Trying to reconcile Democrats on 9/11 and Iraq

[igloo]

They Left Him No Choice

Trying to reconcile Democrats on 9/11 and Iraq.

by Joel Engel

11/17/2005 7:20:00 AM

THE MAN who positioned himself as the anti-Chamberlain has nonetheless allowed his presidency to be hijacked by appeasement. For two years, he appeased those who shouted ever louder that he lied about why we went to war in Iraq. At first, no doubt, the president saw those claims as too ridiculous to merit any kind of response; doing so would've seemed beneath the office.

But in not reacting, as President Clinton used to do almost daily to his political adversaries, President Bush has allowed the Big Lie chorus to drown out the rest of the country. It's gotten so loud that polls now show nearly half the populace believing our president can't be trusted. Which is of course why he and his advisers have at last gone on the offensive, pointing out that his critics in Congress saw the same data he saw and yet voted to grant him their blessings to send out the troops.

The facts are on the president's side, as numerous commentators have elucidated with supreme skill. Prominent among them: Norman Podhoretz eviscerates each of the critics' ludicrous claims, and Christopher Hitchens details the cynicism and credulousness one would have to suffer from in order to believe the Big Lies. As Stephen F. Hayes has pointed out, the case can be made that opposition politicians are cynically playing with our security.

So there's no need here to gild any lilies.

There is, though, a need to remember what transpired before the war--in fact,

soon after the towers fell. And what happened was this declaration, from the mouth of Rep. Cynthia McKinney while the ashes were still smoldering: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11?"

Farfetched as the claim may have seemed--the utterance of a leftist conspiracy wacko--the Georgia congresswoman was the first but would not be the last to accuse President Bush of having purposefully ignored intelligence that predicted the imminent use of hijacked planes as missiles.

Echoed Senator Hillary Clinton soon thereafter--from the Senate floor, no less: "What did Bush know and when did he know it."

Ditto Howard Dean. The then-presidential candidate passed along the "theory"--as he called it--on WAMU radio that Bush "was warned ahead of time by the Saudis." (Later came the pronouncements of former Nixon aide John Dean. Promoting a book about the Bush administration titled Worse Than Watergate, the convicted felon wrote that the president "likely" ignored "the potential of terrorists [to fly] airplanes into skyscrapers.")

A headline in the New York Times declared, "Bush Was Warned Bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes," which was what the Washington Post confirmed with its "Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers." These stories, among many, referred to comments by co-chair of the 9-11 commission Thomas Kean, synopsizing the first findings which suggested that the attacks could have been prevented.

The clamor inevitably reached the morning TV chat fests (Katie Couric: "What did Bush know and when did he know it?") and the rest of the zeitgeist, growing so pervasive that it sounded like hillside coyotes celebrating a kill. Its apotheosis would later appear in the person of Richard Clarke, former National Security Council chief of counter-terrorism. His bestselling book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, received much media attention for his claims that the president and his team had remained willfully ignorant of the threat posed by al Qaeda.

Remember all this? Sure you do.

What you may not remember was that the source of all this hysteria was a single Presidential Daily Briefing, given to the president on August 6, 2001. The report said nothing about hijacked planes being flown into buildings and indeed admitted that "some of the more sensational threat reporting" could not be corroborated. It did, however, refer to bin Laden's stated goals of bringing the fighting to America--claims made by bin Laden himself on national television three years before--as well as the luckily foiled millennium bomber of 1999 and the African embassy bombings a year earlier.

It seems churlish but necessary to mention that these events happened under the previous president's watch, and that the millennium bombing plot in particular was played down immediately afterward by then-National Security adviser Sandy Berger, who assured the country that it was not part of a more concerted effort to attack America. Yet an after-action report--possibly the one he later pilfered while "preparing"--suggested that this had likely been confirmation of al Qaeda's presence in the United States.

For their part, the mainstream media credulously reported Berger's and Clinton's assurances. Likewise, in early 2001, when the all-too-prescient Hart-Rudman commission issued its "Roadmap for National Security: Imperative for Change," a 150-page report stating that terrorists were already preparing to strike American soil, the media either ignored or gave short shrift to its findings: "States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and some will use them. Americans will likely

die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." Yet the New York Times reported not a word of the report, and even turned down an op-ed written by the commission chairs, formers senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman.

Now comes early 2003. Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with his 17th United Nations resolution by, as even Hans Blix agreed, not providing a complete and detailed list of all WMD and ballistic missile capabilities (remember: it was up to him to come clean, not up to us to seek and find the weapons). The resolution (1441) has threatened "serious consequences" for failure to comply, but the French and Russians, their Security Council palms greased by oil-for-food bribes, are whispering in Saddam's ear that they won't go along with any military action and that, in fact, there's a good chance they can get the 12-year-old sanctions against him lifted. Indeed, this reflects a growing consensus of world opinion.

Back in Washington, the president and Congress have access to bales full of intelligence from around the world stating that Hussein has an active WMD program, including biological, chemical, and probably nuclear capabilities. Even the Egyptians are warning the president that Iraq is well-armed and dangerous. The Senate, having viewed that intelligence and consulted with international leaders, is on the record, both verbally and with a vote, as supporting the notion that Saddam Hussein needs to go before he attacks America.

