Democrats & Liberals: Archives

We all see, in the world around us, what we want to see. I have no doubt that were the forces of history to shift by the magnitude that they did after the Cold War ended, the paradigm of the greatest threat to our security would change as well, and people holding the predominant threat of groups like Al Quaeda as recieved wisdom would be taking our foreign policy off course.

Right now, though, it’s those who assume that the tomorrow’s wars can be fought like the Cold War was who are dangerously misguided.

The NeoConservatives are right in that the world has changed, that terrorism has shifted the equation. What they are wrong about, however, is the date. The date where everything changed is February 26, 1993. It was then that Muslim Radicals under the direction of Ramzi Yousef, himself under the direction of his uncle Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, later a mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, detonated a bomb that blew a massive hole in the World Trade Center. They had done this under the auspices of a group that relied on no one country for it’s money or arms, but instead acted of its own accord, in its own interests. This is what the Bush administration failed to grasp: that American national security could be threatened by a group without another nation backing them up.

This is not a war that’s going to be won merely with military might. This a war that will take place actively on every concieveable front, only sometimes becoming a military task. We not only have firefights to win, but battles of propaganda, diplomacy, criminal investigation and prosecution, and intelligence as well. Unfortunately, this administration does not have the flexibility of thought to win the battles on all these fronts.

I’m not sure how, or even why the Republicans claim that terrorism was their main focus pre-9/11.

During the 2000 campaign, Gore and Bush were asked what they thought was the biggest threat to the security of the United States. Gore said terrorism, and Bush said Iraq.

Bush wasn’t “elected” to fight terrorism, so it’s not a down-check to say that it became a priority after the attack, right?

Kathryn:

Sorry for moving my response but the former thread is way down there. Also this thread is definitely related.

It seems to me that what is of concern to many is that what was told at the beginning of the war in Iraq doesn’t appear to be now. We haven’t found WMD. We haven’t captured OBL yet, etc etc.

The War in Iraq is almost exactly what my expectations were at the beginning. In many ways it is more optimistic. The loss of life on both sides has fortunately been much less than I feared.

I expected that the war would cost more than expected and that there would be negative surprizes because there are in every war. That is the very nature of war.

My own “expectation” is that we will be there for 10 years or more. It just seems to me that for democratic institutions to really take root is at least a ten year deal.

If we had waited until now to go to war, we never would have gotten it done. Right now, terror ranks third in the publics mind of concerns behind the economy and health care. So if the war had not been waged a year ago, I doubt it would have been done at all.

Problems are usuall traded for other problems. We solved a problem going into Iraq and have created others. The problem as I said earlier was UN resolutions that were never backed up. And a history of backing down by the world body whenever contfronted by terror. Or at least an insignificant response.

Now, rogue nations know there are limits. In exchange for that, we have all of the problems that you have outlined. Our credibility overseas, etc. I am not sure I would trade back if I had that chance. I think the message given to rogue nations has been clear.

I would like us to pull out of Germany and Japan etc, since it seems our nation building is done there and use those troops for iraq, but that is another thread.

All the best,

Craig

It sounds like those expectations are still on the rosy side, since there have already been 600 soldiers killed (and counting) and we and Iraq faces an unstable June 30 “pull-out” date that no one has figured out yet.

Also, I think many people like to feel better by relying on that “rogue nations now know their bounds” rumor, but that doesn’t make it true.

It seems to make no difference what the Bush administration did or did not do to prevent 9/11, those that support Bush are not going to admit that he is wrong for the office, so arrogant is the righteousness of their stance. Will this disclosure make a difference? Sadly, probably not. I will not say that I have completely lost faith in my fellow Americans to think critically and make decision based on what I good for the nation, but I am rapidly approaching that off-ramp.

Edward:

Kerry was interviewed right after 9/11. He stated that they on the Senate panel including himself did not do enough to prevent terror. Ann Coulter in her column today goes back to Jimmy Carter and includes each president up until now. She of course is heavy on the “it’s the liberal’s fault” , but if you take that out of the picture and look back over the last 30 years there is plenty of blame to go around.

CH

Democrats keep focusing on Bush and national defence and Bush keeps gaining points in the polls. Americans do not see [Edited by Watchblog Mgr.] John Kerry as an alternative in the war on terror. Remember he already lost us a war. Apart from that yesterday I heard Kerry had his prostate removed last year. What’s this all about? I googled Kerry and prostate. It is true. [Edited by Watchblog Mgr.]

“Democrats keep focusing on Bush and national defence and Bush keeps gaining points in the polls.”
What polls is bush gaining in?

“Is any testosterone driven soldier going to respect the Commander in Chief who can’t even make his own little soldier get up and salute?”

they seem to be driven by a president that went awol than lied about it.

> Kerry was interviewed right after 9/11. He
> stated that they on the Senate panel including
> himself did not do enough to prevent terror.

If the Bush administration and its surrogates weren’t so busy blaming the Clinton administration, maybe they would be able to admit the same thing instead of being so darn defensive about it.

Craig, you’re right, there is plenty of blame to go around. Lots of people made mistakes over the years. Bush and his team are among those people, but they seem dead set on making sure that those mistakes are not discussed.

The reason for their secretiveness, I think, is a combination of two factors: 1) their mistakes may have been a wee bit more egregious than their predecessors’ mistakes were, and 2) they are insanely paranoid, incapable of contrition, and will do everything they can to stifle dissent and discredit any and all criticism.

-Cf

Ricky, by that rationale, Bill Clinton must be the best president ever. Agreed?

