Clarke makes a good case - for Bush's re-election

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Clarke makes a good case - for Bush's re-election[/u]
Jonah Goldberg
April 7, 2004

I've been waiting for the white-hot rage generated by Dick Clarke - and the White House's response to him - to cool down to a nice umber before I offered this conclusion: Dick Clarke makes a powerful case for why George W. Bush should be re-elected - and why George W. Bush should admit he's made some mistakes.

First of all, at this point it seems pretty clear that there's a lot of personal animus behind Clarke's charges. Just look at the yawning chasm between the substance of Clarke's charges and the passion with which he delivers them. As George Will and others have noted, when you actually focus on what Clarke says - not just in his book but in his interviews and testimony - it's mostly atmospheric and adjectival. Clarke brims with "impressions" about Bush's "lackadaisical" approach to terrorism as well as Bill Clinton's "urgent" attention to it - except, says Clarke, when Clinton had understandably more important priorities, like the Balkans or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In Clarke's telling, Bush always gets zero credit for anything he did - like quadrupling the budget for covert action against al-Qaida - while Clinton gets the full benefit-of-the-doubt package. Indeed, the latest news to undercut Clarke's case, reported by the Washington Times, is that Clinton's final National Security policy paper, 45,000 words long, didn't mention al-Qaida at all and mentioned Osama bin Laden a scant four times. It mentions terrorism quite a bit, but in the usual laundry lists of priorities. When it's specific, it addresses terrorism purely in the language of law enforcement, boasting about how it is bringing "fugitives" to justice to "answer for their crimes" and the like.

As is their wont, the media covered the heat, not the light, making it sound as if Bush could have stopped 9/11. But it turns out that if you look for the substance in Clarke's attack, it's either not there or it's very moderate. When 9/11 commissioner and former Senator Slade Gorton asked Clarke - conveniently under oath - if Bush had followed every single policy recommendation Clarke had made going back years, whether there was "the remotest chance" al-Qaida could have been foiled on 9/11, Clarke replied succinctly, "No."

As for Clarke's criticism of Bush's post-9/11 policies, it boils down to the fact that Clarke opposed the Iraq war. That's fine, but he offers nothing new there.

But one new thing Clarke did add was that apology. Now, I know that among Clarke's detractors, his mea culpa was offensive not only for its obvious arrogance but for its grandstanding. I tend to agree. But, it was also something a lot of Americans wanted to hear from . someone, even Clarke.

I don't think Bush owes anybody a personal apology. He has zero moral culpability in the mass murder perpetrated by al-Qaida. But he does have official accountability as the head of the executive branch. And it seems to me that the executive branch - and the other branches and the media, for that matter - all failed on 9/11. The job description of all of these institutions say that they should have been on top of one of the most important developments in American history - and they weren't. My evidence: a lot of dead Americans.

Unfortunately, the administration seems to think that admitting any fault, even institutional fault, will cause confidence in Bush's leadership to evaporate. I just don't think that's true. Recognizing the obvious fact that mistakes were made is reassuring to most people because it reveals that someone understands what needs to be fixed. I think the White House has a very good grasp on what needs to be fixed, but they have a poor grasp at how to communicate the progress they're making - in Iraq and in our own government.

Which brings me to the case for Bush's re-election. When you strip out the biliousness from Clarke's charges, one thing comes through loud and clear: The Bush team didn't adjust to the dangers of al-Qaida quickly enough. They were clearly putting the right policies in place, but they had to learn on the job. They eventually accepted almost all of Clarke's recommendations, including an all-out assault on Afghanistan after 9/11. In fact, it was Condoleezza Rice who insisted on keeping Clarke on board in the White House in order to maintain "continuity" between the administrations. Clarke repaid her by saying she'd "ignored" the threat of terrorism.

Well, if this administration, brimming with all of these alleged hawks and cowboys - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz - still needed to get up to speed on the terrorist threat, do we really believe that John Kerry won't need even more on-the-job-training? Even if Kerry were as hawkish on terror as Bush - or even Clarke - he would still need to bone up. Unfortunately, Kerry's not only not up to speed, but he's actually committed to the notion that this isn't even a war on terrorism so much as a job for law enforcement. Do we really want him to learn the error of his ways on the job?

Link

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,355 • Replies: 20

No top replies

The Bush administration made a glaring error. An error we are going to pay for in blood. Whether they could or could not have avoided 9/11 is a matter of conjecture. What is not is the fact that instead of putting maximum effort into the War on terror in Afghanistan they diverted their attention, efforts, men and material to Iraq. Bush should apologize for that catastrophic folly. And than be ridden out of town on a broom.

