PLAYING POLITICS WITH 9/11


I confess to not being as fully on top of the 9/11 Commission hearings as I'd like to be, but most of what I've read has been filtered through the lens of partisan inanity. The basic myths of each side have not really changed in the past two and half years. The GOP myth is that 8 years of the Clinton administrations passive, piecemeal approach to counterrorism opened the door to 9/11, and that when the Bushies came into power, they were able to turn the tide with a proactive, comprehensive approach. The Democratic myth is that the pragmatic Clinton Administration had counterterrorism as a high priority and well in hand until the Bushies came along, and that counterterror dropped from the radar screen because it wasn't accorded a high priority for the ideological Bush team.


It is through these lens that the Bush Administration and its opponents have reacted to Richard Clarke's new book and testiomy. Without a doubt, Clarke's version is the most comprehensive support for the Dem myth so far. Not surprisingly, he has been embraced a courageous whistleblower by Dems and exorciated as a bitter self-promoter by the Bushies. Lost in this mess is the fact that despite all the claims of Richard Clarke or Condeleeza Rice to the contrary, neither myth holds up very well under scrutiny - because of the glaring fact that both adminstrations dropped the ball on terror. Thus, the Bushies have no real answer to Clarke's searing indictment of the failure to act against al Qaeda in the first seven months of the Bush Administration. Any honest assesment of that period shows that China, Iraq and missle defense were clearly greater priorities coming in than counter-terror. The effort to go to Clarke's 2002 spin on behalf of the Bushies when he still worked for them is not a real defense, any more than quoting Dick Cheney would be today. Nor, despite the best spinning efforts of Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, can it be said that the Clinton Admiistration placed counterterrorism as its highest priority for national security and foreign policy. It was clear that for most of the Clinton years, prority one was shepherding the Olso agreement forward - which as interpreted by the Clintonites, was clearly inconsistent with a zero-tolerance policy towards terror.


The most important question, in my view that Clarke's testimony and the attention it has focused on the 9/11 Commission hopefully raises is how have the Bushies addressed the various flaws in American counterterrorism policy demonstrated by 9/11? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated a clear break with the passive, reactive approach abroad of the Clintonites, and despite howling by opponents of the Iraq war, on the whole have been a tremendous improvement. But what about the rest of counterrorism? the nuts and bolts of domestic security that were so badly overlooked by both administrations, such as visa tracking, port security, intelligence sharing? In the Iraq-centric debate on the terror issue, none of these things has gotten sufficient scrutiny. It look past time they did, and if the partisan sniping over what wasn't done before 9/11 leads to a greater examination of what has and has not been fixed since then, it will prove beneficial after all.

SHEIK YASSIN FINALLY SENT TO HELL


After years of holding back, out of fear of backlash, out of the misguided sympathy that exists in a world that focuses more on physical disability than ethical disability, Israel finally sent Sheik Yassin to the special hell reserved for those who most profane G-d's name by cloaking mass murder in religious garb. World leaders, who managed nary a peep of protest to the hundreds of innocent Israelis butchered upon the orders and blessings of Yassin, have already protested the act, condemning Israel for killing "a man in a wheelchair" as if Yassin was nothing more than a kindly old Palestinian grandfather. But that fact of his paralysis does not absolve him of the evil perpetuated in his name, any more than a failed strike on bin Laden that left him bereft of his limbs bus still alive would somehow require our government to abandon its pursuit of that mass murderer. This was not a "extra-judicial" killing, this was not a "part of the cycle of violence" - it was justice, a legitimate act of self-defense by a people against a genoicidal leader of a genocidal enemy. Unfortunately, there will be other evil sheiks that will try to take Yassin's place and brainwash young men and women into suicidal mass-murderers, but none with the same level of authority. Now, as Israel prepares to withdraw from Gaza, is the time to continue to deliver crippling blows to Hamas, to give at least the glimmer of hope of a Gaza that someday soon is no longer the Gaza of Sheik Yassin - hell on earth.

MARCH (MERCENARY) MADNESS


Yes I filled out at least 2 brackets - yes, I love the drama, the fundamentals, the upsets, but the whole event is corrupt to its very core. The following are the official men's basketball player graduation rates of some of our public institutions fielding teams in the tournament. I realize these numbers underestimate actual graduation rates to the extent that they include players who move on to the NBA (and who really aren't the ones who needed a college degree to begin with) and transfers who may go onto graduate at other schools, but less than 50% is pathetic by any calculation.