I have no idea where you get such ideas, but here goes.

Yes, such surgery can cause temporary problems of that sort. Temporary. If he got the right surgeons, though, he doesn’t even have to worry about that. He’d only have to worry about becoming a Eunuch, though, if the surgeon’s knife had a freak slippage, because that would require the removal of his testicles. I doubt a surgeon would be so careless with Kerry.

But anyways, what’s the big deal? Are you that out of substantive arguments that you’re sending these kinds of arguments down the pipeline?

Comment deleted for Critiquing the Messenger — WatchBlog Manager

That’s sad that those opposed to Kerry are having such a hard time attacking him that they are looking into his prostrate…

Looking into Kerry’s prostrate…yuck. But hopefully they’ll extract that stick while they’re at it. :)

Of course “terrorism” wasn’t the top priority of the Bush administration—but neither would it be correct to say that it wasn’t a priority. Fighting terrorism is a matter of national security, and the president, any president, is constantly briefed and made aware of potential threats as our security agencies are made aware of them. Why whatever threats were out there weren’t adequately detected—if that was even possible—is hopefully a question the 9-11 commission will be able to answer so we can fix problems with intelligence gathering and sharing. Finger-pointing and partisan Monday morning quarterbacking is a huge distraction to answering thes all important questions.

I agree, Martin, that finger-pointing is a huge distraction to answering the important questions. This report in the Wash. Post doesn’t do that, though. Instead, it shows that the Bush Administration was not even heading in the right direction to defend America against terrorism, but was focused on “rogue states” like Iraq before 9/11, despite this being denied by them.

Kerry’s prostate problem is TRUE. Check it on google. You cannot censor me for telling the truth. (I guess you can, but still the truth is the truth)
I wasn’t critiquing the messenger.

Yes you were! And since you obviously have either no understanding of what the policy is or no intention of abiding by our policy, your participation here is no longer welcome. —-WatchBlog Manager —

Okay, “focusing on rogue states” is a distraction now instead of part of the president’s job description? I direct your attention to the following—and please notice that it’s dated 1998, long before Bush was president. This is only an excerpt (the full document is widely available on the web.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338)

October 31, 1998

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

And so on…. Bush was just doing his job if he was focused on Iraq—in fact, he was continuuing policies well established under Clinton.

Ricky, there’s a such thing as picking your battles, and Kerry’s Prostrate troubles, especially in that Locker Room “can’t get it up” sense of it just struck me as low on the list of topics I’d consider important and credible to the political debate.

As for the missile shield, as of right now, we can take a passing potshot at it and that’s about it. In order to get this missile defense thing going, the Republicans had to significantly lowball the standard of evidence for a missile attack from likely to possible.

The old reports suggested it was very unlikely that Korea could develop that kind of technology unnoticed, and get it working in any significant way. Basically it’s an alarmist stance to take, and one that distracts from Al Quaeda’s current, more prevalent threat to American lives.

If you want to be scared of some elevator-shoe wearing pompadoured totalitarian freak like Kim Jong Il, be my guest. His country is in no condition to fight a war, his missiles are unreliable, and he has not proved his country can kick something a sufficient distance for it to be a threat to US shores.

Martin-
You’ve never heard of the ‘98 letter that Wolfowitz and others sent to Bill Clinton? The signatories of that letter included many of the same people who now run our country’s defense department. The contents of that letter urge a stronger, more hardline attitude towards Iraq, and the removal of Saddam Hussein. It is indeed a startling coincidence that Bush’s Administration has taken that course of action as suggested by the letter, where Clinton did not. Therefore, the two policies must be seen as distinct, and the actors who play a role in this must be seen as separate factions in the regime change camp from those in the Clinton Administration.

Also, it’s worth pointing out what Clarke’s book and other sources have confirmed and that is that the Clinton Administration placed higher priority on counterterrorism than the Bush administration. More funds, more dedicated policy machinery, more personal presidential treatment of the issue.

So I would argue the Bush administration shelved counter terrorism as a top priority, and set aside Clinton’s regime change policies for their more radical versions of the idea.

You sure about that, Stephen? And if Kim Jong Il, that pompadoured totalitarian freak DOES hit us, Democrats have already demonstrated that they’ll blame Republicans for having ignored the threat, for overlooking what was oh-so-obvious to them (Democrats). And all the while conveniently forget their own obstructionism when it came to preparing.

Once upon a time nobody thought a two-bit cave-hopping thug like Osama bin Laden (with his ridiculous pompadour tucked into a turban) would have managed to destroy the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans.

So the old Democratic pattern reemerges—first they don’t take a threat seriously, but after (and only after) the threat hits home, they blame everybody else for not seeing the obvious. Classic.

If you want to be scared of some elevator-shoe wearing pompadoured totalitarian freak like Kim Jong Il, be my guest. His country is in no condition to fight a war, his missiles are unreliable, and he has not proved his country can kick something a sufficient distance for it to be a threat to US shores.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty

—-This is the reason Democrats and Kerry can not be trusted with homeland defense. Next time be factual. Not Gullible. Nuclear holocaust in America perpetrated by a rogue state should be of paramount concern. Bin Laden or no Bin Laden.

(quote about North Korean missiles)
The US DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) estimates that the Taepo Dong-2 ICBM has a range of about 4,650 miles with large warheads and 6,200 miles with smaller warheads. At the extreme of 6,200 miles, the missile could reach all major West Coast cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,,,) and reach as far east as Chicago.

