It has been clear to those who pay attention that the purpose of the 9-11 commission is political theater, not improving our security. Otherwise it wouldn't be forcing Condi Rice to testify in public when she has done so in private; it wouldn't be holding its hearings and releasing its report during the presidential election season; it wouldn't be generating partisan leaks.
Democratic Senator Zell Miller points out the danger to our nation represented by this process.
Note, emphasis has been added.
After watching the harsh acrimony generated by the September 11 Commission – which, let me say at the outset, is made up of good and able members – I’ve come to seriously question this panel’s usefulness.I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops.
Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time, looking backwards when we should be looking forward.Can you imagine handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, the media and the public standing for this kind of political gamesmanship and finger pointing after that “day of infamy” in 1941?
Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and take the battle to America’s enemies, and not dwell on what FDR knew when.
You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not win an election. That’s what made them “The Greatest Generation.”
In fact, the Pearl Harbor hearings were not held until 1946.
No, it is the real enemies of America that I’m concerned about.These evil killers who right now, right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger pointing of these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.
They see this as a major split within the Great Satan America. They see anger, they see division, instability, bickering, peevishness and dissension.
They see the President of the United States hammered unmercifully. They see all this and they are greatly, greatly encouraged.
We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet, these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that.
We are playing with fire. We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become.
Dick Clarke’s book and its release coinciding with these hearings have done this country a tremendous disservice, and someday we will reap its whirlwind.
Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is “the sweetest morsel that ever was cooked in hell.”
The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed?
These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have not been energized since 9/11.
Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did Spain’s. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick your head in the sand.
Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back?In the 1990's is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990's is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written his book. That is, if he really had America’s best interest at heart
It’s obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors.The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill him them before they kill us. And, in case you haven’t figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter.
This is a time like no other in the history of this country, and this country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is stupid, and it is criminal.
There is one other group that we should remember is listening to all of this - our troops. I was in Iraq in January and one day when I was meeting with the 1st Armored Division, a unit with a proud history known as Old Ironsides, we were discussing troop morale, and the Commanding General said it was top notch.And I turned to the Division’s Sergeant Major, the top enlisted man in the division, a big, burly, 6-foot-3, 240 pound African American and I said, “That’s good, but how do you sustain that kind of morale?”
Without hesitation he narrowed his eyes, and he looked at me and said “The morale will stay high just as long as these troops know the people back home support us.”
Many on the left mouth the words "but we support our troops."
Don't believe that for one second, because the word "but" is always there, and the troops and our enemies hear it loud and clear, just as we heard it loud and clear during the Vietnam War.
Posted by John Moore at April 3, 2004 12:59 PM | TrackBackZell Miller? Man you must be going for the uninformed. Anyone who reads knows he's always voted the Republican way. Backed almost every initiative Bush has put forward, ect.
Maybe use a real Democrat to back these assertions.
Posted by: IXLNXS on April 4, 2004 03:55 PMIXLNXS... I understand why you might not like Zell. He is a DINO, just like some Republicans are RINO.
But he is also a lame duck, which means he can say what he knows and what he thinks without worrying about his re-election.
You would attack what he says because he's not a "real democrat." Heck, the "real Democrats" are too busy lying up one side and down the other about Bush to be worth listening to for one second.
I suppose when you can't find a counter argument, ad hominem is what you have to stoop to. You won't fool anyone with it, though.
Give me a break here John Moore. You are acting like the other Republican supporting mouthpieces. Are you a paid or unpaid stooge for Carl Rove?
Sure, down play the importance of Condi Rice to trying to learn the truth behind 9/11. Hide her testimony so the Republicans don't look so stupid and deservedly loose in November.
If I were you stooge mouthpieces I would look at how Goebbels did created propaganda, if you already haven't.
I might not be so irritated with your line of babble if you could explain why it is not a good time to have public testimony from Rice and others. Assuming as a hypothetical set of facts that Bush and his guys were not paying attention to the real danger of Al Qaeda and made a major error of judgment in not doing so and allowed 9/11 to happen because of this faulty judgment. Do you in good faith and honesty want to deny the American people knowledge about what occurred before 9/11? Do you want to deny US citizens the right to be informed so WE cannot make an informed judgment when WE vote for the next president?
Do you really believe in trusting Bush, so you are telling the American people to TRUST Bush and the rest of his fabricators/liars to tell the truth to the American people?
I would like a discussion with you around these points.
