1
   

CONDI PERFORMANCE WON'T HELP BUSH WIN RE-ELECTION

 
 
Titus
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 12:45 pm
Condoleezza Rice didn't embarrass anyone. But her appearance certainly won't help George Bush win re-election

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek

Republicans who had been hoping that Condi Rice would calm the political waters with her testimony to the 9/11 commission have to be Disappointed. Stylistically and tactically she was serviceable. Her voice seemed to quaver at times, but overall she was a confident master of detail, choosing, for the most part, to praise rather than confront the accusatory Richard Clarke. But the larger picture she painted of herself, her president and the administration certainly won't help George W. Bush's re-election chances.

A self-proclaimed expert at understanding "structural" change in large institutions, Rice wasn't aware?-may still not be aware?-that the nature of her job had changed by the time she took over as national-security adviser in January 2001. Reared in the cold war era, she saw herself following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger. "National security" was largely a matter of global state-to-state diplomacy.

In fact, as her predecessor in effect warned her when he was turning over the keys, the model was no longer so much Kissinger as it was, say, Elliott Ness or J. Edgar Hoover. If, as she said, we had been at war with terrorism for 20 years, and if, as she said, the terrorists are determined to attack America, then the NSC chief has to be a ruthless hunter for clues around the world?-and on American soil.

Asked at the hearing why she hadn't pressed the FBI more closely about what it knew, or didn't know, about domestic terrorist threats, Rice acted as though the question was an odd one: it wasn't her job. Well, in retrospect, it was and now certainly is.

Rice identified the chief "structural" problem?-that the CIA and FBI don't share information?-in a speech she gave in October 2000. She even said that the problem could result in a disastrous domestic terrorist attack. And yet, based on her own testimony, she did little or nothing before 9/11 to break down those walls. The student of bureaucratic change didn't really attempt to foment any, at least not with the kind of urgency we know she needed to have.

And Rice's tone before the commission was perhaps too steely: the response to terrorism over the years had been "insufficient," she said. What a bland word when a soothing sense of regret was required. She was a bureaucrat explaining "structure" to a national audience (and a chamber full of family members) that yearned for blunt talk.

Rice, in the end, is just a cog in a machine. The real political question is: how did her testimony enrich in the narrative of what the president did?-or didn't?-know and do about terrorism before September 11? In an interview with Bob Woodward, Bush admitted two years ago that he didn't have a sense of "urgency" about Al Qaeda. He said he wasn't "on point"?-wasn't locked on a target in hunting-dog fashion.

That admission caused few ripples when it was published. But voters now may wish to revisit the remark. Why? Because it's now clear that the president may have had urgent reason to be "on point." Rice was told about Al Qaeda cells by Richard Clarke in February 2001. When, if ever, did she tell the president about them? Bush was given the now-famous presidential daily briefing (PDB) of Aug. 6, 2001, which suggested not only that Osama Bin Laden was "determined " to attack inside the United States but that the FBI had picked up a pattern that suggested the possibility of hijackings here. Did Bush follow up with the FBI? What did he do in the days immediately after getting the document? Rice may insist that it wasn't a "warning," but we'll see soon enough when it's released to the public, as it almost surely will in the days ahead.

Remember the picture of the president in the classroom, being told of the attack by chief of staff Andy Card? The American people thought they were seeing a man suddenly thrust into a grave challenge no one could have anticipated. That won him enormous sympathy and patience from the voters. But what if he was literally on vacation?-at the ranch in Crawford?-when he should have been making sure that someone was ringing alarm bells throughout the bureaucracy?

Already on the defensive for his leadership in the post-9/11 world?-the war in Iraq grows less popular by the day?-Bush now finds himself with questions to answer about his pre-9/11 leadership. He says he's running for re-election as a "war president." But by Rice's own standards, the war was well underway by the time he took office. He was a "war president" the moment he took the oath. But did he act like one? The election may hinge on the answer.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4695438/
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 841 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 12:50 pm
Bush's Call: Eliminate al Qaeda

Posted Apr 9, 2004

Although the liberal press and partisan Democrats will never admit it, the controversy they have stoked in the wake of the publication of former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke's anti-Bush book, Against All Enemies, has backfired. Rather than undercut President Bush's best issue--national security--it has in fact sharpened the President's image as a decisive leader in this area.

No one can seriously maintain that prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government paid sufficient attention to the terrorist threat against us. It obviously did not.

