I found an article, entitled "Iraq, Not 9-11, May Be Bush's Achilles' Heel," by Floyd J. McKay. Here are some excerpts:
...it is not 9-11 that is President Bush's major liability.
That liability is the war in Iraq and how and why he decided it was the way to fight terrorism.
It is Bush's fixation with Iraq, well before 9-11, that has distressed many students of 9-11 and its aftermath, including Richard A. Clarke, the White House terrorism expert whose recent book threw Bush and [Condoleezza] Rice on the defensive. Clarke makes a strong case that invading Iraq was perhaps the worst decision we could have made to deter terrorism . . .
. . . Iraq is the tar baby of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a group of so-called neo-conservatives housed in their offices.
While Rice was busy learning a new job and tutoring a president woefully ignorant of world affairs, the neo-cons were working on Bush, playing on his natural instinct to avenge his father. We know the result.
Bush, from every account I have read, including Clarke's book, does not actively seek information that may deviate from his faith-based views. I don't mean religious faith — although that clearly plays a big role. I mean faith in his own instincts.
Contrary views are not fully aired. Bush admits that he doesn't read the newspapers or watch much television news. Presidents cannot make decisions based on what they see or read in the news, but any president who ignores the way most citizens get their information is open to being manipulated by aides with an agenda . . .
. . . Bill Clinton has one of the most active and inquiring minds of anyone who has ever occupied the White House. Clinton read voraciously, and actively challenged and pushed his aides, including Clarke.
Bush, by contrast, never asked Clarke — who by all accounts knew more about terrorism than anyone in Washington — for a personal briefing. . .
We are all paying for this lack of intellectual curiosity. It is now quite obvious that we went into Iraq on false pretenses. Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that he was given bad data when he went to the United Nations. David Kay, Hans Blix and other experts have declared weapons of mass destruction cannot be found. No link has been discovered between Saddam and al-Qaida, as Clarke told Bush on Sept. 12, 2001.
In other words, we went to war on Bush's faith and instincts, which he relied upon rather than seeking advice and data that might contradict that faith and those instincts . . .
That liability is the war in Iraq and how and why he decided it was the way to fight terrorism.
It is Bush's fixation with Iraq, well before 9-11, that has distressed many students of 9-11 and its aftermath, including Richard A. Clarke, the White House terrorism expert whose recent book threw Bush and [Condoleezza] Rice on the defensive. Clarke makes a strong case that invading Iraq was perhaps the worst decision we could have made to deter terrorism . . .
. . . Iraq is the tar baby of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a group of so-called neo-conservatives housed in their offices.
While Rice was busy learning a new job and tutoring a president woefully ignorant of world affairs, the neo-cons were working on Bush, playing on his natural instinct to avenge his father. We know the result.
Bush, from every account I have read, including Clarke's book, does not actively seek information that may deviate from his faith-based views. I don't mean religious faith — although that clearly plays a big role. I mean faith in his own instincts.
Contrary views are not fully aired. Bush admits that he doesn't read the newspapers or watch much television news. Presidents cannot make decisions based on what they see or read in the news, but any president who ignores the way most citizens get their information is open to being manipulated by aides with an agenda . . .
. . . Bill Clinton has one of the most active and inquiring minds of anyone who has ever occupied the White House. Clinton read voraciously, and actively challenged and pushed his aides, including Clarke.
Bush, by contrast, never asked Clarke — who by all accounts knew more about terrorism than anyone in Washington — for a personal briefing. . .
We are all paying for this lack of intellectual curiosity. It is now quite obvious that we went into Iraq on false pretenses. Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that he was given bad data when he went to the United Nations. David Kay, Hans Blix and other experts have declared weapons of mass destruction cannot be found. No link has been discovered between Saddam and al-Qaida, as Clarke told Bush on Sept. 12, 2001.
In other words, we went to war on Bush's faith and instincts, which he relied upon rather than seeking advice and data that might contradict that faith and those instincts . . .
I think Mr. McKay has described fairly succinctly what has been going on in the White House for the past three years.
I will be looking at Common Dreams regularly in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment