[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Corrupt Government Title: The path to American defeat brought to you by democrat rats The path to American defeat ABC's heatedly debated miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," was the first time a mainstream media outlet told part of the story concerning eight years of failures by the Clinton administration in taking the war against Islamic terrorism seriously. It's a story that demanded to be told. Eight years of dangerous miscalculations by the Clinton administration (with a leg-up from Jimmy Carter's disastrous foreign policy in Iran) allowed Islamic extremists to develop terrorist networks powerful enough to hold a number of Middle Eastern governments captive to their extremist and bloodthirsty ideology. But there's also a story to be told about more recent actions by Bush administration officials trusted with America's security interests who have unwittingly set back our nation's effort to fight terrorism. Call it "The Path to American Defeat," because defeat is what we will face if the course these wrong-headed people have tried to set for our nation is not quickly reversed. Playing killer politics Concerned about their legacy of having failed Americans at our nation's most critical juncture, the alumni of former frat boys and blue-dress wearing sorority sisters that once occupied the Clinton administration have gone to great lengths to keep the media silent about their mistakes in combating Islamic terrorism. The frenzied campaign against ABC to squash "The Path to 9/11" was unprecedented for a former president and his advisers. Of course, it was also far more dignified than their previous attempt to hide the truth. You remember that unforgettable image of former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger stuffing classified documents from the National Archives down his pants and socks? The materials apparently incriminated the Clinton administration for failing to take action against al-Qaida and the terrorist threat. Berger was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and relinquish his security clearance for three years in addition to a sentence of two years probation for his criminal conduct. But that seems like small solace for the victims of Islamic terrorism who suffered as a result of the failures of President Clinton, Berger, Madeleine Albright and others. What's tragic is that the real culprit for the failures in the Clinton administration was a culture consumed by politics. Call it killer politics, because the consequences for thousands of Americans has been lethal. President Clinton, his wife and all those they hired were driven by a thirst for political power and a desire to obtain adoration of the public. It was more important to pursue Dick Morris' triangulation on tricky issues, or manage an effective damage control effort against Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp, than it was to pursue Islamic terrorists half a world away. The former had an impact on the president's poll numbers, the latter seemed to the officials of the Clinton administration to be an unnecessary distraction. The failed policies of appeasement "The Path to 9/11" helped to underscore the fact that the danger we faced as a country was not just the external threat from the terrorists. There were threats from within, people unwilling to act or worse, obstructionist, when it came to taking action to counter the terrorist threat. But such failings have not been limited to the Clinton years. Recently, a handful of players within the Bush administration have acted aggressively to advance a more modest and moderate response by the United States to the terrorist threat. Men like former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the now disgraced former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (Powell's No. 2 man). This week, Colin Powell continued to do in the private sector what he did while serving in the public sector: undermine the Bush administration's war against Islamic jihadism. In a letter to U.S. Sen. John McCain, Powell announced that he was opposed to Bush's anti-terrorism legislation now before Congress. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell wrote. Well, at least Powell was honest, because in that one sentence he reveals what it is that differentiates Bush's tough fight against terrorism (similar to Reagan's unapologetic hard line against communism) and the go-along, get-along appeasers of the Clinton administration and the recent Powell-Armitage network in the Bush administration. In a recent interview with the Atlantic Monthly, Powell struggled to identify who it was that was responsible for all the terrorist attacks that have taken place around the globe for the past two decades: There's no longer just the United States versus the Soviet Union, but the whole West and international community against the whole whatever-you-want-to-call-it. And so in my job especially – and I'm considered the multilateralist – multilateralism means finding areas of compromise. The "whatever-you-want-to-call-it," Mr. Powell, is Islamic jihadism. The terrorists have made it clear in every video they've ever delivered to Al-Jazeera or letter to the editor they've sent to the New York Times. The fact that you served as America's secretary of state and you can't figure it out, should worry all Americans. One guy who can figure things like this out is John Bolton, the proudly patriotic and unapologetically pro-American ambassador to the U.N. When Bolton was first tapped by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, it was Colin Powell who emerged as a leader in the effort to derail the nomination. In April 2005, Powell called Republican senators Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel and lobbied them to oppose Bolton's nomination. Powell thought Bolton was too much an advocate for American interests and that this might offend other nations at the U.N. who want to see American interests suffer. Heaven forbid if we should offend Sudan on human rights or Iran on nuclear proliferation issues! One of Powell's allies at the State Department, Carl Ford, went up to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about how awful John Bolton was and why they should reject his nomination, saying Bolton was "a quintessential kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy." Ford made headlines again recently, when former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage explained that he had confided to Ford about the fact that it was he, not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney or Scooter Libby, who had leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak. Ford and Armitage sat silently for months, watching as the news media, Democratic politicians and anti-war activists waged war against the Bush administration. One can only imagine the satisfaction they must have felt watching all those that they despised for being "war hawks" trashed every day on television, radio and in newsprint. Their private war against the Bush administration's aggressive foreign policy was taken to a new low. No more Mr. Nice Guy, we're at war President Bush's instincts are to be gracious and extend his friendship to his enemies. That kindness and desire to reach out to those who dislike him is bad enough when it means working with Ted Kennedy on new education bureaucracies or passing measures like the prescription drug plan. But in the case of the war on terrorism, tolerating weak sisters in his administration is putting American security in jeopardy. President Bush has two years left to accomplish some very important jobs. The first and foremost is national security, and right now, in Congress, the same Foggy Bottom crowd and "Blame America First" supporters are stalling new legislation to define anti-terrorist detention and surveillance programs. But Bush could also help advance the war on terrorism by conducting a purge in his administration of the remnants of the Colin Powell-Richard Armitage-Richard Clarke crowd. Instead of trying to be liked by your enemies, it's time Bush and his closest advisers realized that when you are at war, you only win when you defeat them.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|