Prostrates and “totalitarian freak” and “cave-hopping thug” talk does not a safer country make…

Martin-

Once upon a time nobody thought bin Laden would have managed to destroy the twin towers, but THEN they realized he could, and they tried to get the administrations to focus on that.

What we are hearing is that Clinton and his administration recognized the threat bin Laden posed even if they could have done more to combat that threat. We are also hearing that Bush devalued the importance of focusing on Al Qaida and focused his attention on things that the experts were telling him were not serious threats at the time.

There are people employed by the administration whose job it is to pay attention to things like who the big threats are at any given time, and it’s the President’s job to listen to those people. We are being told that Bush was advised to pay more attention to Al Qaida.

Our assessments of the threats are based on what we are being told by those who had the information necesssary to evaluate those things. We’re not just assessing the threats after the fact. Before the fact, the people who were charged with knowing knew that Al Qaida was the biggest National Security issue. Sandy Berger told Condi Rice that she would spend the bulk of her time on that issue.

If we should have been most worried about Kim Jong Il, I’m sure that Bush would have been advised to focus on him.

Ricky,

Isn’t the US DIA the same agency that claimed there were WMD’s in Iraq? The answer would be yes.

Bush has politisized and vastly overstated the levels of threat in order to forward a neo con ideology. The credibility is gone along with the WMD’s. The ol nuclear threat is the Ace card in the deck, always sure to get the paranoia rolling.

BTW, while we were fulfilling the neo con agenda on Iraq (priority one on the national security agenda) Pakastan was selling nuclear materials to N. Korea. Where were we during this???

Craig-

Thanks for moving your response, because I think that these differences between the candidates is a debate worth continuing. I want to emphasize that I understand that there are large groups of Americans who simply want fundamentally different forms of government. Hence, I respect that there are plenty of people who actually want completely different things from what I want. So I don’t condemn you if you support the Iraq war, I just completely disagree with you, but as much as I’m entitled to hate the war, you’re entitled to support it.

I agree with you when you say that there is a concern about the difference between the reasons we were given for the war a year ago and the reasons we are given today. I think it is important for the administration to tell the American people and the rest of the world why it is going to war.

First of all, it’s important for the American people to feel that their democracy is intact. Our support for or opposition to the war is expressed through our elected representatives, and we need to know the reasons that the President wants to lead us to war in order to tell our representatives how we want them to vote.

Second of all, it’s important for the rest of the world to understand our foreign policy so that we can foster and maintain peace in the world to the maximum extent possible. I see that you argue that the world now understands us on a whole new level, but I’ll return to that issue in a moment.

Third of all, it’s important for the strength of our military that we are honest and clear about our military objectives. Not only do we owe it to the men and women who are already enlisted and putting their lives on the line for these issues, but we need to do this if we expect more people to enlist in the military. We will have a much more difficult time recruiting people if they cannot trust that the President to tell them the true reasons that they are risking thier lives.

As for the issue of sending a message to the world, what message are we sending by invading Iraq now? That we are willing invade entire countries just to overthrow bad men? In the 2000 election Bush said that he was not in favor of nation building. The “post 9-11 world” doesn’t require that we begin to invade every country whose leader happens to be a horrible person. Are we going to invade North Korea next? When does it become ok to invade an entire country because we really hate their leader? I think that if the Republican party is so concerned about “important principles” and setting precidents, I think they should take a careful look at what they are doing in Iraq.

I’m not opposed to all military action, and as I have said, the war in Afghanistan was good, and if we had focused our efforts there long enough to do a thorough job of what we started, I think that sends a much stronger message to the world.

To me, the message we have sent to the rest of the world is “watch out, because if we are attacked, we’ll attack those who attacked us for a little while, and then we’ll pick a nice juicy other country that we have serious problems with, and we’ll piggy back off of the support for our initial military action against the real enemies in order to invade that place second. So basically, all countries should band together to ensure that no country or group ever attacks America, becuase there’s no telling who we’ll retaliate against.”

I’ve just finished reading Mr. Clinton’s SOU messages. Until 1996, his only references to security were of the “social” variety.

In 1966, he spoke of terrorism … the home-grown variety: the Oklahoma City bombing. There was no mention of terrorism in his 1967 SOU.

In 1998, Mr. Clinton’s mentions of terrorism were coupled with comments about Sadam Hussein; as they were in 1999. In 2000, he again mentioned Hussein (and Iran and North Korea).

Nowhere can I find mention of alQuieda or ANY organized terrorist organizations. There’s most assuredly NO mention of binLaden. But there are repeated mentions of Hussein.

To be perfectly fair to Clarke, perhaps he’s only overinflating his importance during the Clinton administration: perhaps he didn’t really have the stroke to input the shaping of Mr. Clinton’s SOUs.

On the other hand, perhaps Clarke really did have access to Mr. Clinton’s ear. Perhaps his administration really DID realize the threat of alQuieda and just didn’t choose to tell the American people about it via the SOUs to the nation.

If that’s the case and Clarke had input, perhaps someone should ask him why he advised the focus on Hussein, instead of AlQuieda or binLaden, in Mr. Clinton’s SOUs

Am I going crazy or are the previous posts shuffling around to make this thread look like some scene out of the Twilight Zone where people are responding to points before they’re raised and answering questions before they’re asked? I’m not complaining mind you—it makes for a surreal and mind-expanding experience.

Puff the magic Dragon….

Kathyrn,

I appreciated your non-strident answers to others …wish I were capable of the same.

