Political-Commentary.com

Condoleezza Rice and "Principle"

Condoleezza Rice says that "principle" prevents her from testifying before the 9/11 Commission. Since when has this administration ever put principle before political expediency? To all appearances, the real problem is that her testimony would be under oath, and so she might have to be a bit more truthful than when spinning her story before the news media.

Clarke and Perjury

It appears that the Republicans may be thinking about bringing perjury charges against Richard Clarke. Their theory is that Clarke's recent testimony is inconsistent with his previous testimony before Congress when he was still working for Bush. Several points may be noted about this matter:

1. To the extent that Clarke has testified inconsistently, it is important to determine which of his testimony was true and which was false. That is the only way to discover exactly what happened in the Bush Administration. One suspects, however, that the Republicans have something else in mind.

2. In a perjury prosecution, Clarke would be entitled to legal discovery so he can try to prove that he spoke truthfully. The last thing Bush wants, however, is to release information.

3. When Clarke testified previously, he was speaking for the Bush Administration, while now he is speaking for himself. One may presume that he is more likely to speak truthfully when speaking for himself. Thus, any falsehoods were in his previous testimony, and helped Bush. The Republicans are outraged, then, that Clarke might have "spun" in Bush's favor?

4. If the Republicans declassify only some of Clarke's previous testimony, one may presume that they are making available only the testimony that makes Clarke look bad. Thus, by implication, the rest of Clarke's previous testimony supports his recent testimony. Thus, the Republicans may just highlight the accuracy of most of the Clarke's recent testimony. On the other hand, if the Republicans declassify all of Clarke's previous testimony, much of that also should reinforce Clarke's recent testimony. Either way, the Republicans will confirm the accuracy of most of Clarke's recent testimony.

5. Most of the Republican attacks have been upon Clarke’s honesty and motivations -- ad hominem attacks, in other words. Few of the attacks have pointed out anything other than minor inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony.

6. This whole affair makes the Republicans look mighty desperate.

The Spanish Bombings

Various commentators (such as Tom Friedman of the New York Times) say that the terrorists “hijacked the recent Spanish election, ” and achieved their goal of electing a government that would appease terrorists.

But are things really that simple? There is, of course, no doubt that terrorism can affect elections. Look at how Bush’s popularity skyrocketed after the 9/11 attacks. If there had been an election after 9/11, Bush would have won in a landslide.

However, things are not as clear when you apply this to real elections. Before the Spanish elections, who could have predicted the effect of a terrorist attack? Maybe the voters would have decided to appease the terrorists, or maybe they would have been outraged and voted for the party they thought would be the toughest against the terrorists. In addition, how can we be certain that terrorists favor appeasement? If their goal is to cultivate hatred of the West, wouldn’t they want the Spanish army in Iraq?

The situation is just as unclear in the upcoming U.S. election. If the terrorists want to cultivate a hatred of the U.S., wouldn’t it be likely that they would favor Bush, who has done a fine job of angering much of the rest of the world? If Al Queda did favor Bush (or, for that matter, Kerry), it is not at all clear that they would use terrorism before the election. Perhaps another terrorist attack would help Bush as 9/11 helped him. Or perhaps it would destroy the illusion that Bush has been tough on terrorism, and would lead to his defeat.

Who knows? All we can know for certain is that things are a lot less simple than Friedman and others are making them.

"We Never Make Mistakes"

In the entire history of the Bush Administration, has there been one instance where someone connected with the Administration has admitted making a mistake? To listen to them testify before the 9/11 Commission, one must conclude that this group has an almost god-like ability to always do the right thing.

Going After Al Queda

The Bush Administration says that it wouldn't have done any good to go after Al Queda before September 11 because 9/11 would happened anyway. By this same logic, doesn't this mean that it doesn't make sense to go after Al Queda now, because whatever plans it has in place will be carried out anyway?

This raises the question -- why is Bush going after Al Queda now? If there is a reason to go after it now, wouldn't there have been a similar reason to go after it before 9/11?

Disgruntled Former Bush Employees

Is there a single person who has left the Bush White House who has anything good to say about it? Wait until we get Colin Powell's book! That should be a doozy!

Justice Scalia -- a Brilliant Fellow, But . . .

Justice Scalia has written a lengthy explanation of why it is just fine for him to hear a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney. Basically, he says it is preposterous to argue that his vote will be affected by his trip with Cheney on Air Force Two. But, of course, that is not the point. The point is that he is a friend of Cheney's. The trip with Cheney is important only to the extent that it illustrates the friendship.

Scalia is a brilliant fellow. Unfortunately, he uses his brains to confuse rather than enlighten.

Anti-Bush Is Not Pro-Appeasement

The defeat of the incumbent Spanish regime is, we are told, appeasement of the terrorists. How so? Apparently because the incumbent regime supported Bush in Iraq. If the Iraq war were an anti-terrorist operation, it would seemingly follow that the Spanish voters decided not to continue with anti-terrorist policies.

But, of course, the Iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism, except to the extent that it has brought terrorism to Iraq. One could want Spain out of Iraq, yet solidly support anti-terrorism efforts everywhere else. All the Spain vote shows is that Spanish voters don't want to help fight Bush-created terrorism. The massive demonstrations following the bombings are ample proof that the Spanish people are not giving into terrorists. The Spanish election was a vote against Bush, not a vote for appeasement.

Terror Before the November Election?

We are being told that the Spanish bombings were designed to change the outcome of the Spanish election, and we should be prepared for a similar event before our November election. Huh? 9/11 helped Bush's ratings, and his ads evoking 9/11 are based on the premise that terrorism continues to help him. Assuming this is true (it probably is), wouldn't a terrorist event prior to the November election help Bush? And doesn't that mean that the terrorists would attack only if Kerry was ahead, and they wanted Bush to win?

That raises the question of why the terrorists might want Bush to win. Perhaps because they like his actions (or inaction) in the war against terror? Perhaps because his policies are inflaming the rest of the world? If the terrorists do attack before the November elections, the attack would be proof (or at least highly suggestive) that Bush is following exactly the policies that terrorists wish him to follow. Not exactly a good sign.

The Spain Bombings

Some are saying the terrorists elected the new administriation in Spain. Perhaps so. But if Bush gets re-elected here, won't that also be the terrorists doing? Before the 9/11 attacks, Bush was not very popular. After the attacks, everyone loved him. Now, Bush is running ads reminding people of 9/11 in an attempt to re-establish his post-9/11 popularity. If he succeeds, can't he thank the terrorists for his re-election?

Bush's Ads

If Bush's new ads are any indication, it could be a long campaign for him. Normally, you would expect an incumbent President to run positive ads about the great things he has done. Instead, Bush is running ads with photos of 9/11. It certainly tells you something about Bush's success as President when the best he can do is to remind people that a disaster occurred on his watch.