Tue, April 13, 2004
Mentioned on this morning's "O'Franken Factor":
I do wish the administration would realize that it's okay to sometimes say "we were wrong."
© onebee · all rights reserved
www.onebee.com
Tue, April 13, 2004
Mentioned on this morning's "O'Franken Factor":
I do wish the administration would realize that it's okay to sometimes say "we were wrong."
© onebee · all rights reserved
Joe Mulder — Tue, 4/13/04 12:33pm
Maybe it's my pre-existing man-love for Gregg Easterbrook that made me love this piece so much, but, I doubt it.
http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545
AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY: Washington, April 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.
Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.
On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.
Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."
When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush's action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.
When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."
Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush's claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush's anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."
The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."
Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."
Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.
"Holly" — Wed, 4/14/04 3:35pm
It's a well-written article stylistically, but I think its logic is flawed.
Its premise seems to take for granted that the Bush Administration DID have the intel to motivate this action, but that the political cost of such action would have been too severe to justify it.
It seems to imply that, because Democrats and foreign leaders might hypothetically have destroyed the Bush administration as a result, the Bush administration was right not to take action that would save 3000 lives even though they knew that those lives were at risk.
If I were an impeached president in this case, I hope I could be sustained by the personal conviction that I'd done the right thing, no matter how the public perceived me. That's a sacrifice worth making.
Seems like the writer is trying to say that such action would not have received support from those whiny partisan democrats and peacenik foreigners, and that therefore the whiny partisans and foreign peaceniks are the real enemy.
But since I'd expect a good president to be able to stand up to such an enemy fearlessly if he knew lives were at stake, this article just ends up making the Bush Admin look cowardly.
Don't get me wrong – I'm in the camp that says they should not be blamed for 9/11 either. I just don't think this article makes any kind of case for that.
And, though I don't "blame" them (in the sense of believing they – or any American – "caused" 9/11 – 9/11 was caused by murderous criminals) ...
I wouldn't mind if they conceded that maybe their priorities were a little goofy, and that even an ordinary citizen like me could have told them that back in, say, April 2001.
It's frustrating to be one of many people who, prior to 9/11/01, signed petitions begging the White House (Clinton and Bush II's) to pay attention to the plight of women under the Taliban.
And it's deeply, deeply frustrating to be one of many people who, prior to 9/11/01, said things like, "I don't understand why the Bush Administration is spending so much time and money on an insanely complex and expensive missile defense shield to protect us from hypothetical nuclear missile attacks when what I'm really scared of is terrorists sneaking into the country and attacking us."
We could have been working with other nations – pre-9/11 – to develop an internat'l coalition against terrorism. We could have been keeping it at the forefront of the UN's attention. We could have been putting united world pressure on the Taliban to shape up.
Instead we were alienating and insulting potential allies by fussing around with this missile defense crap (in violation of treaty).
Probably none of the things I mention would have stopped the attacks, but they might have left us better prepared to deal with the aftermath ... and, if nothing else, they would at least have helped me to believe that the Bush Admin knew (and knows) what it's doing.
Did Bush cause 9/11? No. Is he a murderer? No.
Did he make some questionable presidential decisions and set some silly priorities?
Oh, yes.
Does that make me feel good about him? Safe under his leadership?
No.
Maybe I'm some kind of crazy exception, but if he would just admit that he possibly has made mistakes, and appear to be communicating honestly with us, I'd be MORE likely to vote for him, not less.
As it is, he and his supporters keep stressing how perfect he is, and how Democrats and foreigners and anyone who dares express a dissenting opinion are the real danger.
It feels like his priorities are still in the wrong place, even now.
It feels like this article is maybe right – maybe Bush really is more obssessed with triumphing over political enemies than really making a difference.
And since that's how it feels, I can't bring myself to support him.
– end of rant –
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/14/04 3:38pm
No, Joe, I think it's your pre-existing love for rhetorical trickery. Nobody – at least not me, and who else matters? – is saying Bush should've attacked Afghanistan. The extent of hindsight-based partisan jabbering in the 9/11 commission is infuriating to me, too. But I think the greater point is, why not follow up on the 8/6 PDB through normal intelligence channels? No bombs, just alerts, requests for information (and information-sharing) from intelligence agencies, and maybe clue the domestic airlines in. And, more generally – this is what I was referring to ("we were wrong") – the administration just needs to be able to admit fault. Asked twice about this last night, Bush couldn't come up with a single mistake his administration has ever made. C'mon... not even one?
This is what happens when your president believes he's doing God's will. Absolute conviction, no accountability, and no self-reflection.
Easterbrook constructs a cute argument, by saying to people who think the Bush administration could've done more, "Here? Is this what you'd rather have?" But it's really easy to tear apart an opponent's argument when you summarize that argument yourself. The argument isn't "bomb Afghanistan," it's "make terrorism a priority." Just make it a priority, whether that means being less Clinton-allergic, or less Iraq-obsessed, or just evaluating intelligence data more carefully.
Besides, Easterbrook is Senior Editor forThe New Republic – shouldn't he be frothing about Halliburton and WMD? Whose side is this guy on?