I really like the all important topic of “Just what kind of message are we delivering to the rest of the world”.

We are already handicapped with a geographic isolation (relative to many other places in the world where you can traverse multiple borders in a day) which limits our access to other countries perspectives.

Among the contextual pieces we miss…the impact of our blind support of Israel on the rest of the world. I can’t begin to factor this into the discussion.

In the case of Iraq, there were so many countries that were violently opposed to our action, including those for whom Sadam should have posed the greatest threat. We either have ignored this or don’t care.

The message this sends: We are the biggest meanest kid on the playground, so we get all the marbles and the hell with the rest of you.

Other lesson the world has learned: The US will ignore allies, friendly coutries and world governing organizations in the furtherence of goals that are completely unrelated to our security… goals which look a whole lot more like oil, hegemony, and nation building.

And then there is the treatment of the Republican faithful (Clarke, O’Neill). Lesson learned:

Agree with us or we will seek to ruin you. (a Cheney quote to Kofi Anan “We will discredit you if we have to”)

Those in this discussion who believe we are providing more noble lessons are deluding themselves.

Martin,

I take responsibility. But now I must discredit you.

Okay George. Let me have it.

Sammi,

You may want to compare the 2000 Republican Party Platform, which makes only one tangential mention of terrorism at all, with the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, in which terrorism is mentioned a dozen times, and it’s discussed in detail, including a specific name-check of Osama bin Laden himself.

> perhaps Clarke really did have access to Mr. Clinton’s ear.
> Perhaps his administration really DID realize the threat of
> alQuieda and just didn’t choose to tell the American people
> about it via the SOUs to the nation.

I think this is in fact the case. Talking about the international terrorist threat was something that both the Bush and Clinton administrations — and the Democratic and Republican members of Congress — all seemed to make a conscious effort to avoid. It’s almost like a serious discussion about America’s vulnerability to terrorism was verboten. The 9/11 Commission is looking into why the topic wasn’t addressed. Was it really a generally accepted principle among our leadership on both sides that terrorism wasn’t a good thing to talk about? Clinton may have felt that mentioning terror in the SOU might appear alarmist. Many Republicans, in fact, felt free to ridicule the President for trying to pass any anti-terror legislation that wasn’t Saddam-related.

There are three possibilities:
(a) politicians thought that terrorism wasn’t really a threat at all, or they didn’t think about it much,
(b) they did think it was a threat but not enough of a threat to do much about it,
(c) they recognized the threat but figured that they’d do something about it only after something terrible happened.

Most politicians (in both parties!) seem to fall somewhere near (b), but to varying degrees.

Did these politicians think that taking concrete, visible steps to alert the public about the terrorist threat — or even concrete steps to actually try to prevent terror, such as the obvious need for sky marshalls and tighter airport security — would create politically unpopular burdens on the American people (such as long lines and high prices)? Did they calculate that the potential cost of such an attack (which, one suspects, they never thought would be 3,000 people) would not be worth the economic impact of diverting billions of domestic and military funding towards fighting terror?

I hope we find this out. As had been said over and over again, the events of 9/11 were truly an indictment of the entire American political and social climate.

> If Clarke had input, perhaps someone should ask him
> why he advised the focus on Hussein, instead of
> AlQuieda or binLaden, in Mr. Clinton’s SOUs

Beleive it or not, maybe Clinton actually thought that Saddam was a threat too, in addition to Al Qaeda. Maybe Clinton was, in fact, working on both threats at the same time instead of just one of them. Also, perhaps Clinton felt a need to more publicly focus on Saddam because Saddam was the perpetual subject of political pressure from the very think tanks that now occupy the White House - that it, he was responding to the previously-mentioned pressure from the neocon think tanks who thought Saddam was America’s greatest threat.

-Cf

> Until 1996, his only references to security were
> of the “social” variety. In 1996, he spoke of
> terrorism … the home-grown variety: the Oklahoma
> City bombing.

Sammi, you are so busted!

Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union discusses the need to sanction “states that harbor terrorists”. And the the 1995 State of the Union discusses in great detail the danger of terrorism “at home or abroad”:

Accordingly, last night I signed an Executive order that will block the assets in the United States of terrorist organizations that threaten to disrupt the peace process. It prohibits financial transactions with these groups. And tonight I call on all our allies and peace-loving nations throughout the world to join us with renewed fervor in a global effort to combat terrorism. We cannot permit the future to be marred by terror and fear and paralysis.

The 1996 Address spoke of terrorism “at home or abroad”, too. He mentions Oklahoma city, but it is clear that he is discussing an international threat.

The threats we face today as Americans respect no Nation’s borders. Think of them: terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, drug trafficking, ethnic and religious hatred, aggression by rogue states, environmental degradation. If we fail to address these threats today, we will suffer the consequences in all our tomorrows.

> There was no mention of terrorism
> in his 1967 SOU.

Hm, the 1997 State of the Union does say pretty much nothing. Oh wait, nothing except this:

We are acting to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands and to rid the world of landmines. We are working with other nations with renewed intensity to fight drug traffickers and to stop terrorists before they act and hold them fully accountable if they do… Now we must rise to a new test of leadership, ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. Make no mistake about it, it will make our troops safer from chemical attack; it will help us to fight terrorism.

Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union specifically discusses Osama bin Laden at length:

As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation’s security, including increased dangers from outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden’s network of terror. The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world.

