with Timothy McVeigh in 1995 to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The alleged connection between Iraq and Oklahoma City is supposed to provide yet another reason why the U.S. needs to take out Hussein. But even in its detailed conspiracy story, the Journal didn’t provide a direct connection between Hussein and the Iraqi, other than the fact that the man spent some time in the military. The piece was written by Micah Morrison, a senior editorial writer at the Journal who gained a certain notoriety during the Clinton years by chasing all sorts of conspiracy theories, most notably that as governor of Arkansas, Clinton was somehow associated with a drug running operation out of a remote airport in Mena, Ark.

And last week, Defense Department advisor and leading Iraq hawk Richard Perle tried to up the ante when he told an Italian newspaper: “Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to Sept. 11. We have proof of that.” For months Perle, citing unconfirmed reports, had been insisting the key hijacker had, at best, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Suddenly, Perle has Atta meeting personally with Hussein.

Hawks in the press also seem to be confusing rhetoric with concrete evidence. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted critics were urging Bush to “make the case” against Iraq. The Journal cheered that Bush had done exactly that when he told congressional leaders: “Saddam is a serious threat.” Even Republican members of Congress didn’t buy that simplistic argument, and began to broadcast their frustration with the White House’s lack of concrete reasons for waging war.

“We want to be with you,” Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, told Bush at the meeting, according to Time magazine. “But you’re not giving us enough.” Added Idaho Sen. Larry E. Craig, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee: “If I voted today [on a war authorization], I would vote ‘no’ because I don’t believe the case has been made to the American people.”

After the White House spent much of the year hammering the “axis of evil” and talking up an Iraq invasion, the fact that it and its allies are still busy trying to win over conservative Republican members of Congress highlights just how poorly the war message has been managed.

The newspaper account of the debate in The Hill just reinforced the Republican spin, highlighting the Democrats’ decision to make people spend more money on the hated TSA and downplaying the actual existing Republican alternative to the proposal, which was not “spend less on the hated TSA” but rather “raise money for the hated TSA by slashing needed aid to states.” The Democrats won, or “won,” and now they will earn the fruits of that victory: well-deserved scorn from everyone. And Ben Nelson (D-Troll Town) voted with the Republicans. (Though surely having users pay the fees for supposedly necessary security measures is perfectly conservative, isn’t it? Am I missing something here? I mean besides the fact that the two sides in this debate weren’t actually “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “people who want to come up with a way of paying for the oppressive and useless national security state” versus “people who want there to be an oppressive national security state but hate government spending on feeding and sheltering impoverished people.”)

I don’t know of anyone not employed by the TSA or some other arm of Homeland Security that believes the TSA does a good job and deserves its massive budget, but everyone in Washington apparently feels differently (and is terrified of being blamed for “voting to cut TSA funding” if there is another terrifying and deadly underwear bomber, of course). This is why everyone hates politics and Congress and Washington. This and Iraq. And the drug war.

The area was evacuated for two hours until a bomb squad determined that the device was not dangerous.

At about 2 a.m. Saturday, a police officer discovered Miyakawa on a ladder not far from where the first contraption was found. Police said he was tying a similar “I Love New York” bag to a public lamp post.

Miyakawa was charged with two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the first degree, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the second degree, two counts of second-degree reckless endangerment and two counts of second-degree criminal nuisance.

A judge ordered him held pending a psychiatric evaluation. His lawyer, Deborah J. Blum, said Monday that she is filing for emergency relief to have Miyakawa released. A court date was set for June 21 to review the results of the evaluation.

“He’s still being held,” Blum said Monday. “I believe that it was a gross misunderstanding and other than that I don’t have any other comment.”

Miyakawa, who was born in Tokyo and is about 50 years old, has worked for a New York-based architect Rafael Vinoly for the last 20 years and also has an independent design practice.

Vinoly’s firm released a statement Monday praising Miyakawa for his “extraordinary brand of professionalism” and said he has been a mentor to generations of young architects.

“Takeshi is a fabulous human being and a person of extraordinary talent,” Vinoly said. “We hope this misunderstanding is cleared up as quickly as possible.”

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement that the charges sounded “like a wild overreaction.”

“It’s hard to understand why a light-up bag in a tree would be treated as an attempted terrorist act unless there’s more to the story than has been reported in the press thus far,” she said.

