|
The Speeches of 9-10 and 9-11
EFL from TCSCritics of the Bush administration are all atwitter over the front page Washington Post story on Thursday by Robin Wright pointing out that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a speech on September 11, the focus of which "was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals." The piling on has begun. New York Senator Charles Schumer weighed in saying "Dr. Riceâs speech suggests that at the very least there was a disconnect between .... yak yak -snip- All in all, that would seem to be pretty damning stuff, if there werenât more to the story. There is, of course, more to the story. What was the context of Riceâs proposed speech? The day before Rice was to give her speech, Sen. Joe Biden, one of the Democratic Partyâs leading lights on foreign policy issues, gave a major address critical of the Bush administration. The focus of the speech? Missile defense. Now, criticizing missile defense is legitimate enough. Indeed, political liberals have loathed it since Ronald Reagan proposed it in the early 1980s. But why should we be surprised if the Presidentâs chief national security advisor planned to defend missile defense the day after the chief Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee attacked it? But thereâs more. Whatâs most interesting about Bidenâs September 10 talk is that he mentioned terrorism but made no mention of "al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups" - just like Rice. So despite the historical whitewash now painted by Bush critics like Richard Clarke, itâs far from obvious that stateless Islamic terror was the focal point of Democratic defense policy mavens before September 2001. Moreover, to the extent that Biden mentioned terrorism, he, too, mentioned it in the context of dangers from rogue states, such as Iraq, that might resort to terror against Americans. Biden even spoke of "Saddam Hussein, the certifiable maniac." In other words, despite the further whitewash from the critics, Iraq and Saddam were not only on the minds of Bush and his advisors before September 11. They were squarely -- and understandably -- on the minds of members of the senior Democratic leadership. So where do these further revelations leave us? Over two years after thousands of Americans were murdered by Islamic fanatics, and while Islamic terrorists continue crafting deadly plots around the globe, the Washington political and chattering class is consumed with a now irrelevant fight over who was paying less attention to the gathering threat before 9/11. The important question today - and the debate we should be having but are not - is over the best way to address the terror threat going forward. Has there ever been a lower point for the Washington political culture? I think the stuff with the blue dress and the cigar was lower but thatâs just me. Iâm a prude and have low expectations for Congressmen. Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-06 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=29828 |