Plus this part, connecting the fight against terror with strong alliances (something this administration has discarded):

So I say to all of you, if we do these things — if we pursue peace, fight terrorism, increase our strength, renew our alliances — we will begin to meet our generation’s historic responsibility to build a stronger 21st century America in a freer, more peaceful world.

Predictably, the Republican response ridicules the president for not building the Star Wars missile sheild:

Terrorists and rogue nations are rapidly acquiring technology to deliver weapons of mass destruction to our very doorstep. Most Americans are shocked to discover that our country is unshielded from the accidental or ruthless launch of even a single missile over our skies. Mr. President, we urge join Congress in establishing a viable missile defense system to protect the United States.

Clearly, the general trend, year after year, was to increase the level of awareness - and action - to fight terrorism.

In his 2000 address, Clinton really brought the issue to the fore, making a prediction that came true all too soon:

A third challenge we have is to keep this inexorable march of technology from giving terrorists and potentially hostile nations the means to undermine our defenses. Keep in mind, the same technological advances that have shrunk cell phones to fit in the palms of our hands can also make weapons of terror easier to conceal and easier to use.

We must meet this threat by making effective agreements to restrain nuclear and missile programs in North Korea; curbing the flow of lethal technology to Iran; preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors; increasing our preparedness against chemical and biological attack; protecting our vital computer systems from hackers and criminals; and developing a system to defend against new missile threats — while working to preserve our ABM missile treaty with Russia. We must do all these things.

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone, but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narco-traffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.

The 2000 Republican response? The same old song:

And to protect our country from terrorist nations, we will build a shield against missile attack.

Finally, let’s look at Bush’s 2001 State of the Union. Here’s his only mention of terrorism. It will sound painfully familiar.

Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century — threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants in rogue nations intent upon developing weapons of mass destruction. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses.

I suspected that you were wrong, Sammi, but even I was shocked by these results. Did you actually look at these SOU addresses, or did you base your pronouncements on something you read elsewhere?

-Cf

Kathryn:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

>

Very mixed. I think the whole free world is deciding what 9/11 means. Like you and I, the free world is debating and redefining the rules. Terrorists using WMD, is something new to all of us.

Here are some:

1. The doctrine of pre-emption has great risks because of limites to intelligence.

2. Small nations who repeatedly violate UN resolutions might be invaded by the US military.

I think in the future both the UN and the US will automatically change. Iraq did make a mockery of the UN.

These bumps along the way are how we learn as a society.

I disagee with you when you say the message is,

“watch out, because if we are attacked, we’ll attack those who attacked us for a little while, and then we’ll pick a nice juicy other country that we have serious problems with,,,,,,”

The WMD issue was real. There were documented Weapons that were unaccounted for. The UN didn’t have the will to follow through, and Iraq, was less than truthful. In addition, our intelligence community flat out blew it. I think at the top our military community feared OBL and people like him connection the dots can linking with Iraq.

“THEE screw up” was a combination of the UN, Iraq and the United States.

I think what we (as in someone like you and like me need to do is focus on what we learned. Inspite of the food fight going on in national poltics, we need each other. We need to come together with what we have learned and agree to some changes or positions that can show the world out of this mess.

You are a woman of moderate and thoughtful responses. The flame throwers and partisons aren’t going to solve this thing, because they can’t see or hear their own weaknesses. Somewhere in the middle, truth lies. That is what I would like to explore.

Specifically, In light of 9/11 what changes need to be made in order for the free world to work together to solve this problem???

thoughts?

Craig

Haha! Good one Cf. Thanks for checking the SOUs. SAMMI… Sammi… sammi…?

The UN didn’t have the will to follow through

Craig, I’d just like to point out that the UN doesn’t do anything by itself. Someone has to take the lead on an issue or the UN delegates will just ignore it; just like any other committee.

Past Presidents of the United States have made effective use of the UN. Truman, Bush Sr., and Clinton immediately come to mind. The only failure at the UN was the failure of President George W. Bush to work with the UN member nations to get the second resolution authorizing war.

Most accounts say an additional three weeks would have been adequate for the inspection teams to provide an ‘independent’ finding of Iraq being in violation, thereby allowing the Security Council delegates to go back to their countries and say they did “due dilligence” (instead of being so obviously railroaded by the US) and recommend support.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not interested in working with the UN Security Council delegates to make the invasion palettable to the citizens of their respective countries.

And I’d also like to point out something that is obvious, but is rarely mentioned: It turned out the UN was right to be skeptical about US claims of Iraqi WMDs, didn’t it?

In other words, the UN, as an organization committed to preventing wars of aggression, worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, in this case, the aggressor was it’s founding member and it’s strongest enforcer.

Craig-

I agree that the treat of terrorists with WMD is newly a very real threat, and the world is sorting out the best response to that threat.

However, I disagree that the WMD issue was immediately urgent enough for us to invade Iraq. The administration was obviously exaggerating the threat of potential WMD there. They said that Iraq posed an “imminent threat,” they said that they knew where the weapons were. Now that we know that the weapons don’t seem to be there, we can see that the certainty of the weapons was knowingly overstated prior to the war. The administration now tries to claim that they never said “imminent threat” (which of course, they did say), so they are trying to deny things which overstated the threat of Iraq. They are pretending that they were not being pre-emptive, but they certainly were.

As Lee has pointed out, allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs would have legitimized the process in the world view. Now, if those inspectors had finished and said “we see no weapons,” the administration would have had a very tough time making the case for war, and the rest of the world probably would not have wanted to rally behind the war either. But that is part of the honest process that we need to go through if we expect other countries to want to support us. And we should want other countries to want to support us.

