| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Speeches of 9-10 and 9-11 |
| 2004-04-06 |
| EFL from TCS Critics 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. Rice’s 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 weren’t more to the story. There is, of course, more to the story. What was the context of Rice’s proposed speech? The day before Rice was to give her speech, Sen. Joe Biden, one of the Democratic Party’s 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 President’s chief national security advisor planned to defend missile defense the day after the chief Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee attacked it? But there’s more. What’s most interesting about Biden’s 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, it’s 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 that’s just me. I’m a prude and have low expectations for Congressmen. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #8 This is only a low point if we don't stick it to all of them. In every catastrophe there is opportunity for positive change. Those who "spin" are attempting to cause us to miss by spinning the dartboard and causing confusing. The "spin" fails if you aim for the bullseye like a laser. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-06 2:14:29 PM |
| #7 *sigh* okay, one more time... The significance of Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinsky had to do with Paula Jones' sexual harrasment suit while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, and Mrs. Jones was a temporary employee. Clinton had just signed a bill that lowered the bar for plaintiffs to prove sexual harassment against defendants by being able to question the accused on past sexual exploits. The idea was that sexual harassment is a pattern, and the plaintiff is merely the LATEST of many victims, willing and unwilling, that the defendant hit up. Thus, Clinton was questioned on his sexual behavior in compliance to a law HE AND THE DEMOCRATS PASSED THEMSELVES. Mrs. Jones' testimony, that Clinton demanded a BJ, was perfectly in accord with what later came out as his preferred method of getting his jollies. If it was anyone else, that would have signalled the end of the defense case, but we're talking about a DEMOCRAT President, held incapable by liberal feminists of sexual harassment. Too bad Perjury, in addition, isn't what it's supposed to be when it's a DEMOCRAT president who, as Martha Stewart found out to her regret. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure all this out: Clinton was always at ease during press conferences when answering questions about the case, but ALWAYS got postively hostile and defensive when the Paula Jones' case was raised. It was OBVIOUS it was a sore point with him, and the press corps naturally obliged and AVOIDED THE ISSUE. I've always felt that the purpose of the Congressional investigation and Special Prosecutor was, in the end, to force Clinton to give the answers that he refused and delayed and delayed to give to Jones' lawyers. It was NOT an abuse of power, but the legitimate application of Legislative branch power to ensure that the President could not frustrate the course of justice concerning a case made against him by abusing Presidential Branch power. In the end, the president was forced to be answerable to the court, and he answered. A better outcome that proved that our system is superior to, Say, the French system, where the President is protected, even if strongly suspected of criminal behavior. Of course, the effort of proving THAT wasn't all that strenuous to begin with... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-04-06 1:13:54 PM |
| #6 I read the beginning of the report. As a former secretary, I would have to say Betty Currie and I had a very different style. She knew what was going on and tolerated it. It was the way the door was and how she approached the situation. She had been thru it before. I've told my younger friends that if I'm dead when the Senate Judiciary files are released, they're to come to my grave and yell, "YOU WERE RIGHT, THEY WERE SCUM!" Point that out to a Bubba supporter and watch their expression. They're put out, so say the least. What is it, 45-46 years and counting? My gram's still here at 92 and so was her mother at 92. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-04-06 10:54:35 AM |
| #5 Same old crap... let's reopen the last war. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-06 10:03:53 AM |
| #4 I have been convinced 9/11 was coming, sooner or later, in one form or another, ever since that day in 1979 when the Iranian black hats stormed the American embassy. But the start of Ronald Reagan's presidency, simultaneous with the end of the 444-day hostage nightmare, seemed to make most Americans just want to forget the whole thing and move on. Doing that was a terrible mistake. We should have acted right then and there, and killed the Islamic totalitarian movement in its infancy. Who do I blame for 9/11? I blame every U.S. president from Carter onward, in varying degrees, and every Senator and Representative of the last quarter-century. I don't blame any one political leader exclusively, most especially not George W. Bush. Not only did he rise to the occasion to take decisive action after 9/11, he did so in a way that broke free from 30 years of stagnant, unproductive thinking on the Islamic terrorist problem. We're now dealing with the problem, rather than just aimlessly fucking around with its symptoms. As for the author's final question, no, there has never been a lower point for the Washington political culture; and I am so disgusted with my former party (I was a Democrat until last year and had been one for 31 years) and its willingness to jeopardize our country's survival for cheap political gain, that I will NEVER vote for another one of those bastards again so long as I live. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-06 6:50:24 AM |
| #3 Have to go with Hose on that one. Take a look at Starr's report. The big problem with Clinton's dalliance, beyond the fact that he committed perjury in a sexual harrassment case, (for a liberal, this should be troubling enough) but Monica was present during phone calls to foreign leaders Clinton was making. Also, she had taken some documents from the President's desk and sent them to a friend to prove she knew the President. For the US President to engage in behavior that, if Ms. Lewinsky were less ethical, or employed by a foreign government, could lead to blackmail or espionage, its not a good idea. |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-04-06 5:52:20 AM |
| #2 IC, the blue dress was our darkest hour because Americans refused to learn the lesson that lack of integrity and resolve could not be tolerated in a president. We now reap what was sowed in the 90's. I am hopeful that the Internet and some "on point" truth telling will allow us to spread a little Roundup throughout the landscape of American politics. The liars need to be challenged exposed in embarrassing fashion in every reelection race throughout the country. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-06 2:38:16 AM |
| #1 Funny you should pose the rhetorical question about things ever being lower. I suppose the blue dress thing was lower in the sense of tawdry, but in terms of vapid, unserious, and even preposterous -- I'd say no. I'm still diligently searching for the facts on which Clarke's vaunted "explosive allegations" are based, or even to figure out how they're interesting or relevant, much less "explosive." He claimed that the previous administration was more urgently seized of the terrorism issue, even though undisputed accounts of many key moments disprove this. He cites no effective action taken, despite all the urgency. He admits none of his bright ideas would have prevented 9/11. Even within the context of pointless backwards-looking finger-pointing, this is absurd. What are we even talking about? |
| Posted by: IceCold 2004-04-06 2:03:06 AM |