Posted by: pete on April 5, 2004 12:02 AMpete,
You certainly seem to have picked up the appropriate left wing buzz words. And you even managed to drag the Nazi's into your attacks. And you expect someone to consider you seriously.
I have given good reasons. You aren't interested. You appear to be just one of those ignorant trolls who shows up and shoots off his mouth with insults.
I'm sure you know this and are pretending not to, but just in case you should know the following:
1) Condi has already given plenty of testimony. The committee simply asked her to show up and repeat it. Is the unique precedent of forcing a presidential adviser to testify about a non-criminal manner in public worth the absolutely zero increase in information that will result? Please explain why her testimony will add to the knowledge of the commission? Do you believe in the separation of powers? Are you aware that this is the first time in the history of the United States that this has been done?
2) You claim you wouldn't be so irritated if I gave some reasons. Your inability(or more likely, unwillingness) to read is showing. I gave a clear reason, and a precedent which was used by the Democratic party in a similar situation: The Pearl Harbor commission didn't meet until 1946, and not in a presidential election year. And gues who the sneaky liars were who put it off to hide their sins - it was the Roosevelt (by then Truman) administration - one of your patron saints, I believe.
You see, I don't have your blind faith in the fairness of that committee. I know it will be partisan because I have already watched it in action. And just what would you like to be informed about? We already know that Clinton was in charge for 8 years, whereas Bush only had 5 1/2 months, but you guys are trying to pin 9-11 on him anyway. And nothing Condi can say will satisfy you, because you are just another Bush hater.
You call Bush and those of us who support him fabricators and liasr.
Perhaps you should look at this history of your own candidate, a traitor to his country who lied under oath in 1971 to the US Senate, who met with our enemy and carried their surrender terms to the US and recommended we accept them immediately, all while still a sworn officer of the United States Navy. This is the man who this year tried (unsuccessfully) to hide his participation in a meeting of his organization where the assassination of US Senators was discussed. He lied about not being present at the meeting. Then when confronted with irrefutable evidence, he blamed it on bad memory. And you call Bush a liar????
If you would likie a discussion with me, you are going to have to start out with a little politeness. I have no need for trolls and people who spread poorly reasoned propaganda across my blog.
I've been dealing with toads like you online since 1980. Bring it on, but try being polite and stick to the facts. You might learn something.
Let's start with what lies you are accusing of.
Or shall we start with the eggregious lies the Democrats have been spreading. Do you know how we Vietnam Veterans feel about John Kerry and his lies and his treason? Don't be fooled because he's fooled a few vets. We know about this guy, we've seen his type before. He is an opportunist (according to his VVAW comrades and the FBI at the time) who took advantage of an outrageous act of slander and treason to establish anti-war credentials which allowed him to run for office (he previously had tried it without those credentials and only lasted three weeks).
Bush didn't put me up to anything. But the Democrat's appalling choice of a traitor to run for President has certainly energized me and lots of other.
The other thing that has energized us is the incredible level of rage and associated dishonable and disgusting behavior evinced by Bush haters and Kerry lovers. It is unpreceded in my experience. It is worse than what I saw the last time Democrats were trying to get us to lose a war, something they succeeded at.
Posted by: John Moore on April 5, 2004 12:53 AMJohn Moore, do you know the saying about the "pot calling the kettle black." This is not meant as an impolite question, but do you think you can bring that saying around to see how it applies to you? It appears to my weak and perverted mind that many of the things you have written since I bookmarked your site are accusatory, rude and very unenlightening.
Sure I will be polite as that is my nature. You can be your normal self. I will take you as you come.
One of a number of things I want to correct about your comments above, is that I did not ask if Bush put you up to anything. I asked if you were working with Carl Rove. I didn't read an answer.
You make way to many assumptions. I never said I supported Kerry. At this point I might vote for him as he is the only viable candidate to beat Bush. My reason is that I believe Bush is a disaster as a president, by intent or incompetence, it does not matter, WE end up getting the same thing, if WE don't get rid of Bush, war promoters, violators of Americans' civil rights and constitutional rights, imperialists, religion being promoted by the government and hostility from other people around the world, among other things. This is not a person I want leading the country. Actually, he would do better kicking shit out on the back 40. Don't be upset about this statement as I have family who are ranchers and I respect them and love them, but I would not vote for anyone of them for president of the US.
The Nazis are an interesting study for comparison. They had an agenda, domination, they had a stealth program to take national power legitimately and then take control over all aspects of government so as to make the government and the Nazi Party one and the same such as the Republicans have been doing since before 2000. What do you call the majority control of Congress and the presidency, with unsavory and perhaps illegal efforts to stifle dissent vis-a-vis Wilson and the others who have debunked Bush's reasons for his war.
