Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

William F. Buckley Jr.: Bush vs. U.S.
National Review ^ | 4/1/04 | William F. Buckley Jr.

Posted on 04/01/2004 8:18:26 AM PST by LibWhacker

The response given to Richard Clarke's apology for 9/11 is instructive. We assume he was sincere in tendering it, and, manifestly, the family members of the victims who heard him were sincere in their full-throated appreciation. Granting all that, we need to analyze the event for its implications.

One apologizes for one's own misdeeds. One can apologize, also, for the misdeeds of a group of which one is a member. Indeed, for a civilization of which one is one part. But in order to be credible, one has to have standing. The Pope can apologize for past episodes of Christian anti-Semitism, but a lonely priest, or parishioner, doing so, brings on attention not to medieval church practices, but rather to himself. The psychological term is grandiosity: a self-exaltation that subordinates the major question. If John Applejack rises, stretches open his hands, and apologizes for the sinfulness of time, one's attention turns not to the sinfulness of time, but to John Applejack.

Richard Clarke's apology was not on the scale of sheer presumption, because he had a very direct role in the counterterrorist organization. But he was not apologizing for his own failure, let's say, to interpret correctly a warning signal which told of an impending strike against the Twin Towers. No such thing was intended. Rather, Mr. Clarke has been apologizing for improper emphases by the Bush administration in response to the al Qaeda threat. One recalls that on 60 Minutes, where the furor began, Mr. Clarke summoned up the terrorist bound for Los Angeles to bomb the airport, but apprehended by authorities owing, Clarke suggested, to the kind of priority given, in the late '90s, to potential terrorist activity. He was saying that President Bush's failure to assign appropriate priority to al Qaeda was responsible for latitudinarian counterterrorist activity.

But the historical plot thickens. Former secretary of state George P. Shultz published in the Wall Street Journal on Monday a large extract from a lecture given at the Library of Congress. He traced the events in Iraq that led to war, pausing over the year 1998 when President Clinton was called upon to implement the Iraq Liberation Act. He did not do so and the surmise was that he could not credibly present himself as a war leader while simultaneously fighting against his own impeachment. An apology here would not seem to be presumptuous.

The motives of Mr. Clarke, then, while concededly sincere, might be taken for a theatrical identification of oneself with the victims of 9/11, and understandably appreciated by those in the chamber whose relatives died. But the impact of that apology is political. By the time it has traveled a hundred yards through the ether, it is taken as an apology for what Bush didn't do, and now declines to do as a matter of pride and political obstinacy. It is understandably offensive to Mr. Bush and Messrs. Powell and Rumsfeld that the impression is given that they were responsible for inattentions that brought on the terrible events of 9/11.

The Bush team is being widely denounced as defensive and self-concerned. But these accusations are a part of the general War Against Bush, which is in high gear. This is the season in which Howard Dean, heir presumptive to the Democratic nomination when he spoke, disdained the proposition that he and George Bush were neighbors, more or less reading Bush out of the community of fellow Americans.

The vitriol is seen in some of the language of contender John Kerry. If the intention is to hold Bush accountable for every bomb that goes off in Iraq, why not attack him, also, for failing to take steps to prevent the slaughter of September 11?

The drama, as it is shaping up, rests not insubstantially on the charges of Richard Clarke. The political objective is to hold Bush accountable for shortcomings in current history, unemployment, taxation, the outsourcing of jobs, the loss of allies, the undermining of the United Nations, and an unwinnable engagement in the Middle East. Clarke's contribution to the comprehensive indictment may seem slight, but his apology is freighted with political drama in this call to arms: the U.S. vs. George Bush.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911commission; apology; clarke; richard; richardclarke; williamfbuckley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 04/01/2004 8:18:28 AM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Clarke issued the call to arms?

Come on!! Ludicrous.
2 posted on 04/01/2004 8:25:10 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

3 posted on 04/01/2004 8:25:45 AM PST by The G Man (John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world. Vote Bush-Cheney '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I remember when buckley was a conservative. He has been carrying water for the socialists for years.
4 posted on 04/01/2004 8:29:53 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
"Mr. Clarke summoned up the terrorist bound for Los Angeles to bomb the airport, but apprehended by authorities owing, Clarke suggested, to the kind of priority given, in the late '90s, to potential terrorist activity."

This is patently false. The New Year's Eve bomber, caught arriving by ferry in Port Angeles, Washington, was identified by an alert grandmotherly immigration worker who exercised racial profiling.

"He just looked hinky to me," said the woman who stopped the attack.

Tell me that Clarke had something to do with the intuitions of a 60-something logger's wife in Port Angeles, and I'll sell you some swamp land.