If the inspectors HAD found weapons, then the rest of the world could have come to the conclusion that intervention was necessary, and then they would have had a strong reason to support us (as Lee mentions). So this is the process of legitimization that was necessary prior to invasion. Before we knew there were no weapons, I felt it was the right thing to do in the interest of honesty and fairness in the rest of the world, and now that we know there are no weapons, my point seems to have been proven. I’m not just coming to these conclusions after the fact, I felt this way all along: If there are weapons, legitimize it, if there aren’t, then we don’t need to be going in there like this.

So, what can we do to work together to prevent future problems? Well, I think that we need a President who can work WITH the UN to maintain the rules that the world defines for dealing with terrorism. We should aggressively pursue terrorist organizations and those who support them, but we should stop short of invading entire countries who might be willing to support them. Just because bin Laden might link up with Iraq, that doesn’t give us the right to invade Iraq. That’s preemptive. That’s a dangerous precident. Much more dangerous than a sitting National Security Adviser testifying before a congressional committee.

The UN certainly needs to enforce its resolutions. Sending inspectors back into Iraq was the begining of that process. If they had found weapons, I believe the members of the UN would have been convinced that action was necessary, and if they had not found weapons, then great! No war necessary. That is the proper process of enforcing resoultions.

Of course, these things can be bypassed if there is some sort of clear and present danger to our national security. We were told that there was, but we were deliberately lied to, and I cannot accept an administration that would lie about such a thing. There are many reasons that I do not want to vote for Bush, but I absolutely WILL NOT vote for someone who would deliberately lie about the certainty of WMD in Iraq in order to justify a war there.

Looking at the North Korean infrastructure, it’s clear the facilities they have for that kind of missile are shoddy at best, ad hoc creations meant for one purpose: To push the buttons of reactionaries in our government, to show them what big bad mofos the DPRK is. That missile you mentioned exploded at second at second stage.

Your problem is that you following people who, like recently, don’t like to hear that the places and people they consider threats aren’t as dangerous as they know they are. The problem with your approach is that it inspires a false sense of security, and in the meantime complicates foreign policy and military matters that don’t need any more complication.

Right now, Bin Laden and his associates are very effective at killing Americans, Europeans, and our other allies. Right now we have the means to fight them. So why not take care of the immediate threat? Why pour money into an unnecessary wars and defense measures against unlikely potential threats, when a real threat is already present, and already looming over our nation. Right now, intercepting terrorists is a more plausible and necessary item of business than intercepting missiles.

Craig-

I will admit to you this: The European powers have become hemmed in by a diplomacy-only track of dealing with problem. That said, our reaction should not be to take up the opposite end of that track, but rather to gradually (though not too gradually) coax them towards a more realistic notion of peacekeeping and action against rogue nations and other threats to world peace. Until the enemies of peace give up their weapons and their bloody tactics, discreet military intervention is going to be a necessary part of policy.

I guess my problem with Bush’s policies is they don’t allow for an evolving perspective on the battlefields, literal and figurative. Their solution to the problem of a lack of easy fit of a square peg to a round hole seems to be to try and knock it in with a sledge hammer.

An administration needs to be capable of backing off from policies that aren’t producing their desired effect, and trying something new.

They also need to stop kidding themselves that they will get anywhere without controversy as long as they are willing to pick fights with everybody in this country who has an opposing opinion, and as long as they are willing to pass draconian legislation over the objections of moderates and liberals. When every policy decision becomes a game of dragging the other side kicking and screaming towards Bush’s desired policy, the partisan bickering is inevitable. The last thing we need is a government that people can’t trust to serve common interests.

I question the validity of asking about Dr. Rice giving that speech at all, and here’s why…

Everyone place yourselves in the Administrations shoes here… Your efforts to have the Taliban turn over bin-Laden, deals with Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and others were on the table, the last think your advisors need to tell the terrorists, is that they are our top priority.

We cannot fault the Government for keeping a secret. If we were working to move on Syria right now, do you think that we would have Dr. Rice brief the press? Whenever there is no war, ‘defense’ is our focus to the world media.

Alex

> The UN certainly needs to enforce its
> resolutions. Sending inspectors back into
> Iraq was the begining of that process.

I agree with everything you’ve said, Kathryn, but I want to add a little thought:

During the period you are discussing, the “run up” to the war, I tried to give the President the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I distrusted him, but I was willing to suspend that distrust to a certain degree, especially in light of the heightened interest in sucurity against terrorism and WMDs.

I started to wonder if, perhaps, Bush had other, less reckless plans besides the obvious “nothing will stop us from invading Iraq” plan. I wondered if, in fact, behind all of his tough talk there was an intelligent plan.

For a while, I thought that Bush accomplished something quite positive: his belligerent stance clearly lit a fire underneath the UN’s commitment to the Iraq inspection regimes. And it had an effect on Saddam’s cooperation. In other words, as much as we on the left like to point out that the UN inspections were working, it seems clear to me that they would not have been intensified as they were without Bush’s apparent determination to invade Iraq.

Which is why it’s all the more tragic that he went through with the invasion. Bush could have waited a few more weeks, kept the pressure high, stopped brushing off our allies, and in the end I’m sure he would have either (a) won some major capitulations from Saddam (which seems unlikely), or (b) he would have been able to pass the second resolution and create an invasion force with international blessing.