In 2007, an artist touched off a terror scare in Boston by placing electronic devices around the city as part of a marketing stunt for Cartoon Network. The city closed bridges, roads and public transit before authorities realized the signs were not bombs.

On an average day, the NYPD receives nearly 100 reports of a suspicious package. Last year, there were more than 4,000 such reports. The number generally rises following any word of terror threats in New York and around the world.

The concourse checkpoint needs to be there.  Just the same, chances are good that once an adversary has made it to the airport, he or she has engineered a way to outwit the system.  And spend as we might, there will always be a way to outwit the system.  ”Even if our technology is good enough to spot it,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, commenting on the news of the latest underwear plot, “technology is still in human hands and we are inherently fallible.”

That’s one of the smartest things I’ve heard a politician utter in some time.

Getting a handle on this takes us all the way back to Sept. 11, 2001, the day that everything, and yet really nothing, changed.  I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Conventional wisdom holds that the 19 hijackers exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling box cutters onto four Boeing jetliners. But conventional wisdom is wrong. What the men actually exploited was a weakness in our mind-set — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings and how they were expected to unfold. (In prior years, a hijacking meant a diversion, perhaps to Havana or Beirut, with hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were accordingly trained in the concept of “passive resistance.”) The presence of box cutters on 9/11 was merely incidental. The men could have used almost anything — a deadly sharp can be fashioned from a broken first-class dinner plate or a ballpoint pen — particularly when coupled with the bluff of having a bomb. The success of their plan relied not on hardware but on the element of surprise. It wasn’t a failure of airport security that allowed those men to hatch their takeover scheme. It was a failure of national security — a breakdown of communication and oversight at the FBI and CIA level.

To put it succinctly: The success of the 9/11 attacks had almost nothing to do with airport security at all — a great and painful irony, of course, to any passenger forced to endure the checkpoint rigmarole in 2012.

Not that frontline guards don’t play a deterrent role.  And, in the opinions of some, the plot uncovered in Yemen underscores the value of full-body scanners — those controversial walk-through machines that allow guards to look beneath a passenger’s clothing. It’s a compelling argument, but the way in which these scanners have — and have not — been deployed is apt to make some of us cynical. For instance, the vast majority of body scanners are found at U.S. domestic airports. Overseas, where a bomb is far likelier to originate, they are rare. Is this really about safety, we wonder, or is it about billions of dollars going into the coffers of the companies contracted to build these machines?

And although the scanners are effective, where does the arms race end?  Not long ago, the idea that passengers would be marched through body scanners and photographed naked before being allowed to board an airplane, would have seemed outrageous. Yet here we are. What might be next?  The stubborn truth is, we can turn airports into fortresses if we want (in some respects we’re well along that path), yet we’ll never be entirely safe. Airport screening alone, no matter how thorough, how expensive, and how technologically advanced, will never defeat a relentless enough, resourceful enough adversary intent on downing a plane.

That isn’t capitulation, it’s reality.  And acknowledging this reality would go a long way toward warding off panic and overreaction when the next successful attack occurs.

Regrettably, too, we often forget that commercial air travel has long been a target of terrorist extremists.  The 1970s and 1980s in particular were, as I like to describe them, a Golden Age of Air Crimes, comparatively rife with bombings, hijackings and other deadly assaults against airplanes and airports. Over one five-year span between 1985 and 1989 we can count at least six high-profile terrorist attacks, including the horrific bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772; the bombing of an Air India 747 over the North Atlantic that killed 329 people; and the incredible saga of TWA Flight 847.  And let’s not forget what might have been, such as the so-called “Project Bojinka,” the 1994 scheme masterminded by Ramzi Yousef (nephew of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad), in which impossible-to-detect (at the time) liquid explosives were to be used to simultaneously destroy a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean. Fortunately the plot unraveled and Yousef was arrested.