Kentucky (#1MW): 33%, Oklahoma St. (#2E): 43%; UConn (#2W): 27%; Miss. St. (#2SE): 64%;
Pittsburgh (#3E): 30%; Texas (#3SE): 38%; Georgia St. (#3SE): 27%; N.C. St. (#3W): 44%;
Kansas (#4MW): 73%; Maryland (#4W): 27%; Flordia (#5E): 45%; Illinois (#5SE): 46%;
Wisconisn (#6E): 44%; North Carolina (#6SE: 55%); Michigan St. (#7MW: 56%);
Alabama (#8W: 13%); Arizona (#9SE: 23%);
Virginia Comm. (13E), Lousiana-Lafayette (13W), Alabama St. (16SE): 0%


I will be rooting for Duke: 88% (with the rest most likely being Jay Williams and other early NBA entries), and Stanford: 100%. Call me elitist, call me a snob, but at least these teams are student athletes, and not exploided, unpaid semi-pros

TERROR IN ANDALUS


In the wake of the massacre in Madrid, when the Spanish government initially pointed the finger at ETA, I was skeptical. I couldn't fathom that ETA would be so dense as to think such a barbaric act would advance their agenda one iota. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for al Qaeda to strike out against one of the U.S.'s firmest allies in the Iraq campaign. More so, however, Spain holds a critical place in the al-Qaeda mythos. After all, shortly after 9/11 there was reference to getting revenge for the loss of al-Andalus. The clues that have trickled out in the last few days seem to be all pointing to al-Qaeda. If so, it is a stark warning that it retains operational capabilities to strike against its "crusader" enemies. While the upcoming offensive on the Pakistani border, it is far past time that a equal emphasis be placed on properly upgrading our defenses as well.

STUMBLING TOWARDS DEMOCRACY


So, now Iraq has an interim constitution, continuing its stumbling progress towards democracy. For most of the post-war period, I have heard liberals state with certainty that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. But despite all of the mistakes made, all of the corners cut, all of the zigging and zagging and the best efforts of ex-Baathists and jihadis alike, the project keeps moving forward.


In the months leading up to the war, one of the most popular books among hawks in the Bush Administration was John Dower's Embracing Defeat, which tells the story of the U.S. occupation of Japan. When this fact was reported, Dower himself wrote to emphatically state that the postwar Japan was not analagous to Iraq - and that both context and culture would make a U.S. imposed democratization of Iraq far more difficult to accomplish.


I must respectfully disagree with Dower about the implications of his work (an admittedly hubristic act.) As told in Embracing Defeat, the democratization of post-war Japan was despite its success, extraordinarily messy. Policies were designed by idealogues with little knowledge of Japaneese history or culture. Amnesty policy varied radically over the time. The occupation authorites were often contradictory in their policies. And yet, despite all the mistakes made - the project suceeded. The underlying commitment and vision of American policy-makers, combined with the fundamental desire for democracy that existed even among the supposedly collectivist Japaneese people prevailed.


In Iraq as well, one can see the universal thirst for democracy and freedom and the force of the policy-makers vision pushing the project forward. The pitfalls are great, and the collective weight of all of the errors made may eventually cause the project to collapse - but so far it has not. And so, when I hear the war's skeptics profess that this or that tragic event shows that Iraqi democracy is doomed, I am skeptical of the skeptics - that is to say, still hopeful for success in this noble endeavor.

MY PARTY JUST MADE ME A SWING VOTER


I did my part - voting for Edwards bright and early this morning in the New York primary. Unfortunately, the rest of my fellow Democrats were dead-set on nominating Kerry instead. So, as of tommorrow, when the Democrats most talented candidate drops out of the race, I officially become a swing voter. Considering that the chances of Bush reversing himself on 1) taxes and the deficit, 2) abusing the consitution with the FMA and 3) fully funding federal education mandates is negligible, there's really little chance of me heading that way. But I am rather skeptical that over the next 8 months, John Kerry can convince me that he has the vision to lead the United States in the war on terror and understands the how essential advancing democracy worldwide is in that struggle. He has 8 months to make his case.