What are the parallels between Hitler invading Poland on the basis of lies and Bush invading Iraq on the basis of lies?
What do you say to the republicans/conservatives trying to take control of the media and using it to stifle opposition thoughts politicians?
Got to leave, but will be back to complete my response to your slamming comments.
Posted by: pete on April 5, 2004 04:25 AMPete
No, I have no association with the Bush Campaign. I am not working for Karl Rove. I am a Republican. Nothing I do here has anything to do with that membership.
As a Vietnam Veteran and an aware, well read and independently thinking American, I am strongly anti-Kerry, and the only alternative is Bush, who coincidently has many views and actions that I like and some that I don't like.
Now, my question: do you ask your questions honestly or as a way of introducing propaganda? I have encountered people here before who clearly were doing the latter.
So if you ask questions like "how do you feel about Bush beating his mother" or something, I will know. Your only questions (other than the Carl Rove ones) are of that category.
So here is my answer. Bush did not invade Iraq on the basis of lies. If you want to see why, read other articles on this blog where I have gone into great detail. I am not going to repeat it for you.
"What do you call the majority control of Congress and the Presidency, with unsavory and perhaps illegal efforts to stifle dissent vis-a-vis Wilson and the others who have debunked Bushs[sic] reasons for this war?
First, I call that a dishonest question.
Second, I call it a rare circumstance, since this is the first time in 50 years that Republicans have had control of congress and the Presidency since the '50s, while Democrats had it 1960-1968, 1976-1980, and 1992-1994.
Second, there have been no illegal efforts to stifle "dissent".
What do you call a person who praises Bush one year and then, for great profit, attacks Bush the next, in both cases talking about the same period of time? I call him a despicable liar and opportunist.
Republicans/Conservatives are not trying to take control of the media and are not trying to stifle "opposition thoughts [sic] politicians." Hence your question is itself a lie.
In fact, mainstream media strongly supports Democrats, which is why conservative talk radio is a financial success and liberal talk radio always fails except in blue states. The liberal commentary market is already saturated, by NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times, etc.
So here is a question for you:
Are you a member of the Democratic Underground?
Do you agree with Kos's comments about the deaths of "mercenaries" in Fallujah?
Have you ever been in the military and do you know anything about it?
What would you do about Islamofascist?
How would you feel if I always managed to mention Stalin and his crimes in close association to John Kerry and Democrats?
Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) on April 5, 2004 02:49 PM"The Nazis are an interesting study for comparison. They had an agenda, domination, they had a stealth program to take national power legitimately and then take control over all aspects of government so as to make the government and the Nazi Party one and the same such as the Republicans have been doing since before 2000."
Gee, Pete, lots of meat on that bone for me to gnaw on. First of all, can't you guys come up with some other comparison than the Nazis? Who are the Jews in your comparison? You accuse of of having an agenda, domination. Domination of what? We have a stealth program to take power legitimately? It's called winning elections, but you guys aren't too familiar with that program lately, are you?
"What do you call the majority control of Congress and the presidency, with unsavory and perhaps illegal efforts to stifle dissent vis-a-vis Wilson and the others who have debunked Bush's reasons for his war."
I dunno, what do YOU call it? Majority control of Congress and the presidency we got by winning elections, remember? The Wilson affair is mostly a comedy, as witness the photo shoot involving this supposedly top-secret CIA agent in Vanity Fair a few months back. Oh, and Wilson's method of debunking Bush's reasons for his war was to sip tea with some diplomats in Niger, by his own account.
Hey John, a less than literate 'nam vet checking in. As one who had already served in 'nam when Kerry did his testimony, I had a real problem. How someone who had served time over there could turn on his buddies , I don't know. I'm looking up sites that are against him and letting them know that I'm here. I'm unemployed but I vote, so I can help in that respect.
Posted by: Mike H. on April 5, 2004 11:00 PMPete:
Just reading over your comments. It is evermore clear that arguing with a dense Lefty is utterly pointless. Mr. Moore is doubly patient in his attempt to inform people like you, but the receptacle for knowledge is just not there.
The fatal shortcoming in all your views is your solipsism, which can be demonstrated simply by reading your posts. Your use of the personal pronoun "I" is like a series of telephone poles along a dusty road to nowhere.
