Posted on 03/27/2004 2:08:31 PM PST by Lando Lincoln
People ought to read the actual preliminary reports being released by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (popularly known as the “9-11 Commission”) instead of listening to the confrontational blather of Democrat partisans both on and before the commission and elsewhere. Contrary to what is being widely claimed in the media, the actual findings of the commission do not “blame Bush and Clinton equally,” rather they paint a damning picture of the failure of Democratic policies towards terrorism from the 1990’s. The present-day actions of the left give us no reason to believe that, if given another shot in power, they would correct any of the basic structural flaws in their strategy that made a 9-11 virtually inevitable.
In addressing the question of why 9-11 happened, we must understand that there are two distinct sets of issues at work here. The first is that of the event itself, why 9-11 happened on September 11th, 2001 involving four planes hijacked from two airports with nineteen hijackers onboard. These are the technical issues. The second are those of why the Islamists were in a position to attack the United States in such a way, why they thought that such a course would be successful, and how the conditions which allowed such an attack to occur could have been ameliorated. These are the strategic issues.
The Democrats want to focus on technical issues. This is because these are the ones which can be pinned on the Bush Administration and those which are more easily comprehendible. If only a memo here had been followed up upon, or if a visa check had been performed, or some other clue had been followed-up upon, then the plot might have unraveled. This is all technically true, but misses the deeper point. The primary issue at stake here isn’t (or, at least, shouldn’t be) whether, if all internal security measures worked perfectly, the attack could have been stopped. Had the 9-11 plot been unraveled on Clinton’s watch (and, in fact, several extreme terror plots were detected and stopped by various means) then al-Qaeda would have simply developed another plan, and then another plan: on until they were successful. Relying upon technical measures to stop a mega-terror attack means relying upon your internal security measures to be 100% effective 100% of the time. This is to be hoped for, of course, but to count on it (and plan based upon this assumption) is insane.
One report quotes the Bush Administration, on coming to power, as being frustrated with the strategy of “swatting flies” as pursued by the Clinton Administration. That was exactly correct. It may well be, as Richard Clarke told the commission on Wednesday, that the Clinton Administration had “no higher priority” than terrorism but, if that is the case, then it seems obvious to me that this “highest priority” fell into the same trap as all of the other “high priorities” during the Clinton Administration: most of the effort expended on the issue was spent talking over reasons not to do anything. The military section of the report on the Clinton Administration and al-Qaeda is a chronicle of excuses.
In the later years of his Presidency, Clinton repeatedly had Bin Laden in his sights and refused to pull the trigger. Each time he (or someone within his Administration) was dissuaded from firing by grossly exaggerated fears of civilian dead (in one case it reports that, from a single missile strike, they feared that there would be three thousand civilian dead. Given that this number is roughly the equal of those estimated by leftists to have been killed in the entire war, these numbers are implausible, to say the least), by cries that more American “mad bombing” would enrage the world, and various other sundry concerns.
People like to point out that both the Bush and Clinton Administrations failed to retaliate for the bombing of the USS Cole. This, however, misses the point. The Clinton people failed to fight back because they felt that the death of nearly twenty US servicemen and the near-sinking of a billion dollar Destroyers was “insufficient provocation” and that there wasn’t “sufficient proof” of al-Qaeda’s involvement. The Bush Administration rejected direct retaliation for the Cole because they weren’t interested in playing a game of blow-by-blow diplomacy with a gang of sub-human murderers. They wanted to wipe them out.
There are no indications that the Democrats have since changed their approach to terror to any reasonable degree. Just as, before 9-11, they viewed terrorism as a manageable problem, one easily controlled by law enforcement and “international action”, so they still view it today.
The Democrats, in essence, want to “manage” terrorism whereas the Republicans want to destroy it. This is the critical difference between the two on this issue. In their heart of hearts the Democrats and their confederates believe their rhetoric. They see this, as they see nearly all things, through the lens of Vietnam. They don’t think that terrorism can really be beaten. Or, even if they believe it could, they believe that the price would be too high in terms of their political goals. War, they believe, will reinforce Republicanism among the people. If the people really believe that there is a War on Terrorism, then Republicans will come to dominate the White House just as they did after the Democrats blew their credibility on Cold War issues.
Forget al-Qaeda strategy, for the moment. They are already committed to this war. Had things been otherwise, they might have been dissuaded from launching it. But it is upon us. We can argue over exactly why this war began in a few decades, when it is over. Does anyone sane really not believe that we are in this war now? If we are, then we must win it.
The Democrats don’t have a strategy for fighting terror: they have a plan for managing its political consequences. A Democratic Administration will respond to any terror attack with tough rhetoric and Cruise Missiles, then they will exploit it to press their domestic agenda. I don’t believe that even a nuclear bomb in one of America’s great cities would wake them up. A basic hostility towards American strength has been weaved into their souls by decades of poisonous lies. They cannot be trusted to defend this Republic against its enemies.
Lando
He nails it with that sentence. Good one!
Hits the nail on the head! A subheading under the Dems' general philosophy: reality doesn't count, as long as they can manage the political consequences.
Thanks, Lando ! From the article:The Democrats don’t have a strategy for fighting terror: they have a plan for managing its political consequences. A Democratic Administration will respond to any terror attack with tough rhetoric and Cruise Missiles, then they will exploit it to press their domestic agenda. I don’t believe that even a nuclear bomb in one of America’s great cities would wake them up. A basic hostility towards American strength has been weaved into their souls by decades of poisonous lies. They cannot be trusted to defend this Republic against its enemies.
hahaha ! I love that.Jean bin Carry Faggachusetts only, I bet.
Bush: 49 states ....
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.
