More Unpredecence

The Times' has a concise little history of independent investigative commissions, from FDR's at the outset of World War II to President Clinton's commission to investigate TWA Flight 800. While the article is ambivalent as to the usefulness of them, it does well to point out that George W. Bush is on his own, historically, in opposing a commission to research the September 11 attacks for intelligence and other failures. The independent investigation after Pearl Harbor was launched on December 18, 1941, just eleven days after the fact. It's now been well over eight months since the terrorists struck, yet the Bush administration remains adamantly against anyone looking into how it might or might not have dropped the ball during its term prior to September 11, or just how unassuming it was at that point to the risk of domestic terrorism. The article suggests that as long as President Bush weighs in opposition to the creation of the commission, one will most likely not commence. While this is certainly plausible, it is not an easy political argument for him to make, and I'm confident that at some point, Bush will have his arm twisted into the commission's creation.

On a side note, I have at last finished finals (on the last day, no less) and will be heading home to NJ tomorrow. I plan on updating as often as possible during the summer, but it may take me a day or two to get back on track and settled at home.

Where The War's Going

Peggy Noonan has officially passed Andrew Sullivan to become the biggest George W. Bush cheerleader in the field of journalism. In an excessively long, excessively quoted diatribe on the virtues of the President's speech to the German Bundestag this week, she all but calls it the greatest oratory she's ever heard: "I think you can...add it to your small list of great speeches of the 21st century. I think Mr. Bush at the Bundestag is going to be remembered for a long time." Here's a question: what percentage of Americans even know that Bush is in Germany, much less that he gave the speech, and even lesser what the Bundestag is?

Noonan praises Bush at length for the "elegant" nature of the speech (read it - I dare you to find one turn of phrase that Bush might have come up with himself), while claiming that it will have the slightest impact on how Europe feels about our policy on the war and the Middle East. Newsflash Peggy: the rest of the civilized world, not exclusively Europe, feels we're dead wrong in going after Saddam, we're not the least bit fair in our belated dabblings into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and that the Bush Administration is dangerously unilateral in its foreign policy.

Overall, the White House speechwriters did concoct a pretty well-written address, but it will have very little impact in the long-term. Instead of irrationally and feebily trying to strong-arm the rest of the world to the hawkish, biased policy positions this administration has taken, perhaps it would be more productive for Bush to open his ears and hear what Europe has to say. Because trust me, not too many people over there are eager to send themselves into a third World War--an entirely plausible scenario, should we decided to fight the Muslim world rather than attempt to bridge the ideological chasm between us. President Bush must be careful not to overstep his bounds with the war on terrorism--he was correct in his inital inclinations to go after al Qaeda and terrorism in general, but he is lingering far too near to a war he shouldn't want, for nothing but global catastrophe will follow.

Problems for the Dems

That the Democrats are again backing down from their original criticism of President Bush is a very bad sign for the future. They have yet to realize that, if they have any hope of retaking the White House in 2004, they need to strike a contrast with the current occupants on the war, at least in some way. I'm not saying we need Tom Daschle speaking at a peace protest, but Bush is obviously not free from culpability of some mistakes made over the past eight months, and prior. Some Democrat, preferably one of the six or so running for President, ought to gather the courage to overtly and consistently criticize this president on many of these war issues. They should stop being afraid of the political and/or media backlash, and recognize that their criticism would bring about immediate national attention and put them directly in the front-runner's seat for the '04 nomination.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney lies some more.

Finally...The End

Let me get this straight: the Washington DC Metro Police were useless for a year in their attempts to find missing intern Chandra Levy. And yet, some guy walking his dog just happens to find her remains today in a park the Police searched months ago. Oh well, at least her very drugged up parents can have some closure now.

What Should They Do?

Try as I might, the weighty spectre of finals has kept me from my daily blogging schedule. Fear not, as this current five day (!) break in between finals has left me time to finally sit down and write something substantial.

There's been a bit of talk lately in the national press as to what Dick Cheney and others had to say this weekend -- basically that the next terrorism attack is a matter of "not if, but when." In the New York Times editorial page, Tom Friedman criticizes the Bush Administration's excessive warnings, which come at quite a convinient time, just as Bush is starting to face criticism for his lack of forethought and organization pre-September 11. Meanwhile, Maureen Dowd, in light of their failure to properly warn the public before 9/11, suggest a wheel of incompetence to replace the infamous color-coded system of Tom Ridge. Finally, and not surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan chalks it all up to Bush-hating, where the president can't win no matter what he does.

While it's no shock to see Sullivan defending the Bush Administration, he does raise something interesting: How can the president be questioned both for failing to warn the public and then for warning too much? This, of course, is what Bush hopes for -- that his detractors find themselves in a hypocritical counterattack when they criticize his obvious attempts to quell dissent against his administration by putting out vague warnings. There is a difference however, in acting incomptently prior to the 9/11 attacks and scaremongering Democrats and others into silence. It is becoming very apparent that there might be no threat at all, or if there is, that it has existed for months, and is being deliberately publicized now. While it seems inevitable that an independent probe as to what exactly our government did to prevent the terrorist attacks, the administration and many Republicans are already talking about how this is going to "aid the enemy." Now, what exactly such a commission will do besides point out the failures of our government and embarrass many of those in power has remained unanswered by the White House and its congressional allies. They talk about how we need to focus on protecting ourselves from a future attack. While, by their terms, such an attack is inevitable and unavoidable, perhaps the best way to try and quell the terrorist's intentions is to look into how we screwed up so badly last time.