Clinton and NIE

Sep 26 2006 Published by under Congress, Craziness, Democrats, Government, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, The President, War

The big news of the last two days seems to be the meltdown of Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday and the “leaked” details of the National Intelligence Estimate. The Hill has a column by Dick Morris (currently unavailable due to server error) indicating Clinton’s behavior was more the rule than the exception and challenging his assertions that he was awake at the wheel.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

The Washington Times and NY Post react with Condi and further info to discredit the claims Clinton made. (Does anyone care to wager the mainstream media will challenge his claims like this?)

On the NIE front, the Washington Post might as well have issued a special edition with wall-to-wall NIE coverage. E.J. Dionne uses it to bolster his argument that the protesters of today are no ‘hippie radicals’ and the GOP faces trouble in November.

That is why news over the weekend of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is especially troublesome for Republican electoral chances. By finding that the war in Iraq has encouraged global terrorism and spawned a new generation of Islamic radicals, the report by 16 government intelligence services undercuts the administration’s central argument that the Iraq war has made the United States safer.

Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman continue the WaPo NIE highlight reel and cover the Democrats use of the report in their electoral strategy.

Democratic lawmakers yesterday seized on elements of a new classified intelligence assessment as validation of their long-standing position that the Iraq war has been a distraction from the broader war against terrorists, seeing the new study as an opportunity to undermine President Bush’s determined offensive to turn terrorism to political advantage in the midterm elections.

What I find interesting about the Democrat tactic is the fact that they’re arguing the Iraq War is a distraction from terrorism, but ignoring the fact that our presence in Afghanistan – widely perceived to be legitimate by comparison – is also fueling the fire. We’re coming under increasing attack in Afghanistan, and that is an ‘approved’ front in the war on terror.

If the difference between the two is our internal comfort level, someone should let the insurgents know they need to lay off in Kabul because our presence has been self-justified.

The Wall Street Journal probably has the best solution. They suggest the government simply declassify the report – allowing for redaction or summary of sensitive information that would reveal sources or methods.

It’s impossible to know how true this report is, of course, since the NIE itself hasn’t been leaked. The reports are based on what sources claim the NIE says, but we don’t know who those sources are and what motivations they might have. Since their spin coincides rather conveniently with the argument made by Democratic critics of the war, and since this leak has also conveniently sprung in high campaign season, wise readers will be skeptical.

Releasing the NIE is probably the best idea. It’s not like most of what’s in the report would be news to anyone.

The whole debate on the NIE is actually a good case study in how to reduce a problem. The argument seems to be whether the bad guys like us less today than they did before we went into Iraq. They had killed 3,000 Americans in one morning before we went into the Middle East – claiming to still be offended by our efforts in Iraq circa 1991 and our continuing presence in Saudi Arabia – but all of that is lost.

The whole discussion has come down to a debate over “degrees of hate”. It’s kind of stupid if you think about it. Does it matter how much they hate us? If they were flying planes into buildings before they really, really hated us, doesn’t that tell us that we are even more justified in trying to eradicate the threat?

I think it does.

No responses yet

Honesty

Aug 31 2006 Published by under Politics, Terrorism, The President, War

WarPoliticsThe War on Terror deserves serious discussion. There is a worthwhile debate over the method by which we fight this war, but both parties seem to be ignoring that debate in favor of sound bites.

There is a dichotomy between two camps with differing views of America. One sees America as a country of and for itself, which was attacked without provocation by a hidden enemy. To respond to that requires firm resolve and an unshakable belief that what we’re doing is right, even if we’re doing it wrong.

The other side sees America as the progenitor of its attackers. Our foreign policy choices have bred anger in our attackers and we must address our own failings to stave off their assault. To them, the war in Iraq is yet another example of the failed foreign policy that has led to our current situation. To fight terrorism, they disconnect those who oppose and attack us in Iraq from those that oppose and attack us in New York.

Serious Americans recognize that there is a degree of truth to both arguments and our cause is not helped by both sides marginalizing the other’s beliefs. Our cause is also not helped by talking points that over-simplify the world.

The President, yesterday, broke out just such a talking point.

“Iraq is the central front in this war on terror,” he said. “If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities. We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed and victory in Iraq will be a major ideological triumph in the struggle of the 21st century. I firmly believe we’ll succeed.”

This is, to say the least, ridiculous. Does anyone believe the peaceful handover of Baghdad to the Iraqi people will end the worldwide scourge of terror? There was no war in Iraq when we were attacked in 2001. There was no war in Iraq when we were attacked in 1993. To claim that finishing the mission in Iraq will somehow guarantee we are not attacked stateside is a specious claim at best and laughably ignorant at worst.

A serious discussion needs to take place, but the nature of our Attention Deficit Media prevents that. Comments like these also do little to advance that agenda.

No responses yet

Some People Claim There’s A Woman To Blame…

Jul 28 2006 Published by under Democrats, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, War

PoliticsWarPeter Beinart has penned a truly awful column for the Washington Post. Normally, that sentence would be followed by all the reasons the Democrat is full of it and a defense of whatever GOP initiative he’s attacking. Not this time, however. This time he’s full of crap for defending the administration.

His main contention seems to be the Democrats have repeatedly stymied GOP efforts to do the right thing with regard to foreign policy simply because it was politically expedient for them to do so. As examples he cites the Dubai Port deal, the planned boycott of Maliki’s address to Congress, and the amnesty program granted to insurgents in Iraq who had been accused of killing US troops there.

In every case, he points to the administration’s actions as being in the right, and the Democrats as merely pandering for partisan gain. He’s wrong on both counts.