0 Replies

BBB
This piece was written by Jonah Goldberg, a right wing conservative Republican, obviously trained by his mother, Lucianne Goldberg. You remember Lucianne? She is Linda Tripp's pal re the taping of Linda's conversations with Monica---and vicious Clinton hater.

I think the portion of Goldberg's article about George Bush's failure to take responsibility for his government's failures and missteps in heading in the right direction---just barely. Otherwise, it is just another smear of a whistleblower and a whining attempt to excuse the massive failure of leadership and aberrant and dangerous foreign policy of the Bush administration.

BBB

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The Bush administration made a glaring error. An error we are going to pay for in blood. Whether they could or could not have avoided 9/11 is a matter of conjecture. What is not is the fact that instead of putting maximum effort into the War on terror in Afghanistan they diverted their attention, efforts, men and material to Iraq. Bush should apologize for that catastrophic folly. And than be ridden out of town on a broom.

Yes, he probably should have taken the chance that a few years down the road terrorists would have detonated a WMD in NYC and killed a million people.

0 Replies

au1929
au1929, why waste a good broom that will be needed to sweep the neocons out of the White House? Why not require George W to be carried out of Washington on the backs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. instead. We could have a big farewell parade and blow kisses to them and throw roses at their feet as they depart.

BBB

0 Replies

Brandon9000

Quote:

Yes, he probably should have taken the chance that a few years down the road terrorists would have detonated a WMD in NYC and killed a million people.

That is so much hogwash. The inspections were ongoing and could find no WMD's in Iraq. Why is it that the justification of our attack on Iraq is always that they would supply the non existent WMD's to terrorists? I would imagine we have more to worry about on that score from Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and who knows where else. Why haven't we invaded those nations? That excuse and justification has worn out..

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000

Quote:

Yes, he probably should have taken the chance that a few years down the road terrorists would have detonated a WMD in NYC and killed a million people.

That is so much hogwash. The inspections were ongoing and could find no WMD's in Iraq. Why is it that the justification of our attack on Iraq is always that they would supply the non existent WMD's to terrorists? I would imagine we have more to worry about on that score from Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and who knows where else. Why haven't we invaded those nations? That excuse and justification has worn out..

Given the totality of the history of our long involvement with Iraq and its WMD, the fact that they had existed, that Hussein had lied about them in the past, the fact that Hussein had used them more than once, and also given the fact that even one single use of one WMD could kill a huge, huge number of people, perhaps even a million, some felt that it simply wasn't worth the risk to give Hussein more time - time in which he might have perfected WMD.

One of the reasons why we don't invade North Korea is that we waited too long and they now have atomic weapons. If we attempted to invade, they could kill millions of people almost instantly. We invaded Iraq because we didn't want to take the chance of letting Hussein attain this kind of invulnerability. We don't invade Pakistan because we don't place Musharraf in the same category of evil insanity with Hussein, and because we haven't spent ten years trying to get him to disarm and being lied to. Most people who agree with me don't advocate forcibly disarming everyone with WMD, only people in a category with Hitler, after a long series of attempts to get him to disarm appear to have failed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000
You seem to be blinded to the fact that there were ongoing inspections to assure that Saddam did not have or obtain WMD'S. The UN resolution called for inspections. Saddam had agreed to them and they were ongoing. Why did we invade??
We the American citizen will pay for Bush's folly in the blood of our youth.
I will amend my statement. Bush should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a broom.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, think about what you just posted re Pakistan. Musharraf is a temporary (and tenuous leader) that could be killed, deposed or otherwise removed from office at any moment. Then Pakistan's atomic bomb capability would be in the hands of his opposition, the Taliban-supporting theists. Pakistan is a much more dangerous threat to the US and the world than Iraq ever was. ---And then there is Iran.....

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Brandon

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, think about what you just posted re Pakistan. Musharraf is a temporary (and tenuous leader) that could be killed, deposed or otherwise removed from office at any moment. Then Pakistan's atomic bomb capability would be in the hands of his opposition, the Taliban-supporting theists. Pakistan is a much more dangerous threat to the US and the world than Iraq ever was. ---And then there is Iran.....

BBB

I absolutely agree with you that there are numerous cases in which WMD are in the hands of bad people, questionable people, or are in unstable situations. Iraq was but one case, and we will be faced with many more. You have hit the nail right on the head. Iraq was but the tip of the iceberg.

