July 23, 2004

Ex (Washington) Post Facto Revisionism
Posted by Jon Henke

Couple oddities from the Washington Post.

*** WizBangBlog notes this...(also here)

The Sept. 11 commission report offers a broad critique of a central tenet of the Bush administration's foreign policy -- that the attacks have required a "war on terrorism."

The report argues that the notion of fighting an enemy called "terrorism" is too diffuse and vague to be effective.

As WiBangBlog notes, that is a somewhat misleading representation of the 9/11 report, which says in no uncertain terms...
...In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.
[...]
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
So, rather than critiquing the "central tenet of the Bush administration's foreign policy" that the attacks required a war on terrorism, the 9/11 commission actually agrees with the tenet, but wished to define it much more sharply and prosecute it more ruthlessly.

*** Reader (and friend) Curt sends me this bit from a WaPo story.....

The notion of one of Washington's most respected foreign policy figures being subjected to treatment that had at least a faint odor of a sting operation is a strange one. But the peculiarities -- and conflicting versions of events and possible motives -- were just then beginning in a case that this week bucked Berger out of an esteemed position as a leader of the Democratic government-in-waiting that had assembled around presidential nominee John F. Kerry.
Huh?

1: Why would it be odd that a person--respected, or otherwise--would be subject to a sting operation after he had been found absconding with classified documents? In fact, why was he only subject to a "sting operation" that led to an investigation? Why was he not met in front of the building by a team of gun-toting FBI agents?

2: (as Curt wrote) 2. "Democratic government-in-waiting" Did I miss an election?

TrackBack

Comments

Hell, I'm surprised they didn't say "government in exile".

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 23, 2004 11:26 AM

1 word about Berger, Abscam. Lifting documents from the National Archives isn't quite as bad as taking bribes to help a foreign interest but let's not pretend that Washington DC hasn't seen its share of corrupt politicians going down.

Posted by: TM Lutas at July 23, 2004 09:13 PM