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/14/04 3:49pm
Wow, Holly and I were composing hyper-long responses to this at the same time! Very impressively put, Holly. You're officially pH7's bravest coward. :)
I agree – and I was trying, less eloquently, to say this at the start – that my problem is more with the secretive and smug attitude than it is with any specific actions in 2001. I don't believe anyone could have precisely predicted the attacks. Could they have been stopped? Maybe, we'll never know. Is Bush to blame? No. (Am I borrowing this self-interrogative style from Holly, and the Cary Elwes character on Seinfeld? Yes.) But why not be honest and direct with America? Why not welcome the 9/11 commission with open arms (not just now, but also before it convened)? Why not meet with it, on its terms? Why not admit mistakes? Not mistakes of "We should've installed a massive shield around the WTC complex," just mistakes of "We should have paid more attention and prioritized terrorism more."
He prides himself on his ability to seem chummy, a "man of the people." Isn't forthrightness a part of that?
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/14/04 3:56pm
(Also, it should be noted that, for all his anti-blog howling, Joe has linked to ... a blog!)
Joe Mulder — Wed, 4/14/04 7:16pm
It's funny; I missed Holly's name at the beginning of her thing, and I just saw the "Anonymous Coward," and thought it was Andy writing. Then, I got to the part about signing the petition against the Taliban's treatment of women, pre-9/11, and I thought, "wait a minute, Andy would never do something like that."
I liked the article, not because I thought he was saying that Bush should have gone full-bore after Afghanistan on August 7th, but he was (using obvious [I thought] hyperbole) demonstrating that had Bush reacted with extreme force to this now "damning" August 6th PDB, people would have sniped at him, because some people will snipe at him no matter what he does.
(just like some people sniped at Clinton no matter what he did; I'm not saying lefties are the only people who do that. When Clinton went after Iraq, a few of your really far right Republican crazies [and I called them that back then, too] kept saying it was a "Wag the Dog" situation [which I always thought was funny; that movie barely did $40 million, so you know that most of the people who brought it up never even saw it])
I certainly don't think that Easterbrook was trying to be realistic, and I think that his thing dealt more with the specific reaction to the release of that August 6th PDB than with the situation as a whole.
And, I have no idea who Easterbrook is in any context other than his NFL football column (really; it's the best football column on the planet) and, to a much more secondary degree, his religious writings on beliefnet.com (more philosophical than dogmatic, although also dealing occasionally with the [to him, and to me, non-existant] "clash" between religion and science). I have no idea whose "side" he's on, and though I have heard the name "New Republic" before, I have no idea what that is either (the conservative radio show that originally cited the piece described the New Republic as "slightly left of center;" I have no idea whether that's accurate).
Also, it was a fake article. Obviously, I'm going to have a soft spot in my heart for fake articles. And I imagine that it was largely emotional, and that he realized its failings; otherwise, he would have made it an actual article and not just something he tossed off on his blog (or blogg, as he calls it, since his first name is Gregg).
Anyway.
Fun stuff.
Bee Boy — Wed, 4/14/04 8:17pm
Funny, I missed the context and when you said "wait a minute, Andy would never do something like that," I thought you meant treat women the way the Taliban did. And I thought, "Yes, he would! I've seen him do it!"
Anyway, cute fake article and all, but we all know the power sarcasm has to make a serious point. (And if we don't, we should be watching more Daily Show.) It's just a shame; I think most readers of Easterbrook's entry would come away with the message of "unilateral, pre-emptive war or constant, massive terrorist attacks; choose one." Which is a shame, because if I were running the 9/11 commission it would release findings that said something like: "Nobody could have predicted the specific 9/11 attacks. However, we should learn from them that preparedness is vital, interagency intelligence communication is key, and – tempting as it may be – we should not be lulled into a false security that America is invulnerable." And, I would probably add, "When an outgoing administration extends a handshake that could be helpful, maybe let's not slap it away like some sort of punk just because they don't sit on the same side of the aisle as we do. American lives and American security are more important than partisan politics."
Well, if it were my 9/11 commission, it would probably have a cooler name, too. Something like "Freedom Crusaders '04" – and it'd have a racing stripe. Because racing stripes are cool. And I'd subpoena Charles Grodin, just because it's fun to hear him talk.
(And don't think that "blogg" business isn't going on my list, right next to "gaydar" and "chocoholic.")
Joe Mulder — Thu, 4/15/04 5:51pm
(And don't think that "blogg" business isn't going on my list, right next to "gaydar" and "chocoholic.")
Aha! I knew you'd take that bait. I don't mean to speak for Mr. Easterbrook, but I am willing to imagine that he thinks the name "Gregg" is as ridiculous as I do. But, as I would, he has kept it, because that is the name his parents gave him, and that his the name he grew up with. So, by referring to his blog as "Easterblogg," I think he's gently poking fun at the silliness of his old name.
That, and the fact that in his NFL column, he always used to refer to (former) Buffalo coach Gregg Williams as "the tastefully named Gregg Williams."
Joe Mulder — Thu, 4/15/04 5:51pm
"I think he's gently poking fun at the silliness of his old name."
Sorry. "Own" name.
"Non-Andy" — Fri, 4/16/04 2:04am
...which is to say, Holly.
Don't have anything else to add, except that the simultaneous posting of the longish responses amuses me.
And is anyone else suffering withdrawal since The Daily Show is in reruns this week? sigh.
Bee Boy — Fri, 4/16/04 11:40am
Me! I am!
And don't think the Bush administration didn't spring that press conference on us once they found out Jon was taking the week off. Those crafty bastards.
"Holly" — Sat, 4/17/04 2:17am
You are SO right. Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory I'm on board with.