Consider how easy it would be to sneak a WMD into the US and how much damage even one single use of one WMD could do in a populated area. I most certainly do not advocate demanding that everyone disarm (WMD), although I wish that everyone would. What I am saying is that in extreme cases, like Saddam Hussein to name but one, we must prevent certain people from possessing WMD, and sometimes that will mean invasion.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000
You seem to be blinded to the fact that there were ongoing inspections to assure that Saddam did not have or obtain WMD'S. The UN resolution called for inspections. Saddam had agreed to them and they were ongoing. Why did we invade??
We the American citizen will pay for Bush's folly in the blood of our youth.
I will amend my statement. Bush should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a broom.

I'm not quite as sanguine as you about the effectiveness of those inspections, especially in the case of a country determined to evade them. I would rather forcibly remove one brutal dictator, who was greatly abusing his people anyway, than risk a nuclear detonation or a plague in the United States. When you tar and feather Bush, don't forget to also do it to all the people like me who think he was absolutely right.

0 Replies

Brandon
The US has spent a better part of a year searching for WMD's. The ones that Bush claimed Saddam had. That Saddam was a tyrant and in Bush's words a bad man there is no doubt. But what gives Bush the right to invade a country and take out it's leader. Who appointed the US to be Judge, Jury and executioner?

By the way if you feel slighted we can surely accommodate you on the broom. Laughing

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
The US has spent a better part of a year searching for WMD's. The ones that Bush claimed Saddam had. That Saddam was a tyrant and in Bush's words a bad man there is no doubt. But what gives Bush the right to invade a country and take out it's leader. Who appointed the US to be Judge, Jury and executioner?

By the way if you feel slighted we can surely accommodate you on the broom.

Self-preservation gave us the right. Hussein had had WMD and WMD programs, had lied about them, and had used them. All that's in question is how near to our invasion he had still had them, not whether he had. Since one WMD used one time in the US could kill many, many people, perhaps a million in some cases, and since we have little chance of stopping anyone determined to smuggle them in, the stakes were sky high, and we acted to preclude their future use against us. This exact scenario, in which some dictator seems to be developing WMD and must be stopped, is destined to play out frequently in the near future. And when you do attempt to tar and feather Bush and me, don't forget the millions who agree with us.

0 Replies

Brandon9000

Quote:

Since one WMD used one time in the US could kill many, many people, perhaps a million in some cases, and since we have little chance of stopping anyone determined to smuggle them in, the stakes were sky high, and we acted to preclude their future use against us. This exact scenario, in which some dictator seems to be developing WMD and must be stopped, is destined to play out frequently in the near future

Do I read you correctly are you suggesting that we attack any nation ruled by a dictator who has or has the ability to produce WMD's?
How many Iraq fiasco's or quagmires can this country survive. IMO Bush and company are now looking at each other and asking whose bright idea was it to invade Iraq?

0 Replies

Now you're coming up to speed. Finally, you begin to understand. Here is what I am saying. I will try to make myself as clear as I can. Typically when I say this kind of thing to a liberal, the result is that he misunderstands utterly what I have said, and misquotes me severely. I am hoping that you will attribute to me only what I actually am saying. As clearly as I can say it, here it is.

I am NOT suggesting that we attack any dictator who has the ability to produce WMD. I am suggesting that we attack any dictator who, to the best of our knowledge IS producing WMD. But before we attack him, we should attempt various peaceful means to get him to destroy his WMD and WMD programs. Only if that seems to be failing, or if he seems to be shining us on, should we invade.

I am not, however, suggesting that we attack them if they already have nuclear weapons, or other WMD of comparable destructive power to nuclear weapons. I don't know what to do in this case, since if we attack them after they have nukes, they can use the nukes and kill millions. The ideal situation is to stop them BEFORE they reach the point where they can kill millions easily, not after they reach the point. This is exactly why we did attack Iraq, but did not attack North Korea. North Korea probably already has a few nukes. Whether Hussein did or did not have hidden WMD or hidden WMD programs when we invaded is not the point. The point is that it seemed likely based on the information we had then, and we couldn't take the chance.

Now, you will ask why I advocate invading dictatorships that seem to be well on the road to developing WMD, and with whom peaceful persuasion seems to have failed. I advocate this, because one single WMD smuggled into the US and detonated, be it nuclear or biological, would kill a huge number or people, possibly as many as a million for some WMD. When deciding how far one should go to protect against any threat, two factors are paramount - the likelihood of the threat coming true, and the seriousness of the consequences of the threat coming true. In the case of the use of WMD within the US, the second of these factors, the seriousness of the consequences, is very high indeed. A really deadly and virulent plague in the US, or a nuke detonated in Times Square, would make 9/11 look very tiny indeed by comparison. Therefore, a reasonable likelihood of such a dreadfully serious consequence must be taken very, very seriously.