Bush’s reluctance to wait for (b), and his ongoing reluctance to cede peacekeeping control to an international force, suggests that Bush’s main priority is not a free Iraq under the protection of the international community, but rather an American-controlled Iraq free from any influence by nations that, up until two years ago, we called “allies”. This, too, disappoints me.

-Cf

I wrote:
> Bush’s apparent determination to invade Iraq.

By “apparent”, I meant “apparent to us in 2004”. In late 2002 and early 2003, it was not so apparent that Bush’s diplomacy was a total sham.

At the time, the Bush Administration was regularly lying to the world, saying that we were simply backing up our diplomatic efforts with a real threat of military force. It wasn’t, he insisted, a conquest in the making. Little did we know that the diplomatic effort only existed to buy time before we invaded.

That is, the diplomatic effort was a means towards the military objective, not the other way around. How insane is that?

It’s very clear now that there was no way that the invasion was going to be averted, no matter what the UN, Saddam, or anyone did. Bush was “determined” to do it. Perhaps Saddam understood this inevitability, thus his apparent refusal to fully capitulate. And perhaps France, Russia, and Germany knew this, too, which would explain their refusal to give the US their blessing.

This specific strategy is probably the single biggest factor in the world’s distrust of us right now. We demonstrated that we negotiate in “bad faith”. How can we be trusted? Why should we?

-Cf

This story may bare on certain things Clarke has said. Corraboration, anyone?

If the inspectors HAD found weapons, then the rest of the world could have come to the conclusion that intervention was necessary, and then they would have had a strong reason to support us (as Lee mentions).

Excellent post. I’d just like to point out that the inspectors didn’t actually have to find weapons in order to recommend the second resolution. They just had to find that Iraq was not complying with the previous resolution.

Cf-

That’s a pretty good analysis. It’s similar to a Foreign Affairs critique of the pre-war diplomacy that I read recently.

Cf:

You’re right: I’m “busted”. Mr. Clinton did mention binLaden … once, in one sentence … in 1999.

And this after the issuance of fatwahs by his organization that date back to 1992 and his major fatwah in February of 1998. And after the bombing of not two but four embassy bombings in August of that same year.

Still, in all honesty and the spirit of fairness, I did miss that one mention of binLaden.

And isn’t it notable that, despite what you characterize as Mr. Clinton’s having “brought the issue to the fore” in 2000, there’s again no mention of binLaden or alQuieda?

A single phrase including the word “terrorists”, on each in Mr. Clinton’s 1994 and 1995 SOUs do not constitute the mention of security or address the problem of domestic security; nor does the paragraph you reproduced from the ‘95 address.

In point of fact, Mr. Clinton specifically says, in the ‘95 address:

1995: “ We are at peace, and we are a force for peace and freedom throughout the world.

… and the “peace process” from your quote refers to the Israel. The full story is:

1995: “Just this week, another horrendous terrorist act in Israel killed 19 and injured scores more. On behalf of the American people and all of you, I send our deepest sympathy to the families of the victims. I know that in the face of such evil, it is hard for the people in the Middle East to go forward. But the terrorists represent the past, not the future. We must and we will pursue a comprehensive peace between Israel and all her neighbors in the Middle East.

Accordingly, last night I signed an executive order that will block the assets in the United States of terrorist organizations that threaten to disrupt the peace process. It prohibits financial transactions with these groups.”

Your shot about the 2000 Republican response proposing a shield against missile attack falls a little flat. Particularly if you refer back to the quote from Mr. Clinton that you, yourself, posted: “We must meet this threat by ” …. “developing a system to defend against new missile threats —”.

Despite the World Trade Center I .. which the Clinton administration treated as a law enforcement problem … despite the fatwahs, despite the Cole, despite the embassy bombings, I find no warnings to Americans that they were in danger of attack within their own borders by a terrorist organization.

Unless, of course, you choose to believe that oblique references to threats “to the world’s cities” and “nation states”, coupled with mentions of events abroad, constituted such warnings. On the other hand, after getting “busted” for missing the one mention of binLaden (grin), I’d invite you to find such a direct warning.

One is left, it seems to me, with one of two conclusions: either (1) the Clinton administration knew the extent of the threats, choosing not to share that knowledge but nontheless working to combat them; or (2) it didn’t grasp the immediacy or enormity of the threats.

If the answer is (1), one can only conclude that the Clinton administration was impotent and ineffective. If the answer is (2), one can only conclude that the administration was merely ineffective.

So why is the 9/11 commission focusing on what the Bush administration didn’t do during the 7+ months in office, rather than focusing on what the Clinton administration didn’t do during its 8 years in office?

(Note: I’ve a flight out tonight and will be out of pocket a bit. Barring direct hits, I’ll be back at the end of next week.)

Cf:

Amend above: “I find no warnings to Americans that they were in danger of attack within their own borders by a terrorist organization. Or, until 2000, even from attack launched from outside to the inside of our borders.”

Sammi,

You are correct to point out that Clinton didn’t emphatically tell Americans to be afraid of terrorism in their daily lives. But I never argued that Clinton made it clear to America that terrorism was the biggest problem Americans needed to be concerned with. Clearly he did no such thing. My point was that at least Clinton talked about it at all, and he indicated that it was at least equal to a handful of other national security issues. At least he was trying to open the political discourse to the idea that maybe we would need to deal with the problem in the future, and that maybe we should invest money and domestic political capital, however little, into intelligence, law enforcement, and other anti-terror programs.