The Administration has nobody but themselves to blame for their predicament and the Democrats are only holding Bush to the foreign policy course he charted when he uttered the now infamous chide that ‘if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”

Where the Democrats are wrong is in their hypocrisy. The Democrats shouted down those sentiments during the election, but everything they have done to hobble the administration is consistent with that principle.

Take the Dubai ports deal. The united Arab Emirates are a known financial resource for terrorists. They were singled out as such by the investigation into the 9-11 attacks, yet we are supposed to grant them economic deals that disregard their lack of meaningful action on terrorism?

What about the Maliki speech? Beinart argues that Iraq is supposed to challenge our position on Israel to prove he’s not a US stooge. Does Peter really believe their is a Muslim man or woman on the street who is not already convinced that any Iraqi government built, installed, and maintained by our military presence is a lap dog of the US? His challenge to Israel will not prove otherwise. The only outcome of Maliki’s comments would be the continued fostering of radical anti-semitism in the Arab nation.

Finally, the granting of amnesty to Iraqi’s who killed US troops is not only contrary to international and US law, but also creates moral outrage for the families and friends of those killed fighting this war.

Now I believed in the invasion of Iraq and still do, so this is not a pretext to chastise the Administration for an ill-conceived invasion. The only reason I needed to go into Iraq was the overthrow of a man who took sadistic pleasure in killing people. Saddam needed to go and I am damn glad we did it. But I am not willing to suffer the loss of my countrymen at the hands of thugs we liberated to simply let them go free as killers.

All of these beliefs are in line with the Administration’s stated policy, yet they are the positions taken and held by the Democrats. If anyone is acting from a position of political calculation, it is the Administration. It now finds itself in a deteriorating foreign policy situation, and wishes to engage in quick fix diplomacy after telling the people there are no quick fixes.

Israel has every right to defend itself against naked acts of aggression by Hezbollah. Calling on world leaders, regardless of their religious affiliation, to denounce the use of terrorism is something that we did following the attacks of 9-11. If the administration has forgotten that day, and now wishes to encourage terrorist appeasement by our so-called allies, they will have no more strident opposition than mine.

Despite Beinart’s short-sighted belief in conceding our soul for the sake of a simmering middle east – rather than a boiling one – Democrats in this case are taking the correct positions. Sadly, they are positions once held, but now abdicated, by the Administration.

No responses yet

Cojones

Jul 14 2006 Published by under Crime, Operatives, Politics, The President

CrimePoliticsAs if our court system isn’t abused enough be people seeking to capitalize on a broken legal system, all we need now is Valerie Plame’s frivolous lawsuit against Rove, Cheney, and Libby. Never mind the fact the special prosecutor has not completed his investigation, but preliminary reports would seem to indicate he is not going to find any wrong doing by at least two of the three (I’m counting Libby as one of the two because while he’s been charged with perjury, he has not been charged with any thing related to the leak.)

This is the epitome of frivolous suits. It is intended as a harassment opportunity and nothing else. Ignore for a moment the fact that Valerie Plame was so concerned about concealing her identity that she posed for Vanity Fair.

Sidebar: Plame claims the sunglasses she wore were an effective disguise and thus the pictures were ok. Is it just me, or is that the lamest idea of an effective disguise since Clark Kent’s glasses? I sincerely hope and pray that the CIA has better capabilities for protecting our agents’ identities than a large supply of Oakleys. Really, does anyone outside of DC Comics and old 50s movies honestly believe that somehow I become unrecognizable if I’m wearing sunglasses? But I digress

Plame is filing suit (and having Joe appear on every news program he can locate) in an effort to protect her family from retaliation by “America’s enemies.” Get real.

Sidebar: When Salman Rushdie thought his life was in danger, he was seen less often than Elvis – which was a feat given that the King had been dead for 10 years, but was still turning up in donut shops throughout the midwest.

If Plame is so concerned about her safety, having her husband appear live from DC on the news every other night is a pretty strange way to protect them. If she’s so concerned about the “loss of employment opportunities” maybe she should have been concerned about the generally upheld principles against nepotism before she signed her husband up to go to Niger.

Sidebar: That actually raises another question for me. If you were concerned about protecting your family, would you send your spouse to a shithole like Niger? It sounds to me like someone wanted a wild weekend with the gardener and needed a way to get the hubby out of town.

At any rate, I find Plame’s whole argument for the suit laughable, but assuming it actually went down the way she claims, you’d think she would wait for the outcome of the investigation, and sue those who are actually found responsible (if anyone is. It sounds like there is a strong possibility that nobody actually knew she was a covert operative when they referred to Wilson’s wife, there may likely be no case anyway.)

Why would you start a civil suit in the middle of an investigation by a special prosecutor – especially knowing that it may deter people from cooperating for fear of being sucked into your quest for more money.

Seriously, does this suit seem flimsy and opportunistic to anyone else?

No responses yet

Looking For A Challenging Job

Jun 13 2006 Published by under Candidates, Elections, Jobs, Politics, Republicans, Terrorism, War

WarPoliticsThe International Republican Institute is hiring. They have a job ad in Roll Call for Resident Political and Public Advocacy Specialists.

The International Republican Institute… seeks Resident Political and Public Advocacy Specialists to assist in the design and implementation of IRI’s Political Party and Civil Society development programs in Iraq (emphasis mine). The Specialists work with Iraqi political parties and civil society organizations on a broad range of issues related to their institutional development as well as their participation in Iraq’s elections and public policy making processes. All positions are based in Baghdad, Iraq.

Requirements include a degree in political science, international relations, or a related field; a minimum of five years political experience; experience as a trainer; and familiarity with international politics. Having the ability to speak Iraqi and dodge bullets, and people with a high threshold for pain from shrapnel wounds, are a plus.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »