Posted on 03/02/2004 6:56:16 AM PST by mhking
During an anti-George-Bush rant, a friend demanded, "What about those weapons of mass destruction?" Oddly enough, a year and a half ago, she (along with a lot of other folk) had refused to make a similar demand of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former dictator. Indeed, it was Saddam's failure to answer the very same question over a period of more than a decade that led to his fall from power and his cowering before American soldiers in a rat hole on the outskirts of Tikrit.
Unlike my friend, I don't believe our President misled this nation as to the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The entire world believed Saddam was in possession of these weapons, which, in the past, he had used on his own people. The world also believed he was actively building more weapons. Nor, do I believe it was ever incumbent upon this nation to produce any weapons. The burden was Saddam's to give an accounting of his weapons' programs or document their destruction. United Nations Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq "remained in material breach" of its 1991 cease-fire agreement, must give a full accounting of their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and that failure to do so would be met with "serious consequences." No one on earth, save Saddam, interpreted "serious consequences" to mean harsh language. The administration did, however, make the "threat of weapons" a centerpiece of their case for war. With satellite photos, intercepted radio transmissions and illustrations of mobile chemical labs, the administration made a compelling case for regime change as a means to ensure our national security. My friend, along with the rest of America, is therefore right to ask: "What about those weapons?" The question goes to the heart of the most essential element in our continuing war on terrorism -- credibility.
The President recognized the importance of credibility during his State of the Union address. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible," he said. However, credibility is not only important when dealing with adversaries; it is also essential in dealing with allies. But most importantly, credibility is essential here at home. America is walking point in this war on terror. As we gird ourselves for the long battle ahead, there is perhaps no stronger armament than the resolve of the American people. Throughout the history of this nation, our enemies have found the doggedness and tenacity of the American spirit a formidable weapon. However, unleashing the potential of that spirited weapon requires that the American people trust what the Administration tells them. When that trust breaks down, our nation is the weaker for it.
Information, though, can only be as good as the intelligence agencies or sources providing it. It becomes increasingly clear that the intelligence provided this Administration (and the Administration prior) was woefully deficient. Someone dropped the ball and must bear responsibility for its lack of veracity. I believe that man is Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenent.
Tenent's failure to effectively manage his agency and provide the administration with accurate information has damaged this administration's credibility. Thankfully the damage is not irreparable.
The President recently appointed a non-partisan committee to investigate what went wrong with our intelligence gathering process. Along with asking for Tenent's resignation, the Administration must drive this investigation. The Administration moved rather slowly in setting up the commission and has appeared reluctant to admit what appears obvious to the rest of us: we were wrong. Their reluctance smacks of intractability and a kind of arrogance that does little to engender confidence.
Of course, nothing succeeds like success. While the headlines and democratic presidential candidates will continue to beat the drum of failure, the Administration must begin to better articulate America's success in Iraq.
As a direct result of our intervention into Iraq, Libyan dictator Mommar Qaddafi has pledged to give up his WMD programs. Our presence in Iraq has helped bolster the courage of Iranian citizens who now fill the streets of Iran demanding "regime change." More recently, the New York Times reported the interception of a 17-page letter from the terrorist Abu Musab al Zarkawi. In the letter, Zarkawi, an Al Qaeda associate and widely believed to be in charge of the insurgency being waged on American troops in Iraq, laments how poorly his campaign of terror is going. The Iraqi people are refusing to help the terrorists, he bemoans, more importantly, that the determination of American forces is "growing stronger day after day, and his intelligence information increases." All of this is proof that we are winning, that the lives of our military personnel and those of Iraqis striving for freedom are purchasing victory and liberty for the people of the region and ultimately security for us here at home.
Leading the quest for answers to our intelligence capabilities, changing the leadership at the CIA and keeping our success in the forefront of the public's mind won't lessen the grief we all share because of the war, but it might gird our patience and strengthen our resolve. It will certainly honor the memory of those heroes who have given the "last full measure of devotion" and go a long way toward rearming this nation with its most important weapon: Trust.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Excellent article. Those who spread calumny, enmity, hopelessness, and distrust between the American people and their leadership do not want to see America win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.