A Bit Of Wisdom

With the White House whining of partisanship, Maureen Dowd sums it up:

Dick Cheney suggested that Democrats asking questions were unpatriotic. But that suggestion is anti-American. Maybe there has been too much bipartisanship lately. You can't get the truth that way.

And The Mess Ensues

A must-read article in Salon from Joan Walsh, as the information seeps in that President Bush and this government knew more and more about a possible terrorism strike well in advance. The link is subscription-only, but if you e-mail me, I'll send it to you.

Maybe most chilling, we learned Friday from the Washington Post that the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard C. Clarke, gathered high-level leaders of the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service at a meeting July 5 and told them flatly: "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." All counterterrorism agencies were told to cancel vacations and nonessential travel. "For six weeks last summer, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness -- and anxiety -- against imminent terrorist attack," the Post revealed. But the American public was told nothing, and it's still not clear if Clarke's dire warning was shared with the president. By the time Bush received his CIA briefing on Aug. 6, the government had begun to stand down from the alert.

There was even a report released in 1999, ordered by the President Clinton, that specified:

Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House.

I have no idea how all of this is going to play out, but it's looking grimmer by the moment. President Bush should get of his high horse and answer some honest questions from the press. But don't hold your breath.

So I Lied...

I wasn't going to update until Monday, but this whole new development with the intelligence reports is just too tempting. I, unlike most Democrats, feel that the road this story seems to be going down -- the fact that Bush didn't do enough before September 11 -- will lead nowhere. There's enough blame to go around, especially in the FBI and CIA. More imporant are two derivatives of the original story: first, that the Administration waited eight months to release it (and even then, accidentally) and second, a theory as to why they decided that it was a good idea.

The Bush Administration had devised a plan to eradicate al Qaeda before September 11, yet Bush himself had not seen it until after the attacks. It involved comprehensive diplomatic, political, and military tactics that would necessitate a large coalition of international support -- more or less exactly the plan that the US Government enacted to moderate success. This original plan, as well as the fact that Bush had been warned in general terms about a possible attack, were inexplicably hidden from the American public. Certainly, there was probably nothing Bush could have done to prevent the hijackings -- he'd have to have been a genius, which he is obviously not. However, the secrecy that Bush so prizes has finally come back around to hurt him. Why didn't he just come out and say that we had some warning, even if it was insubstantial? There is simply no plausible excuse for the Administration to use to weasel its way out -- not even claiming that they needed to protect their sources.

Regardless of their failure to disclose the warnings, the Administration, at least in my opinion, should have reassured the American people that they already had a plan intact days before the attacks. I believe that the politicos in the Administration wanted the country to believe that this war was being conducted on the fly, and the brilliance of Bush and his team could be witnessed in the utter effectiveness of how swift the victory was. Meanwhile, they would follow war plans carefully drawn out by the Defense Department, State Department, National Security Council, and other government agencies. Yes, its a conspiracy theory, but I have no doubt of the arrogance of Bush or the Machiavellian tendencies of Karl Rove. In any case, its clearly a disgrace, and the Administration knows it -- that's why they're claming that any conjectures into "what the President knew and when he knew it" are purely political, and not honest questions from concerned Americans.

I'll be back Monday, probably, after my second final. See you then.

A Choice On Tuesday

Going to school in California, the chance is rare that I get to read up on politics in my home state, New Jersey. Yet this Tuesday's mayoral election in Newark is making headlines. Pitting "the establishment" - Mayor Sharpe James (he of the civil rights generation) - and Cory Booker, a 33 year old city-councilman upon whom many have pinned national political hopes, the election has turned into a free-for-all, so close that polls of a traditionally voter-free city have proved useless. This race is a toss-up, but it shouldn't be.

On one hand, James, a four-term mayor, has the endorsement of most city and state leaders, including Governor Jim McGreevey (although that one could be attributed to James helping McGreevey carry Newark's vote in last year's election). Then there's Booker. He's young, he's a graduate of Stanford and Yale Law, and has the support of mostly every important Democrat outside New Jersey who has bothered to give his or her two cents. He has the endorsement of the New York Times, New York Post, and Newark Star-Ledger. Most importantly, he has ideas for city renewal that James, at 66, and in office for sixteen years, cannot and would not initiate. James, for all intents and purposes, has accomplished all he ever will. While James' contributions to the city cannot be underestimated, let's face it - the place is disgusting, severely impoverished, and - after a year in California I can safely claim - elicits as little respect from the rest of the country as just about any city in America.

This campaign has been rough, on both sides. James, who had never been seriously challeged in four previous elections, has acted desperately, even calling Booker "not African-American enough" and suggesting he belonged to the KKK. Both campaigns have been accused of vandalism (although, for some reason, only Booker's team has been cited). When it comes to to it, Cory Booker may just be the spark needed for Newark to see the urban renewal already engulfing Jersey City and Hoboken. I hope that the voter turnout (expected to be under thirty percent) doesn't affect Booker's chances to be awarded the opportunity turn Newark around.

Are They Nuts?

Why Israel's Likud Party felt the need to pass a resolution against the creation of a Palestinian State is beyond my comprehension. While they're restating the obvious (with Sharon or Netanyahu in charge, that whole "Palestine" thing ain't happening), they seem to be saying something very dangerous. Since it appears that Netanyahu will, sooner or later, get another crack at leading Israel, his sponsorship of this resolution is anything but encouraging to the peace process. It says much about the former Prime Minister when he proposes and helps pass a resolution against the Palestinians that even Sharon realizes is faulty and unnecessary.

Apparently (and not surprisingly) one of the only ones in that government with a brain is Shimon Peres. While the Israelis are mostly backing Sharon in his terror crack-down, it might not be the worst idea to give Labor Party leaders, such as Peres, more influence in resolving this conflict. They're just as frustrated as all of Israel in wake of the suicide-bombings, yet they have a clarity and a more (though still limited) thoughful vision that might hasten the end of this war in a more timely and less painful fashion. Besides, not all Israelis are blindly accepting what their government is pursuing. It's shocking that with this resolution, Netanyahu has made Sharon look like a moderate, yet they both seem to have no plan for the future of the West Bank and Gaza - apparently, they want the vicious circle of violence to continue indefinitely.

A Correct Focus

While at least six Democrats flail away hopelessly in search of momentum to lead them to the nomination for the presidency, it seems at least one Democrat has his head (and ambitions for the party) in the right place. Terry McAuliffe, the oft controversial Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, an organization infamous for focusing only on presidential candidates, has brought unprecedented organization and focus to the Congressional elections this fall. In his thus far brief tenure as head of the DNC, McAuliffe has delivered mainly infrastructure improvements – a new headquarters, vastly improved voter lists, and a central command for Democratic messages. For a man who was seen basically as a fundraising guru, these enhancements are especially welcome.

Perhaps the Democratic presidential hopefuls could take a lesson from the DNC Chairman. Each seems unlikely at this point to wage a successful battle against Bush in ’04, and, campaign as they might for candidates this fall, they seem far more interested in their own ambitions for the White House (not a good thing). Their problems are compounded since they all sound alike, with no strong message of rebuttal against President Bush -- and they all refuse to even touch the issue of war criticism. It seems that John Kerry would be the only one who could attack the war without receiving the "traitor" label from every important conservative in the country, yet for any of the candidates, it would be a bold move - one that would bring them immediate national attention and would easily separate them from a group with a watered down, unconvincing message.