WaxWorks
|
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Iraq War in the Crapper? Solution: Attack Democrats Over 9/11
As more and more Americans come to realize that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, and the Downing Street memos prove the degree to which this Administration manipulated and misled the American people, Karl Rove made some remarks in New York yesterday, not about Iraq, but about "liberals" and 9/11:
Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the
decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11
and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their
actions.
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for
war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove,
the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown
for the Conservative Party of New York State.
Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr.
Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "I don't know
about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the
twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost
3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."
Told of Mr. Rove's remarks, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New
York, replied: "In New York, where everyone unified after 9/11, the last thing
we need is somebody who seeks to divide us for political purposes."
Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as
a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of
Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis,
Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."
"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked.
"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the
words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater
danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
Well, I've got a few things to say about those comments. You know what I remember first after 9/11? That our President looked scared and unsure of how to act that night when he addressed the country. That he was tongue-tied and completely over-his-head the next few days as he tried to string sentences together. (I remember with particular fear and amazement a televised conference call that Bush had with Pataki and Giuliani that showed Bush's inability to do anything other than repeat the same rote phrases over and over again.) That the President was so unsure of how to act on 9/11 that the Vice-President had to give an order for unknown planes to be shot down, and then lie and say he got the order from the President. (An order, by the way, which the normally understated 9/11 Commission Report goes out of the way to prove never existed). And then that President and Vice-President are forced to testify before the 9/11 Commission together in order to attempt to cover up this lie. And, of course, we all now know about how Bush stayed in the classroom, even after learning of the attack, to finish reading My Pet Goat. The 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that, had the President acted boldly and forcefully immediately upon learning the news, and issued an order to land all planes, the flight that crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside might have been saved, as terrorists had not yet taken over that plane.
I don't remember what Mr. Rove is referring to. I do remember the Democratic-led Senate leading a rendition of "God Bless America" on the Capital steps right after the attacks. I remember Tom Daschle hugging President Bush after his speech to Congress on September 21. I remember Daschle foregoing the traditional Democratic rebuttal and speaking jointly with Trent Lott after the speech. I remember unqualified Democratic support for the effort in Afghanistan.
Then I remember an Administration that picked off and attacked Democrats who didn't vote for the Homeland Security Bill (which Bush initially opposed when DEMOCRATS proposed it) in the exact form Bush wanted. I remember the President failing to ask for any sacrifice from any American at a time when all of America would have willingly given it. And I remember the fact that we didn't catch Bin Laden in Tora Bora and still haven't. And I now know that's likely because efforts were shifted to planning and creating the conditions for the Iraq war.
So if Mr. Rove wants to go back to 9/11, then I say, fine, but let's go back to 9/10, and 8/10, and 7/10 etc, also. Let's hear from Richard Clarke again about how Condoleezza Rice ignored his repeated, URGENT pleas (just look at the 9/11 Commission report, it reprints many of Clarke's e-mails and memos to Rice, with the original italics and underlining) to do something, anything about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Let's discuss Bush's statement the day after the attacks to Clarke and others that he wanted to see if we could link the attacks to Saddam Hussein. Let's discuss the fact that Dick Cheney was personally briefed by Clarke on his Al Qaeda plan in early 2001, yet Cheney did NOTHING. Let's discuss how Sandy Berger told Rice when he was leaving before the 2001 Inauguration that he thought that she would spend more time on terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular than any other issue. Let's discuss how President Clinton told President-elect Bush that he thought terrorism would be the biggest foreign policy issue Bush would face during his time in office. Let's discuss how Bush said NOTHING in response to that comment.
I was in New York on 9/11, not in Florida reading a story to schoolchildren about goats. I worked five blocks from the World Trade Center. Each day on my way to work I would smell the awful smell of human flesh and steel burning in the air. Every night, for months, as I left work, I would see smoking pieces of the Trade Center loaded onto ferries outside my office. I wanted Bin Laden captured and killed. But this Administration chose to move resources off that endeavor and embark on a foolish, ill-conceived and poorly planned war to satisfy its most rabid ideologues. At the end of the day, I see Rove's comments as an acknowledgment by this Administration that nearly six months after the Iraqi elections, it recognizes that the situation in Iraq shows little signs of improving. And that rests solely on their shoulders, not on any "liberals."
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Good Doctor
This one is really, really good:
"I never made the diagnosis, I wouldn't even attempt to make a diagnosis
from a videotape,"
--Senator Bill Frist, June 16, 2005, after the result of the Terri Shiavo autopsy was
released to the public.
"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour
or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond
to visual stimuli."--Senator Bill Frist, on the Senate floor, March 17, 2005, arguing that Florida doctors had erred in saying Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state."
Please, please nominate this man for President! Bill Frist '08: Toady, Panderer and Liar.
For Whom Does the Bell Toll?
McCain calls for a fraud probe of Abramoff. You've gotta think at some point Abramoff's gotta sing and that's bad news for the Hammer. I just want to have DeLay hold on until November 2006...
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Let's Remember How We Got Here
With the Downing Street memo getting (finally) some play in the mainstream media, it's worth remembering where things stood in March 2003, on the eve of war. And let's refresh our recollection as to what the American people were told by our leaders. Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003 is as good a place as any. Two things to remember as you read this: 1) In 2000, people expressed a sigh of relief that Dick Cheney was the "grown-up" on the ticket to look over Bush with his level-headed judgment and 2) Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a consensual affair:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...But we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization...
MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”
What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.
We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past...
MR. RUSSERT: “Imperialist power,” “moving willy-nilly,” “taking down governments.” Is that how we’re going to be perceived this time?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I hope not, Tim. Of course, in ’91, there was a general consensus that we’d gone as far as we should. We’d achieved our objectives when we liberated Kuwait and that we shouldn’t go on to Baghdad. But there were several assumptions that was based on. One that all those U.N. Security Council resolutions would be enforced. None of them has been. That’s the major difference. And it was based on the proposition that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn’t survive. Most of the experts believed based upon the severe drubbing we administered to his forces in Kuwait that he was likely to be overthrown or ousted. Of course, that didn’t happen. He’s proven to be a much tougher customer than anybody expected.
We’re now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. And in light of that, we have to be prepared, I think, to take the action that is being contemplated. Doesn’t insist that he be disarmed and if the U.N. won’t do it, then the United States and other partners of the coalition will have to do that.
Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president’s made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that’s representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it’s a commitment worth making. And we don’t have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we’re back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.
And here's the kicker:
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement...
MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives...
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against U.S. troops?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t know. I assume he may try. Of course as soon as he does it will be clear to the world we were absolutely right, that he does, in fact, have chemical weapons.
Monday, June 20, 2005
They Do It In Iran, But Not Here
Apparently, a partial recount of the presidential election vote is going forward in Iran. Nice to know that Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, et al. endorsed a less-democratic procedure than exists in a extremist fundamentalist country.
Or, to paraphrase Sally to Harry, have we become the extremist fundamentalist in this scenario?