Now what?

Well, even if you buy the Democrats' new claim that, as Senator John Kerry said, "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence," you're inconveniently stuck with the fact that a vast preponderance of that intelligence, rightly or wrongly, pointed unambiguously toward Iraq's status as a rogue state.

Think about this from the president's point of view: Much of the country is calling for your head regarding your alleged failure to prevent 9/11 when no firm intelligence predicted such a thing. Do you really have any choice but to act on the overwhelming amount of clear evidence that says bad things are happening beneath hidden bunkers in Iraq? No. You have no other way out than to fight preemptively. If you don't, well, heaven forbid another attack is made on American soil--with grotesque weapons that came out of Iraq after sanctions were lifted and Saddam's WMD program was reconstituted (as the Duelfur Report later extrapolated).

At his impeachment trial, shortly before conviction, the president would have been made to endure a verbatim recitation of the many dire warnings about Iraq and Saddam Hussein uttered by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and Madeline Albright. "Iraq is a long way from [here]," Secretary of State Albright said on February 18, 1998, "but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Joel Engel is an author and journalist in Southern California.

[igloo]

Another great article that cleary points out REALITY is this digusting game of politics being played......the hypocrisy being displayed is so unbearable....

I have always maintained that if Clinton took the same exact approach, the Dems, left, and Hollywood would be marching in the streets to have his name carved in a mountain for the noble cause of spreading freedon amd democracy in the Middle East......

Remarkable that the same people who shamelessly promoted the baseless "What did Bush know" losing campaign about 9/11, and screamed about that Bush "did not connect the dots" are the same people now who are screaming because Bush connected the dots.......bottom line: these Dems and those on the left are, and always have, done everything they can to undermine the Administration...that is not a biased view but fact....to say anything different is being blind. But at a time of war, when our soldiers are in harm's way, makes me ashamed of these "Americans".....

[jtk4]

The problem with the "we all saw the same data" is that the administration gave that data to congress. It was their resposibility to make sure the data was accurate before it was given to the public and to congress. The problem was that the data was not accurate and their was rumors that some was even altered. But i do agree that we are better with saddam getting pummeled in jail. lol

[igloo]

The problem with the "we all saw the same data" is that the administration gave that data to congress. It was their resposibility to make sure the data was accurate before it was given to the public and to congress. The problem was that the data was not accurate and their was rumors that some was even altered. But i do agree that we are better with saddam getting pummeled in jail. lol

Son, do you really believe that? That is horrible. But if you do, let me point out an excellent point made in the article:

Well, even if you buy the Democrats' new claim that, as Senator John Kerry said, "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence," you're inconveniently stuck with the fact that a vast preponderance of that intelligence, rightly or wrongly, pointed unambiguously toward Iraq's status as a rogue state.

Here is the BOTTON LINE, irrespective of the shameful politics being played on this subject: EVERYONE--Clinton administration, Congress, CIA, U.N., Arab intelligence services, weapons inspectors, etc.....EVERYONE believed he had WMD

It was incumbent on Iraq to PROVE they had destroyed known stockpiles, and they did not.....PERIOD. I will take the "connecting of the dots" by this administration over the word of Saddam Hussein. Period.

What Congress should do is stop wasting time debating what is a INTELLIGNCE FAILURE BY EVERYONE, and figure out how to reduce the probability of it happening again....let's not forget in 1991 that our intelligence services vastly UNDERESTIMATED Saddam's capabilities, let alone missing Pakistan's nucelar capabilities and AQ Khan's network etc......

It's funny, that you mention this adminstration shoudl have made sure the information was accurate before given to the public....one problem with that thought---IT IS INTELLIGENCE, it is not perfect..........funny how the Clinton team uses the excuse that during the late 1990's, it didn't act against AL Qaeda and specifically Bin Laden because the data was not perfect....well, we all know how that worked out.......

Bush did not lie and he did not mislead the public.....to say different is the real great lie.............they were wrong, horribly wrong....and I will also point out that WMD was one of the reasons for this war....a major one, but just one....AS VDH pointed out in his article, Congress, yes Congress drafted 22 reasons why teh war was justified...

And of course, when Bush said one of those justifications for this war was bringing democracy to Iraq, he was mocked for that......now, the very same people who mocked him conveniently forget that little fact...

And here is my final thought--this WMD debate going on right now is political opportunism at best, and at worst, shameful undermining of this war and effort.........this country, and politicians, better pull their heads out of their ass, and get it together

[jtk4]

I am not saying he lied, he believed the intel to be legit, and went to war. End of story The point is he brought the info to congress to support the war, the agreed according to the info that the administration supplied. The info turned out to be wrong and do you think that the scumbags in congress were going to let bush get away with "misleading" them.

This is the way it works, don't come in here and cry foul and be disgusted at democrats when you know the republicans would do the same if it was a democrat president.

son

[igloo]

I am not saying he lied, he believed the intel to be legit, and went to war. End of story The point is he brought the info to congress to support the war, the agreed according to the info that the administration supplied. The info turned out to be wrong and do you think that the scumbags in congress were going to let bush get away with "misleading" them.