You're incapable of objectifying anything. Your intellect is confined in the tiny dungeon of your vast and impenetrable ego; it leers out occasionally in order to make a vile accusation or ramble about Nazis or Bush or some other dizzy attempt to demonstrate skimpy knowledge, then slithers back in for another round of self-admiration.
You're a bore. Give it up. You haven't a chance in a political system still free enough to reject cranks, amateurs and poseurs.
Hey Pete, get your head out of your ass.
I really don't know why the f*ck people get into arguments and laundry lists of reasons for Gulf War II. It's really simple:
1) Gulf War I ended with a cease-fire.
2) One of the conditions of the cease-fire was that Iraq would allow unfettered access by UN weapons inspectors.
3) Iraq threw the weapons inspectors out. At that point, the cease-fire was violated and the war was automatically back on. No reasons needed, no approval had to be sought. By Iraq's choice, the state of war resumed.
That's the argument I've always used. F*ck WMD, f*ck terrorist ties, it's all irrelevant. Iraq broke the cease-fire.
Posted by: Marcuse on April 6, 2004 07:09 PM
Someone 'argues' that Cold War era containment is effective against the threat of asymmetrical terrorist warfare these days. By that logic, our conventional armed forces together with our 'unconventional' nuclear arsenals and also the MAD doctrine of it-would-be-pretty-stupid-to-strike-first should have deterred the Islamofascists on 9-11. Or even Saddam before he invaded Kuwait. Well, that didn't work. At least we could militarily eject Saddam from Kuwait, but we could not put him out of business because of UN restrictions and Coalition sensibilities. Over the 90's it was pretty well documented just how uncontained and worrisome Saddam's activities were. Why did Clinton's Democrat Senators vote for an Iraqi regime change in the late 90's?
Should we have endlessly enforced the no-fly zones in Saddam's Iraq, keeping in mind that only the US and Great Britain were bothering to do this, and were taking fire? And of course we were blind as to what was going on in the rest of Iraq. There was virtually no oversight or control of Iraq's borders.
Or, perhaps this person is suggesting the mighty UN could effectively 'contain' a regime that defied its paper resolutions and corrupted the so-called sanctions. Charging the UN with containing Iraq is a ludicrously funny concept, especially now that we know about the extensive pay-offs Saddam made to politicians, journalists, businessmen and UN officials during the sanction and Oil-for-Food years.
We didn't ask for the 9-11 attack, We didn't ask for an unconventional enemy, either- these terrorists are both state-sponsored and independent. They are comprised of specific individuals whom we can keep hunting down, but they also arise out of a movement that has to be fought with ideas, a show of force on our part, and structural changes to their home societies. If the Iraq experiment fails to achieve a ripple effect of positive change in the neighboring fascist and oppressor regimes, then at least the Iraqi people aren't stuck with Hussein and sons. At least they can say they had a chance to make something better of their country and lives.
Leftists/neoisolationists seem to argue that no American troop's life is worth the attempt to increase our national security by bringing needed reform to a failed and violent region that exports terrorism. They contend that intelligence and police work will handle this 'situation'. Two things I would say to the police action alone mentality: The corrupt ME autocracies are churning out and financing fanatical killers faster than we can catch them, and they're not really cooperating with our police efforts inside their borders, obviously.
Second, aren't these leftist objectors the same ones whose litany has been to decry US "support" of corrupt regimes in the Middle East (as if all of Europe and the rest of the world didn't do oil business there, too!)? And, haven't the raving radical Middle Easterners complained for years that the political oppression there was somehow the fault of Satan America? Post-colonialism, oil politics- take your pick. The refrain of the blame-game was sung loudly there and even here in American universities.
Well, now we're doing something about it. Hope they seize the opportunity
Posted by: Captain Beefheart on April 6, 2004 07:11 PMComments are open and unmoderated, although abusive or annoying remarks may be deleted or modified. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of John Moore.
Any comments which are advertisements or have links to commercial sites for the purpose of advertising or other commercial purposes will be charged $1000 per day per instance.
Please leave a valid email address. It will not be displayed to others (unless you fail to put something in the URL field) and will not be used for marketing, I won't give it to the guys in the black helicopters or the black shoes, and I won't use it for other nefarious purposes. In fact, the only thing I might do with it is send you mail about your comment, and that isn't guaranteed.
If you don't know HTML or don't care to use it, just skip the rest of the instructions here and fill in the boxes below.
The following HTML tags are allowed: a href, b, br, p, strong, em, ul, li, blockquote, pre.
To insert a reference (URL) for another page, use:
<a href="the-url">some-text</a>