While we can argue, quite persuasively, that many of the current-day security measures have done little if anything to make us safer, we’ve nevertheless introduced measures that have been useful and effective, from explosives screening of checked luggage to the sorts of trans-border partnerships that broke up the most recent plot from Yemen. Whether in spite of, or because of, the attention we’ve lavished on All Things Terrorism, the past decade has seen fewer attacks against commercial air travel than any since the 1950s.What we need to remember, though, is that our success has had more to do with the security measures we don’t see than those taking place in plain view. And if our luck is to hold, we need to better rationalize and streamline our entire approach to airport security. For instance, if we’re going to have those body scanners, let’s put them where they’re needed. If this requires negotiating with foreign authorities whose airports are beyond TSA’s jurisdiction, so be it. Meanwhile, here at home, TSA’s one-size-fits-all approach, in which every single person who flies is seen as a potential threat, is simply unsustainable in a country where close to 2 million people fly daily. Things like taking snow globes from children, haggling over tiny container sizes, or confiscating a dessert fork from a uniformed, on-duty airline pilot (it happened to me) serve no useful purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, they divert valuable time and resources away from the things that could make us safer.  Let’s scale back that concourse Kabuki and retrain guards in the finer points of a more sensible, risk-based assessment of passengers and their belongings.

And lastly, if only as an aside, let’s behold for a moment the term “underwear bomb.”  That was the operative phrase in literally hundreds of articles and broadcasts over the past several days, and nowhere did it raise a snicker.  What does it say about our country, I wonder, that such a preposterous expression is instantly understood and effectively taken for granted?

Strange times indeed.

This should be our Nuremburg, the defining trial of the 9/11 era and a fitting coda to it.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government appears to be on the verge of squandering this opportunity, and with it, the best, and perhaps only, chance for the public to understand not only how the attacks came to be, but why Mohammed waged a relentless war against America and how we might stop the next would-be terrorist mastermind.

The problems lie within the reformed military-tribunal system that the Obama administration put in place after losing its fight for a civilian trial in New York. Political compromises have resulted in a flawed military commissions process that from outward appearances is not only rigged against the defense, but hyper-choreographed, censored and hermetically sealed.

“The process is designed to achieve a conviction, and to do it with as little revelation as humanly possible, but with the veneer of due process and justice,’’ said one participant who said restrictive gag orders prohibited him from talking publicly. “You’re talking about the most heinous crime ever, and we’re going to afford them less due process, less discovery, less of everything than we would the guy who shoplifted a pack of gum from CVS.’’

Obama administration officials say their reformed military commissions system is a vast improvement over the Bush administration’s version, which Obama moved to shut down on his first day in office in 2009.

Defense lawyers disagree, and insist they have been hamstrung in their efforts to mount the kind of aggressive defense needed to do their jobs including full and unfettered access to evidence, witnesses and even the accused themselves.

Four of the five legal teams had so few of their key players in place in recent months that they did not file the “mitigation submissions’’ that the government said it needed to decide which of the five men should face the death penalty and other key issues, such as whether to try them together or individually. They recently filed motions asking that the charges be thrown out because of fatal flaws in the system, which they say make it impossible for them to defend their clients.

“It’s window dressing,’’ Mohammed’s defense lawyer, David Nevin, said of the government’s improvements. “I am not all satisfied that it is a fair process. In fact, it is not a fair process.’’

Many of the defense lawyers have quit out of frustration or for other personal reasons stemming from the many delays in the process. Only a few have been there long enough to even begin to understand their clients’ case, not to mention the convoluted military commission process.

And they say they will be unable to effectively challenge confessions obtained when their clients were coercively interrogated in the CIA’s black site prisons, if they can broach the subject at all. This is important for the four men accused of helping Mohammed with the logistics of the plot. Several claim they have been wrongly accused, tortured into confessing, or both.

It is also important with regard to Mohammed, who confessed to dozens of plots while being waterboarded 183 times, and has said he may plead guilty even before the trial begins. Few U.S. counterterrorism officials believe all of his often boastful confessions, and it is important for the public to hear what, exactly, evidence the government has with regard to what he did and didn’t do, and whom he might have been protecting.

The team of Defense and Justice Department officials overseeing the military commission process, and the presiding judge, should quickly address the defense lawyers’ complaints, or a proceeding that some call “The Trial of the Century’’ will be delayed further by legal wrangling — and forever tainted by accusations of being unfair.

