IPW Daily Report – Sunday, March 21, 2004
Bush before 9/11
The White House has begun to respond to
accusations that President Bush failed in fighting
terrorism before 9/11.
Richard Clarke, Bush's top official on
counter-terrorism who headed a cybersecurity
board, is interviewed on CBS’s 60 Minutes
tonight and is releasing a book, "Against All
Enemies," which alleges Bush ignored ominous
intelligence "chatter" in 2001 about possible
terror attacks.
It is reported that Clark tells 60 Minutes,
"I find it outrageous that the president is
running for re-election on the grounds that he's
done such great things about terrorism. He ignored
it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we
could have done something to stop 9/11."
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has
said in response that, "We did pursue the Clinton
administration policy and pursued it actively,
until we could get in a place a more comprehensive
policy -- not to roll back al Qaeda -- but to
eliminate al Qaeda."
"Even if we had been able to do it [a policy
change to eliminate al Qaeda] in 190 days, or 150
days, it was a policy that our counterterrorism
people told us was going to eliminate al Qaeda
over three to five years," Rice said. "This was
not something that was going to stop September
11th."
Bush had only been in office 230 days when the
Sept. 11 attacks happened.
Bush's National Security counsel, Stephen Hadley,
discredits Clark’s statement that Bush ignored
chatter in 2001 regarding possible attacks.
"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al
Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough,
the president got concerned about whether there
was the possibility of an attack on the homeland,"
said Hadley.
Hadley goes on to express that the President asked
everyone to check further to see if intelligence
had missed something -- intelligence that Clark
was responsible for as the terrorist czar.
Kerry’s Internationalism
analysis by
Roger Wm. Hughes
John Kerry sent his friend Sen. Ted
(Chappaquiddick) Kennedy to appear on NBC’s
Meet the Press. And Kennedy proved why he is
the Democrat that Republicans hate and loathe,
showing clearly that his arrogant, contemptuous,
pugnaciousness (and that was his good side) had
not diminished.
Besides calling President Bush a traitor, liar,
criminal and the scourge of the earth, Kennedy
once again the need for internationalizing our
foreign policy and called our current allies
nothing but a sham. Note: the allies that are not
present who have any meaning to the current
coalition are the French, Germans and Russians.
These are the countries that Kerry’s proxy Sen.
Kennedy, of course, is clamoring to be given
greater sway and power over America’s foreign
policy.
This push for greater internationalism is
perplexing given the track records of France,
Russia and lately Germany.
For years the French Foreign Minister has
advocated Europe develop a stronger military force
to offset America’s military might following the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Prior to that time
France, Germany and most other European countries
except England did little in the way of keeping up
with changing military technology. They chose
instead to live under the umbrella of protection
provided by America. And under their current
administration, Germany has aligned with France.
These countries reaped a huge economic benefit of
not having to spend on defense with the security
provided by the U.S.
Sadly, their lack of military ability became
apparent as Europe allowed the Serbian holocaust
to occur. Now, the same American military that
protected them and allowed them to avoid spending
money on their own militaries has routed out
Saddam Hussein. And in the process of removing him
from power, these countries’ economic stability
and influence in the world is threatened. Why?
Because they can no longer secure their lucrative
contracts with dictators like Saddam Hussein
because the U. S. can act unilaterally.
Part of the problem is that Socialism in these
country is bankrupting their ability to compete
economically in the world save for economic
isolationism that is further destroying their
economy.
While there is a need to cooperate in the world,
it does not make sense that America would seek to
give greater power to faux-friends who want to
curtail American influence and economic
opportunity.
With Ted Kennedy barking for John Kerry on Meet
the Press today advocating greater
internationalization (France, Germany, Russia…) of
our military efforts, Kerry’s intent comes into
focus.
In examining Kerry’s record, it becomes clearer
that Kerry is stuck in the 1960’s. The Washington Post point out that even President
Bill Clinton wasn’t international enough for
Kerry:
When President Bill Clinton referred to the United
States as "the indispensable nation" during his
second inaugural address in 1997, and then as
other U.S. officials picked up the term, Sen. John
F. Kerry recoiled. He turned to his longtime
foreign policy aide Nancy Stetson to ask, "Why are
we adopting such an arrogant, obnoxious tone?"
The part of the Post article regarding why Kerry
is the way he is may have been said best by Robert
Kagan.
"Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, said he senses
that Kerry in recent years has been refashioning
his foreign-policy persona, making it appear
tougher, in preparation for a run for the
presidency. "The question, setting aside the
campaign, is: Where is John Kerry's heart?" said
Kagan, who has advocated a muscular U.S. approach
to world affairs. "My sense is his heart is in the
anti-Vietnam, '70s-'80s left."
homepage
