What can I say? Neener neener neener?

[khaosworks]

Tell Me Something I Don't Know By Mr. Terence Chua, Wondering What It'll Take To Convince People

By now, you've probably heard the news about Richard Clarke, former Presidential anti-terrorism adviser, and his new tell-all book, "Against All Enemies," in which he reveals that not only did the Bush administration ignore terrorist threats prior to 9/11, but also upon 9/11, insist that intelligence find a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda where there was none to be found.

And of course, by now, Karl Rove has released the hounds on Clarke's tail. "It's politically motivated," they say, because Clarke was passed over for a post with Homeland Security. It's "politically timed," because it's coming out now in the run-up to the elections, even though it was a NSC security review that held up the publication. Clarke is trying to blame the administration because he, not the administration dropped the ball. Clarke's "close ties" with Kerry makes his remarks suspect.

It's the usual ball game being played by the Bush administration - attack the whistle-blower, and completely sidestep the issue. Not that they didn't try to deny it, too (excerpt from the transcript of the 60 Minutes piece - exchange between Leslie Stahl and NSC official Steven Hadley)...

STAHL (exp): {He also says Clarke was wrong when he said the President pressured him to find a link between Iraq and 9/11}

HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.

STAHL: Now can I interrupt you for one second. We have done our own work on that ourselves and we have two sources who tell us independently of Dick Clarke that there was this encounter. One of them was an actual witness.

HADLEY: Look, the -- I -- I stand on what I said.

Hadley goes on to say, "But the point I think we're missing in this is of course the President wanted to know if there was any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11." Well, the point that the ad hominem attacks on Clarke is missing is whether or not the allegations he makes are true or not, not if they are inspired by malice. There has been no denial of the allegations aside from a half-hearted "no evidence" whine which was contradicted. But of course, ad hominem attacks are typical of the Bush administration's tactics, not confronting the issues.

Clarke's allegations are yet another piece in a long line of other evidence that confirms what we already knew a long time ago - that the Bush administration, either through negligence, bloody-mindedness, or actual design, distorted or exaggerated intelligence to justify a war against Iraq, a war that they could not have justified otherwise. So, even if we concede that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, the fact remains that the people of the United States were deceived into supporting such a war. And despite what Hollywood or Oliver North may try to tell you, ends don't justify the means.

So how much more do the voting public need? Good men and women are dying over in Iraq and were put there for reasons that were false. Is this just going to be another flash in the pan? How many lies does it take? This is the government who can't even be honest in its presentation of the benefits of Medicare, for Christ's sake, not to mention the cost overruns. But for some reason, calling your opponent a liar, even with good cause, is considered bad by the media. I have the sinking feeling that Clarke, like Kwaitkowski, will be the topic du jour for a week, then disappear out of sight.

At the same time, what's the 9/11 Commission going to do? Given the overlap of the US dealings with Bin Laden with both the Clinton and Bush administrations, I'm not expecting much - what I do expect is a mutual attempt at damage control for both the DNC and the GOP. Each side can allege each other fucked up over Al-Qaeda, so the Commission in the end will cover both asses. The preliminary findings aren't convincing me otherwise.

On the bright side, the Kerry campaign is finally trying to shift the issues away from mutual mudslinging to the domestic arena. The new ad is a good start as it actually mentions taxes, jobs, health care and education, but it has to be followed with more of the same. The more we can shift the debate to substantive nuts and bolts issues that can engage the American public, the more it'll be harder for the Bush administration to distract people with gay marriage or national security, or the latest red herring - "Victim's Rights."

I'm probably being overly optimistic, though, in hoping that Americans will actually be able to embrace and understand these issues without their eyes glazing over. I hope I'm wrong.

Comments

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Just as a point of info for Forgiving Me, apparently the US let its efforts in capturing Osama bin Whatsisname go by the wayside as it geared up to invade Iraq.

[billroper]

Part of the reason that tracking down terrorists is hard is that they sometimes hide in mountainous, tribal-dominated regions of countries like Pakistan -- which appears to be where bin Laden has been hiding out since the fall of Afghanistan. The problem is that it's rather difficult to send a massive U.S. force (which is what would likely be required) into this region since it would probably cause the Pakistani government to fall and be replaced by a much more radical Islamic regime. Did I mention that Pakistan has nuclear weapons?

Since Al Qaeda was apparently silly enough to take some potshots at Musharraf, he's felt free to send some troops into the neighborhood to roust out the baddies lately. Not entirely effectively yet, but it's progress. Whether the Iraq war had anything to do with encouraging Musharraf to do so is unknowable at this time.