This is the way it works, don't come in here and cry foul and be disgusted at democrats when you know the republicans would do the same if it was a democrat president.

son

Son ....

Bush did not mislead Congress. That is so laughable it is absurd to even promote that. You are smarter than that.

Now, you make a point about Republicans behaving in the same way.....perhaps.......but right now, the reality is the Dems are acting reprehensibly....and BTW--In all my posts, I have indicated both sides of teh house disgust me

[jtk4]

I had "misleading" in qutoes to say I did not think that way. I guess its more of this is how the game is played, they agreed to something that turns out was not true. So now its well I voted because they said that blablabla. But I will not bash people because that is how 90% of both parties would of played the game.

[drlogic]

I had "misleading" in qutoes to say I did not think that way. I guess its more of this is how the game is played, they agreed to something that turns out was not true. So now its well I voted because they said that blablabla. But I will not bash people because that is how 90% of both parties would of played the game.

Maybe? Still doesn't justify it, by any means!(If I had wheels and pedals, I'd be bicycle) Shame on them!

I keep getting this picture in my head of America eventually succeeding in Iraq and there being positive reprocusions of that success, world wide. I then imagine how the history books will tell the story? The world will be judged for how they reacted to the threat of terrorism. Sorry to say, I think it's going to be a dark chapter in Ameircan history for the democrats. History will not be kind to those misguided pacifists who aided and abetted(willfully or out of pure ignorance).

[igloo]

Maybe? Still doesn't justify it, by any means!(If I had wheels and pedals, I'd be bicycle) Shame on them!

I keep getting this picture in my head of America eventually succeeding in Iraq and there being positive reprocusions of that success, world wide. I then imagine how the history books will tell the story? The world will be judged for how they reacted to the threat of terrorism. Sorry to say, I think it's going to be a dark chapter in Ameircan history for the democrats. History will not be kind to those misguided pacifists who aided and abetted(willfully or out of pure ignorance).

Or, these same shameful hypocrites will suddenly have their memories jarred, and go back to their original quotes on Saddam, WMD, and how they supported the war...........funny how those things happen......

[drlogic]

Or, these same shameful hypocrites will suddenly have their memories jarred, and go back to their original quotes on Saddam, WMD, and how they supported the war...........funny how those things happen......

Maybe?

Bro, not for nothing but...........your 2nd reply to JTK4 was fucking out of hand! A lot of passion in that one and very little wiggle room, if any left for debate.

Great post dude! The articles are usually excellent, but BIG-UP to that 2nd reply!

Respect!

[igloo]

Maybe?

Bro, not for nothing but...........your 2nd reply to JTK4 was fucking out of hand! A lot of passion in that one and very little wiggle room, if any left for debate.

Great post dude! The articles are usually excellent, but BIG-UP to that 2nd reply!

Respect!

jtk4 is cool....a little misguided at times. but cool...I just need to get him pointed in the right direction when he goes astray

Thanks for the compliment.....this so-called debate, or revisionist history, serves NO USEFUL PURPOSE right now.....unless the goal is cheap political opportunism, to damage the morale of our troops in harm's way, or to embolden our enemies by confirming their belief that the U.S. has no resolve, and is indeed a "paper tiger"..........

The Bush lied campaign is an absolute disgusting disservice to this country propogated by those who are blinded in their hate of this President, and offers nothing meaningful to the debate, or any alternative or valuable suggestions or ideas...and drowns out what should be a time for meaningful and inportant discussion and debate...

Problem is the Dems (some) and left would rather Bush be wrong so they can say "I told you so" than see this country be successful.........that is the bottom line

[drlogic]

Sad but true.

I'm surrounded by liberals @ my job. They love to try to engage me (especially, when they're all together, they gang up!) and I fucking welcome it!

The moment I start dropping FACT BOMBS on 'em, they scatter like roaches! "yeah whatever, you Bush-Lover, get ready for Hillary in '08, another soldier died today, you must feel so proud",,,,etc..etc..etc...(as they walk away...........)

As a matter of fact, I DO! Feel proud as fuck for all our folks fighting this fight! This shit's personal for me! 4 REAL!

To them, it's just another passing joke @ happy hour.........COMPLETELY CLUELESS! Dangerously misguided!

Regardelss, keep it up!

Have a happy Gobble-Gobble

[igloo]

Sad but true.

I'm surrounded by liberals @ my job. They love to try to engage me (especially, when they're all together, they gang up!) and I fucking welcome it!

The moment I start dropping FACT BOMBS on 'em, they scatter like roaches! "yeah whatever, you Bush-Lover, get ready for Hillary in '08, another soldier died today, you must feel so proud",,,,etc..etc..etc...(as they walk away...........)

As a matter of fact, I DO! Feel proud as fuck for all our folks fighting this fight! This shit's personal for me! 4 REAL!

To them, it's just another passing joke @ happy hour.........COMPLETELY CLUELESS! Dangerously misguided!

Regardelss, keep it up!

Have a happy Gobble-Gobble

You too to you and your family, and all your brave brother and sisters in the military