What It's Really About

If you’ve followed the "Sept 11 Subcommittee Hearings" or whatever they’re called, then you know what a joke they are. It’s a (frankly rather blatant) attempt by the left to gain political points with voters and has nothing whatever to do with "learning the truth." In a seemingly unrelated post, SDB sums it thus:

Ever since 9/11, the powerless Left in the US, and "allies" in Europe, have been trying to set themselves up to be able to say I Told You So, but the catastrophes they predicted have universally failed to manifest. It’s been a frustrating time for them.

Has the administration made mistakes? Of course it has. Has it confessed to doing so? Yes, but not the way the Left wants it to. The Bush administration acknowledges its errors through actions, not words. When it recognizes that it’s done something wrong, it tries to fix it. For example, the first administrator sent to Iraq to supervise the rebuilding process was a dismal failure, and after six weeks he was politely kicked upstairs and Bremer was sent to take over.

But that’s not what the Left wants. What they want is a public mea culpa, a humble abasement, delivered in somber tones with eyes downcast, after which the administration would voluntarily submit itself for flogging. That’s because they want the administration to acknowledge as mistakes some major decisions which the administration clearly still thinks was right.

This isn’t about "honesty" or "openness" or "accountability" or any such drivel; it’s about serious disagreements regarding major political policies, and the Left has utterly failed to prevail on those issues on the political level. So they are trying to gain through the backdoor what they cannot win legitimately.

Posted by Anthony on Apr 16, 2004 | 4 replies
Filed under: General

Comments:

01. Apr 17, 2004 at 11:41am by Jonathan Singel:

That’s [oops]ing ridiculous.
This conservative administration has done so many unspeakable evils that it deserves to be brought out into the media and exposed for what thieving cheats they really are.
But that’s not going to happen.
Do you know why?
Because the republicans in this country are far more powerful than the dems and by repeating statements like the one found above, they effectively brainwash entire masses of people into believing such utterly false and opinionated statements.

And if you watched the 9/11 hearings at all, you’d know it was bi-partisan and that it actually is serving an important purpose in directing the blame and restructuring our government to better face threats in the future.
For example, there have been 2 interviews with the CIA director, and both times they have asked important questions as to the structure of the intelligence agency and how best information can be shared among security agencies and the presidential administration.

I don’t even feel the need to go into detail on John Ashcroft’s blaming of the Clinton administration for this security failure.
That’s just another further example of republican brainwashing by stating something with authority that holds no factual basis.

02. Apr 17, 2004 at 05:18pm by Anthony:

> they effectively brainwash entire masses of people

Ah, that most typical of left-wing mantras: it’s a vast right-wing conspiracy. Yes, boys and girls, the Republicans are brainwashing you! Get on your Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies, quick!

> you’d know it was bi-partisan

Your definition of bi-partisan is different than mine, then. Grilling Condi Rice, while giving Richard Clarke a walk in the park, and saying it’s irrelevant that Clarke’s current statements contradict things he said in the recent past... yeah, that’s fair.

> I don’t even feel the need to go into detail on John
> Ashcroft’s blaming of the Clinton administration for
> this security failure.

Yeah, you’re right. Let’s not bother with "details" or "facts;" no need to substantiate your assertions. What Clinton didn’t do in 8 years is irrelevant; Bush had 8 whole months to do something.

03. Apr 18, 2004 at 02:58pm by Jonathan Singel:

6 democrats + 6 republicans = bipartisan committee.
Whose fault is it if the republicans aren’t asking as rigorous of questions?

Show me some ’facts’ then that Clinton was slacking on Al Queda.
Most news reports and excerpts from Clarke’s book point to the exact opposite- that Bush refused acknowledge the intelligence that was gathered by the Clinton administration.

04. Apr 22, 2004 at 02:01am by Anthony:

> Whose fault is it if the republicans aren’t
> asking as rigorous of questions?

When Jim Angle released the transcript of Richard Clarke contradicting himself by praising the Bush administration’s policy on al-Qaeda, Democrat Bob Kerrey screamed and cried, claiming it violated trust. That’s a convenient excuse when the item in question completely undermines the credibility of your star anti-Bush witness, Richard Clarke. Clarke is now touring and writing books about how the Bush administration had a lousy policy on al-Qaeda, but in 2002 he was saying exactly the opposite.

> excerpts from Clarke’s book point to the exact opposite-
> that Bush refused acknowledge the intelligence that was
> gathered by the Clinton administration.

And that is the point. Clarke’s book and current testimony are the exact opposite of what Clarke himself said in 2002:

...the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
...

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998 ... that had not been decided on in a couple of years. ... The second thing the [Bush] administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

...

...that process which was initiated in the first week in February...decided in principle...in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources...five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

...

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been [under the Clinton administration], to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

Reply to this message here:

Home – Create Post – Archives – Login – CMS by Encodable