From the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Iran onward, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and under both Republican and Democratic Congresses, the U.S. failed to respond decisively to a long string of terrorist attacks perpetrated against us by radical forces in the Middle East.

President Clinton's most dramatic act of counter-terrorism came after he learned that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate former President Bush by blowing up several square blocks of Kuwait City.

No More Swatting Flies

What did Clinton do? He launched a couple of dozen cruise missiles into the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service--in the wee hours of a Sunday morning, when he could be relatively certain few would be killed.

No doubt about it: September 11, 2001 was a tragic wake up call on a par with December 7, 1941.

But thanks to Richard Clarke--and the detailed testimony his attacks elicited from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice--we now know that even before September 11 President Bush had set the United States on a remarkable new course in dealing with the al Qaeda terrorist group. In his first months in office, Bush decided that rather than answer al Qaeda tit-for-tat, the U.S. would seek to eliminate the group.

"He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time," Rice testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. "He told me he was tired of swatting flies. This new strategy was developed over the spring and summer of 2001 and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration--not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda."

In her testimony, Rice detailed elements of the administration's plan--developed prior to 9/11--to eliminate al Qaeda. Highlights include:

- "The strategy set as a goal the elimination of the al Qaeda network and threat and ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power--intelligence, financial, diplomatic and military--to meet that goal."

- "t directed the secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al Qaeda."

- "It directed the secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al Qaeda and its benefactors."

- "It directed the director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al Qaeda and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating in Afghanistan."

- "It tasked the director of the OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy."

And, crucially, it called on the Pentagon to develop a contingency plan for military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

- "t directed the secretary of Defense to . . . 'ensure that contingency planning processes include plans against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command/control and communications, training and logistics facilities, and against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command/control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers."

By contrast, the standing order on terrorism that President Clinton had left with the military, Rice testified, was "to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial."

What Bush embraced in the months before 9/11 was a long overdue and much-needed sea change in U.S. policy toward terrorism in general and toward al Qaeda specifically. The overt military aspects of it, however, could not have been carried out prior to 9/11 because we would have needed the cooperation of the regime in Pakistan, and prior to 9/11 that regime protected the Taliban, which in turn protected al Qaeda.

Did our national leadership respond too slowly to the threat of al Qaeda? Absolutely. But given what we now know that President Bush did do before 9/11 (as compared to what President Clinton did in his 8 years in office), it is also true that American voters acted too slowly to elect a President decisive enough to take the steps needed to kill the threat.

Voters should not repeat that mistake this November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=3549
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 01:03 pm
Ah yes: back to President Clinton.

I thought 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, but to hear the diversionary tactics used by the Bush loyalists, you'd thought the worst terrorist attack on American soil happened on Clinton's watch -- not!

For the record, al-Qaida planned terrorist attacks during the Atlanta Olympic games, and during the Millennium celebrations which included an attack on Los Angeles International Airport. Both on Clinton's watch.

Guess what? Neither happened. That's because Clinton and his team were on their game despite the GOP-driven witchhunt focusing on his sex life with an intern during the same period.

So please, once and for all stop trying to equate 9/11 with President Clinton. It happened on Bush's watch and only Bush can be held responsible.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 01:28 pm
Bush cannot be held responsible.
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 01:36 pm
"Bush cannot be held responsible." tarantulas

Of course not.

He's Peter Pan -- even at 57 years of age, and as long as he's surrounded by a committed group of pathological enablers, Bush will never be held responsible for anything in his life.

Hey, it's worked this long, why step up to the plate now?
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 01:48 pm
You didn't read the post, did you?
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 01:55 pm
I read the post. I just found much of it irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 02:19 pm
Al Q. Cells
Ms Rice stated that she was aware that there were Al Q cells in the USA but she didn't feel that she needed to do anything about them. I view that as gross negligence!!!
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 02:22 pm
That would probably be the responsibility of the FBI, wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 03:18 pm
Rice aside, I believe both the FBI and CIA receive budgets in the $30 billion dollar category from Congress.

I am honestly stunned that despite the enormous resources at each agency's disposal, neither agency appeared capable of performing its mission, which I presume is protecting the USA.

Maybe both the CIA and FBI should be privatized? It couldn't result in any worse. Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CONDI PERFORMANCE WON'T HELP BUSH WIN RE-ELECTION
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 08:37:49