What will happen if we pursue this policy is debatable, but what will happen if we allow an enemy or a terrorist to send a WMD type 9/11 our way is not.

0 Replies

Brandon9000
Labels will not set you free. I am neither liberal nor conservative but rather am concerned only with the issues. In the past I have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates for president. IMO this is the worst and most destructive presidency of my lifetime. I should note that I have been voting since the first Eisenhower term.
That said lets get to the meat of it.
You seem to suggest that we only attack those nations that we suspect will develop WMD's before the do because we can win but to ignore those that already have them because they are too dangerous. In other words we should behave like a bully. As you may have seen bullies sometimes get their heads handed to them.

Brandon said

Quote:

I am NOT suggesting that we attack any dictator who has the ability to produce WMD's. I am suggesting that we attack any dictator who, to the best of our knowledge IS producing WMD. But before we attack him, we should attempt various peaceful means to get him to destroy his WMD and WMD programs. Only if that seems to be failing, or if he seems to be shining us on, should we invade.

I would submit that was the situation with Iraq and yet we invaded. Inspections were ongoing and no WMD's were uncovered. What was the justification for our unprovoked invasion?
Brandon

Quote:

I am suggesting that we attack any dictator who, to the best of our knowledge IS producing WMD.

Who would you suggest is next? I think Iran fits that profile.

0 Replies

Some seem to think Bush acted unilaterally and on his own initiative when he went after Saddam. The fact is he consulted his advisers, he consulted Congress, and he advised the American public, and he had an overwhelming majority of support from all bodies.

Then we went into the election year and the war is the only thing the Democrats have to pummel him with. Does that make them hypocritical and unethical? Yes. Unusual. No.

And the American public tends to shy away from anything that is costly or difficult or hard to do these days, but I hope there are enough Americans with the intestinal fortitude to stand with the President and show the world that the United States isn't the big wuss the terrorists expected it to be.

The debate about what we should do now is a legitimate debate. But to use the war to demonize George W. Bush is about as disingenuous as it gets.

0 Replies

Congress voted to give him the authorization to attack as a last resort. The question remains had that point been reached and all other options exhausted. I would give that a resounding no.

I should also add the atempt by the administation to tie Saddam to AlQaeda and the terrorist attack to 9/11 was another one of it's big lies.

0 Replies

Then every soul in the Clinton administration and your own favorite, John Kerry, also lied. I don't think anybody did in this matter. Last resort? Where do you get that. I watched the vote. Don't remember that factoring into it.

0 Replies

Congress gives Pres. Bush authority to invade Iraq

President sees overwhelming support from republicans

By Jim Abrams/The Associated Press
Published: Monday, October 14, 2002
WASHINGTON — Shortly after Congress entrusted President Bush with broad powers to use military force to curtail the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, lawmakers appealed to Bush to exhaust diplomatic efforts first.
"The overwhelming consensus," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Friday, is that the president "ought to be very careful about the deployment of military personnel and weaponry."
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said, "The United States must lead the diplomatic high ground and use a multilateral approach to disarmament with the support of friends and allies."
Both voted for the resolution, which Bush is to sign at a White House event Wednesday, accompanied by members of Congress.
The measure won House approval — 296-133 — on Thursday, and Senate passage — 77-23 — shortly after 1 a.m. EDT Friday.
The congressional resolution, modified over weeks of negotiations with the White House, gives the president authority to deal with the ongoing threats from Iraq created by its disregard of past U.N. resolutions.
The backing of Congress fortified Bush in his effort to win U.N. Security Council approval of a new resolution compelling Iraq to submit to unconditional weapons inspections and disarm or face the consequences. The United States and Britain are trying to convince China, France and Russia — the Security Council's other permanent members — of the need for such a resolution.
The bill Congress passed requires Bush to notify Congress, before or within 48 hours after an attack on Iraq, that further diplomatic efforts would not have protected U.S. national security, and to explain to Congress how the military action will not hurt the war on terrorism. It gives the president authority to take unilateral action irrespective of U.N. activities.
The resolution won overwhelming support from Republicans, with only six House Republicans and one senator, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voting against it. But Democrats, many unwilling to give open-ended war-making authority to the president, were far less supportive, with 126 of 208 House Democrats and 21 of 50 in the Senate voting no

0 Replies

Clarke makes a good case - for Bush's re-election

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know