A full, fair and transparent trial, above all, will benefit the public. There is much the public doesn’t know about Mohammed, including the details of how he devised the plot, convinced bin Laden to let him do it and then orchestrated it “from A to Z,’’ to use his own words. It was Mohammed who masterminded dozens of other plots and attacks, some while staying a step ahead of the largest-ever criminal manhunt.

Mohammed, not bin Laden, was the one who traveled the world as a kind of “Johnny Appleseed’’ of terrorism, establishing alliances and creating a network of cells and lieutenants that in some cases remains today. And it was Mohammed who personally recruited young jihadist prospects much like a baseball scout, many of them Westerners, tapping into their grievances to turn them to his cause.

The U.S. government has kept the details of what Mohammed did — and how and why he did it — hidden in its most classified files since his capture in Pakistan nine years ago. The government should set the record straight on that, because there is an important lesson to be learned from the largely untold tale of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: It isn’t some monolithic group like al-Qaida that poses a continuing threat, it’s the one intelligent and energetic person who can emerge from nowhere and orchestrate a 9/11 while the world focuses elsewhere.

To that end, the government should declassify as much evidence as possible, and explain how it obtained it. It should call numerous witnesses to testify, especially since the one who has been publicly identified, Majid Khan, claims he was tortured while in CIA custody overseas.

Instead of limiting access to a few closed-circuit TVs, it should consider televising the proceedings. It should ensure that censorship is minimized, and used only to protect intelligence sources and methods, not to save the government from embarrassment. And it should let Mohammed and the others testify at length on their behalf if they so desire.

By doing so, the Obama administration will be able to say it did its best to put on the kind of civilian trial it has wanted all along, and one with a similar outcome to that of the al Qaida members charged with blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.

Those of us who witnessed that trial in Manhattan in 2001 saw the defendants squirm in their chairs as prosecutors introduced mountains of evidence against them. We saw eyewitnesses point the finger at the accused, and surviving victims glare at them from the pews.

We heard from the terrorists themselves, and learned a lot about why they did it, about how terrorist networks operate and about what might be done to stop people like them. And when the jury convicted them, there was no question that justice was done.

Five young men from Cleveland are now in jail, accused of plotting to “blow up a bridge in the Cleveland area,” according to the FBI’s triumphant press release/criminal complaint. As is always the case with FBI terror stings, the “sting” part involved the bureau’s informant/agent provocateur mostly inventing the plot the accused have now been arrested for. In this case, the five planned to detonate smoke bombs as a distraction as they “topple[d] financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland.” But the informant (as usual, a sketchy unnamed character with a checkered past) strongly pushed the group to seriously consider different, more extreme plots. At the end, some or all of them were going to plant C-4 on the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

So what was initially a political action aimed at financial institutions somehow morphed into a supposed attempt to destroy or damage a piece of publicly owned infrastructure in a national park. Anarchists sure do hate bridges, and parks, I guess. (No parliament of men has the authority to designate which spaces are “national parks”! The whole world is the worker’s national park!)

The FBI’s affadavit suggests that there was never actually a serious “plot.” The gang tossed around the idea of “taking out” a bridge in order to stop people from getting to work, but they also thought maybe they could use their (pretend) C4 on a Klan rally, or a neo-Nazi organization, or an oil well, or the Federal Reserve Bank. They eventually decided to maybe sink a ship. All of their many plans were super serious and well-thought out. (“To prevent capture, he suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of a car if they get in a chase.”) Eventually they settled on the bridge thing, sort of, and bought fake IEDs from the guy they already suspected was a cop.

In other words, these are a bunch of dumbasses even by the standards of amateur “black bloc” dumbasses. Do you know how I know these morons weren’t serious? They planned to download the Anarchist Cookbook and follow its notoriously awful instructions. Every experienced anarchist knows that the Feds have a mole in your group house, but these guys were mainly concerned with having someone’s “hacker friend” explain to them how bitcoins work. Without the FBI’s intervention the most damage these idiots would’ve ever caused is a broken Starbucks window. So thank god they’re off the streets, and congrats to the FBI for getting this tale of dangerous, bomb-planting anarchists onto the news broadcasts on the day of Occupy’s big May Day action.

(At least the Feds are branching out from only targeting Muslims in these ridiculous “stings.” Some day all Americans, regardless of creed or color, will have their circle of friends secretly infiltrated by a paid informant.)