However little Clinton talked about terror, he said a hell of a lot more than the Republcans ever did, and a hell of a lot more than the Bush team ever did, both before the 2000 election and after it. Your post seemed to suggest that Clinton was totally neglectful of terrorism, and the fact is that he wasn’t.

In fact, your post suggested that Clinton had no “security” vision at all. The speeches reveal, however, that he had all the bases covered, from cyberterror to loose nukes to, yes, a missile defense.

Regarding Clinton’s advocacy for looking into a missile sheild: First, he was largely doing so to throw a bone to Republicans who find the idea appealing - his actual expenditures on it were paltry. Second, and more importantly towards our discussion, he wasn’t proposing a missile sheild specifically as a defense against terrorism. Clinton recognized that the most difficult kind of terrorism in the 21st century, not just for America but for our allies, was likely to come from fringe organizations who will find themselves increasingly in the posession of powerful technology and weaponry, in particular weapons from weakened and “failed states”, such as Afghanistan, the former Soviet Republics and, ironically, now maybe even Iraq. As the Republican Party Platform from 2000 and the statements by leading right-wing think tanks show, Clinton was ceaselessly ridiculed by the GOP for thinking that these little groups could hurt us. The right was focused on only two security issues: missile sheilds to protect us from ICBMs from “rogue states”, and invading Iraq.

I can’t find a single example of a major Republican policy speech or statement before 9/11 that doesn’t make an explicit connection between fighting terrorism and either (a) building a missile sheild or (b) invading Iraq.

My point was that, year after year, Bill Clinton elevated the “alarmist” nature of his anti-terrorist rhetoric. He never raised it high enough, obviously, but he clearly knew that terrorism was a real problem that would only become more of a problem in the future. When Bush took office, he went back to the kind of tired 1980’s-vintage international policies, focusing on Star Wars missile defenses and the maintenance of dependent vassal states to the exclusion of all other discussions of the nature of terrorism. His approach to terror not only lacked nuance and depth - it also lacked enthusiasm.

To put it simply, if Clinton underestimated the terrorist threat by hundreds of feet, Bush understimated it by miles and miles.

My original response to your SOU post talks extensively about potential reasons why everyone underestimated the threat to various degrees. But as little as Clinton did say to the American people about the terrorist threat, it is now clear to me that, year after year, there was still no greater voice than Bill Clinton’s telling Americans about the growing terrorist problem, and using that voice to change America’s policies to address those problems. After Bush took office, this strategy was clearly (and probably deliberately) dropped.

-Cf

CF, you are right, we did hear Bill mention terrorism. It would seem he knew about it, but did nothing… A voice needs to be followed up with action.

One more thing, I hear alot of people bashing President Bush on not finding weapons of mass distruction. Please read the David Kay report, and apply this analogy…

You find a crack pipe, lighter, spoon with stuff burned on it, and all the legal materials for making crack, but no cocain in your teenage kids room. Do you , 1. say, “Did not find drugs, so he/she is not using them.” or 2. Do you make sure the child cannot use them again.

I would assume 90% of Democrats will choose 1.

CF, you are right, we did hear Bill mention terrorism. It would seem he knew about it, but did nothing… A voice needs to be followed up with action.

Alex, that’s just wrong. Clinton did a whole Hell of a lot. True he didn’t get bin Laden (he missed him by a few hours because Pakistani intelligence warned him), but Bush didn’t even try.

Clinton also introduced a lot of anti-terrorist legislation which was blocked and eviscerated by the Republican Congress who thought it was a “phony issue” and didn’t want to “live in a police state”.

One more thing, I hear alot of people bashing President Bush on not finding weapons of mass distruction. Please read the David Kay report, and apply this analogy…

You find a crack pipe, lighter, spoon with stuff burned on it, and all the legal materials for making crack, but no cocain in your teenage kids room. Do you , 1. say, “Did not find drugs, so he/she is not using them.” or 2. Do you make sure the child cannot use them again.

Totally doesn’t apply because there was no “crack pipe, lighter, spoon with stuff burned on it, and all the legal materials for making crack”. Just some rock ‘n’ roll posters on the wall.

Direct Quotes from the David Kay Report… I’m not making this stuff up!

Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist’s residence.

· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.

Paragraph 2 of AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Please note… And the means to deliver and develop them…

I would call that a little more than the medias approach, “We Found Nothing”.

You’re right, Alex. We found “pretty much” nothing. A few vials of botox in some guys home refrigerator next to the mayo.

The missiles were a valid concern, but were in the process of being destroyed by the UN inspectors. And the UAV turned out to be a bust.

Here’s some more quotes by Kay:

The former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq warned on Monday that the United States is in “grave danger” of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it does not own up to its mistakes in Iraq.

“The cost of our mistakes … with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself,” David Kay said in a speech at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

“We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events,” he said. “The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing around Washington … is the belief … you can never admit you’re wrong.”

Judging by the holes in your knowledge of the subject, you may also be interested to know that Kay resigned as chief weapons inspector in Iraq after becoming convinced that there were no significant weapons or programs being developed.

“When we finally do the sums on Iraq, what will turn out is that we simply didn’t know what was going on, but we connected the dots — the dots from 1991 behavior were connected with 2000 behavior and 2003 behavior, and it became an explanation and a picture of Iraq that simply didn’t exist,” Kay said.

I’d file your report right next to the one where the first time Kay sees the baloon trailers he says, “I’ve already seen enough to convince me.”

Lee, continuing in “Justification and Connection” posted April 2nd, seems to fit the subject more. You are right in the fact that we have not found “stockpiles,” but we have found the means to develop and deliver.