*** ORBUSMAX GUEST OP/ED ***
THE LEFT'S UNCONSCIONABLE BLAME GAME - By Edward L. Daley
April 16, 2004
During her appearance before the September 11 commission on April 8th (
http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html ), Condoleezza Rice was asked by
Commissioner Tim Roemer to comment upon an August 6, 2001 President's
Daily Brief (PDB) titled 'Osama bin Laden determined to attack the
United States'. Even though Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste had,
earlier in the hearing, attempted to characterized the document as a
specific threat assessment, only to be corrected by Dr. Rice, she
rightly reiterated that the PDB in question was merely an historical
document, remarking that it had been presented to the president in
response to inquiries he had previously made concerning Al-Qaeda
activities. She pointed out that it contained no new information about
the terrorist organization's intentions or specific plans to commit any
terrorist acts in this country.
She went on to say, in response to Mr. Roemer's inquiry, "I don't think
you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden would like
to attack the United States." Certainly that is the case, considering
the fact that we've known about Al-Qaeda's intentions toward our
civilian population since at least 1993, when they first bombed the
World Trade Center. Still, the following day the news media was buzzing
with reports that the president knew more about the 9/11 attacks than he
had previously let on, spotlighting the title of the PDB as if that
alone was evidence of deception and ineptness at the highest level of
the administration.
As I watched the nearly three-hour long interrogation of the president's
National Security Adviser, I became keenly aware of the fact that the
tone of some of the commissioners, most notably Bob Kerrey and Richard
Ben-Veniste, was one of bombast and animosity. Their questions were
often leading, and they seemed to expect simple yes-or-no answers to the
various complex questions they asked, that is, when they weren't busy
trying to stop Dr, Rice from answering certain other questions that they
apparently didn't want answered, at least not publicly.
For instance, when Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked "Isn't it a fact, Dr.
Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this
country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?", Rice
responded by answering the second of the two questions first, yet was
cut off when she attempted to address the first one. "I would like to
finish my point here." said Rice after being interrupted by the
commissioner, to which he replied, astonishingly enough, "I didn't know
there was a point." Rice then pointed out that he had just asked if it
was true that the PDB warned of attacks, only to have Mr. Ben-Veniste
remark "I asked you what the title was." It was obvious at that point
that he was utterly disinterested in finding out if the PDB actually
warned of a specific threat or not. He was only concerned with
compelling Dr. Rice to say the name of the document in front of the TV
cameras.
As a matter of fact, all of the liberal members of the commission
assumed condescending and, in some cases, vitriolic attitudes during the
course of the hearing. The more confrontational of them implied in more
ways than one that the Bush administration should have known the 9/11
attacks were coming, and that it was either too incompetent to act or
simply ignored the warnings it was given. What they did not bring to
light is what exactly they believe the Bush administration could have
done differently at that time which would have prevented such atrocities
from happening.
Think about it. Let's assume that the president was made aware that
terrorists were going to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into
buildings at some unknown time and at an unidentified location in the
country. What measures would he have had to take to make sure that such
an attack never took place? The answer is, basically, everything he's
done since 9/11. Now ask yourself this, do you believe that the liberals
in Congress would have gone along with enacting the president's current
policies prior to that date? Before you answer that, ask yourself the
following questions.
1.) Who voted to radically cut funding to both the CIA and the military,
and set up grossly ill-conceived and painfully naive policies concerning
the use by our intelligence agencies of individuals connected to
criminal enterprises across the globe, essentially decimating our
nation's ground intelligence capabilities worldwide?
2.) Who intentionally put up legal barriers which seriously restricted,
practically to the point of non-existence, cooperation between law
enforcement agencies like the FBI and the entire intelligence gathering
community?
3.) Who failed to act against Al-Qaeda and similar groups in any
substantial way following the first World Trade Center bombing, the
bombing of the U.S. military barracks (Khobar Towers) in Saudi Arabia,
the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS
Cole in Yemen?
4.) Who was it that decided the issue of international terrorism should
be treated as a law enforcement problem instead of a national security
or military one for nearly a decade?
5.) Who had the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden into custody on more
than one occasion yet decided against doing so each time?
6.) Who screamed bloody murder when they thought President Bush was
going to begin a campaign of racial profiling against Arab immigrants
immediately following 9/11, even though there was no evidence to suggest
that he had any intention of doing so?
7.) Who are the first people to donate their time and money to defend
individuals suspected of terrorist activities, and flock to foreign
countries in defense of terrorist supporting dictators once our
president has decided to take stern measures against them?
8.) Who is it that believed Bill Clinton without reservation when he
claimed that Saddam Hussein had created weapons of mass destruction and
was a sincere threat to the United States, yet turned against President
Bush when he used the same intelligence Clinton had previously sighted,
in order to actually do something about the situation instead from
merely talking tough?
I think we all know the common answer to these many questions, yet in
spite of the fact that LIBERALS showed a complete unwillingness to take
the threat of terrorism seriously prior to the September 11 attacks and
have repeatedly attempted to hinder our progress in the war ever since,
we are now supposed to believe that they would have supported the notion
of George W, Bush preemptively targeting Arab terrorist suspects in this
country during his first eight months in office. We are supposed to just
accept at face value the supposition that they would have, in early
2001, favored increasing by many billions of dollars the budgets of the
CIA, FBI and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the
radical overhaul of the previous administration's terrorism related
policies, based solely upon the assumption that Al-Qaeda was, at some
point in the future, going to commit terrorist acts in this country.
Is there anyone who can envision such a scenario actually taking place,
or is it far more likely that the liberal minority in this country would
have reacted with horror and vicious reproach toward the president at
the mere suggestion that he would undertake such initiatives? I believe
the answer to that question is as obvious as the previous ones, yet now
these Monday morning quarterbacks want everyone to believe that Bush
should have adopted those very policies upon taking office in January of
2001. This is such an obviously absurd assertion that remarking on it
further would be comical. The fact is that the leftists of America are
engaged in a well coordinated effort to blame George W. Bush and his
administration for what is undoubtedly their own failures, and their
shameless politicizing of the worst terrorist attacks in history, as
well as the current conflict in Iraq, exposes them for the
ultra-partisan political hacks that they are.
It's one thing to make note of the fact that previous administrations
left the current one with little to work with in the way of a viable
counter-terrorism infrastructure, but it's another thing entirely to say
that any administration, either past or present should be held
accountable for the acts of psychotic mass murderers. Liberals seem to
have little or no respect for the fact that we are at war. The last
thing we need is a pack of finger-pointing hypocrites running around
telling us and our combat troops overseas that our Commander in Chief is
responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens, most
especially when they know it isn't the truth. TERRORISTS are responsible
for committing acts of terror, not our government, even when it is being
run by leftist ideologues with no common sense and no idea as to what
should be done to prevent such unprovoked attacks! Instead of attempting
to lambaste and humiliate the people currently in charge, these people
should be trying to unify the nation and encourage their loyal followers
to do the same.
They should be willing to admit their own mistakes and forgo the petty,
divisive rhetoric they so readily embrace during this most critical time
in our history for the sake of their country. Instead they place their
own political aspirations ahead of the welfare of their fellow
Americans, the mission of the men and women serving in our armed forces
and the cause of liberty around the world. They have shamed themselves
in the most profound of ways, and no apologies they could offer at this
point can repair the damage they have done to this nation. I hold them
in contempt for their blatant disregard for all that is honorable and
decent, and encourage every patriotic American to speak out against
them. Their motives are as transparent as their behavior is despicable,
and no person of good conscience can argue in defense of their actions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Daley is the owner/operator of the news website The Daley Times-Post.