5 posted on 04/01/2004 8:30:53 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Leave Pat Leave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
He has become obtuse....darnright strange!
6 posted on 04/01/2004 8:33:44 AM PST by international american (Support our troops!! Send Kerry back to Boston.Idaho.Virginia.Georgetown.France. Cape Cod!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
The border crossing guard was just doing what she does all day, asking questions, and running searches on people who give the wrong answers. Heck, I know people who have had their whole car dismantled at the border for giving a wrong answer or going across too often.
7 posted on 04/01/2004 8:36:05 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Clarke deserves to be nominated for an Academy Award as best actor.

He doesn't deserve to win, though...Dean wins, hands down.

8 posted on 04/01/2004 8:45:02 AM PST by syriacus (2001: The Daschle-Schumer Gang obstructed Bush's attempts to organize his administration -->9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Buckley wasted a lot of words telling us that the Dem strategy is to ''Blame Bush''--something we already knew.
9 posted on 04/01/2004 8:51:28 AM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
"He just looked hinky to me,"

Of course, when he bailed out of the car and had to be pursued on foot through downtown Port Angeles, it was obvious to authorities that he wasn't your average tourist.
10 posted on 04/01/2004 11:11:11 AM PST by beelzepug (growing more confused by the minute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
Port Angeles in right on the Canadian border, right?

I remember reading about this story and it's scary. We need more border watchers like that woman!
11 posted on 04/01/2004 5:59:54 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Yep. They made the bomb in a hotel room in Burnaby, not that far from where I live.

It's funny, I always seem to be fairly near to this stuff. When I graduated from high school, in 2001, I used the money I saved working nights at a Safeway to take a trip to Washington, DC and New York City (I went to Washington first, then drove to New York, then drove back to Washington and flew out of there).

The last thing I saw of New York City was the World Trade Centre, as seen from New Jersey. The last thing I saw of Washington, DC was the Pentagon, as seen from a plane taking off from Reagan National Airport. The date: August, 2001.

I sort of thought I'd wasted that money at the time. I don't now.
12 posted on 04/01/2004 7:08:57 PM PST by victoryatallcosts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: victoryatallcosts
Just keep us apprised of where you are on any given day, so we can all stay the hell away!
13 posted on 04/01/2004 7:30:06 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast (You're it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I remember when buckley was a conservative. He has been carrying water for the socialists for years.

My gosh folks did you even read the article? He skewered Clarke.

14 posted on 04/01/2004 7:39:28 PM PST by Texasforever (I can’t kill enough brain cells to become a democrat just by drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; syriacus; LibWhacker
Request someone help me understand what Mr. Buckley means in the following:

... the year 1998 when President Clinton was called upon to implement the Iraq Liberation Act. He did not do so and the surmise was that he could not credibly present himself as a war leader while simultaneously fighting against his own impeachment. An apology here would not seem to be presumptuous. -William F. Buckley Jr.

Is he comparing the standing of Mr. Clinton versus Mr. Clarke? In other words, Clinton could credibly apologize for screwing up in such a way that he got impeached and therefore performed badly as a statesman - missing an opportunity to advance the world's case against Iraq. He would be apologizing for a failure of the United States, for something that he was in charge of, and for something he did. Whereas Clarke's apology was not for anything he did; moreover was not really in charge of.

It seems as though there is more to this connection than I am getting.

15 posted on 04/01/2004 7:51:53 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Yes, Clinton admitted that he couldn't or wouldn't do anything about Iraq because he was in the process of being impeached. Clinton could have and should have apologized for putting the office of the President in such an untenable position.
16 posted on 04/01/2004 7:56:59 PM PST by Texasforever (I can’t kill enough brain cells to become a democrat just by drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
PS. As to Clarke's standing, he had none on which to base an apology on the behalf of any one or any organization other than himself. The fact that he didn't resign in protest is absolute proof that his current actions are all self-serving.
17 posted on 04/01/2004 8:00:14 PM PST by Texasforever (I can’t kill enough brain cells to become a democrat just by drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I am on President Bush's side.
18 posted on 04/01/2004 8:03:06 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; All
Texas is right, this article condemns Clarke.

Clarke was grandstanding when he apologized on behalf of the government - and Buckley sees the apology for what it was - a political tactic to place blame squarely on the shoulders of Team Bush.

This 9/11 Commission charade is doing so much damage - making our country look weak - and no doubt encouraging the evildoers (that would be the terrorists, in case any Dems are reading this) to believe that our resolve is weakening
19 posted on 04/01/2004 8:14:00 PM PST by Spotsy (Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: victoryatallcosts
Hmmmm? I was in Wash D.C. in March 2001. I took a tour with Roger Hedgecock - he called it the "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" - this was trip #7 for the group - #1 for me. I hadn't been to DC since I graduated from high school.
20 posted on 04/01/2004 11:44:25 PM PST by CyberAnt (The 2004 Election is for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson