What Would Be Republican Response to a 9-11 Attack Today?

On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered a horrible attack under George W. Bush's presidency. Over 3000 Americans died. Democratic politicians in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate publicly supported President Bush. They didn't criticize him for the hours it took him to respond; for the fact that he flew around in Air Force One most of the day before returning to Washington, D.C.; they didn't call for investigations into what his administration knew before the attack; and they certainly didn't send out fund-raising letters in an attempt to raise campaign contributions from the death of thousands of Americans.

Nor did former Vice-President Al Gore issue denunciations of the Bush Administration's strategy for dealing with terrorists. Vice-President Gore did not emerge from some dark lair to say that all that mattered to the Bush Administration was getting tax cuts for their rich contributors and that this preoccupation had led to lax security for Americans. Indeed, given the fact that Al Gore had lost a presidential election because of a United States Supreme Court that was dominated by Republican appointees, two of which were appointed by his opponent's father, Gore's response was incredibly generous, at least by today's standards.

Now, contrast the Democratic response to 9-11 with the Republican response to the attempted attack on the airliner over Detroit. We have heard Republicans use the attack to try and score cheap political points at the President's expense and we have seen the sickening sight of Republicans using the attempted attack to raise campaign funds. We have seen the propaganda arm of the GOP, otherwise known as Fox News, criticize Obama for using words like "allegedly", as if using that word was somehow in itself a weakness.

And, of course, we have seen former Vice-President Cheney give at least one interview in which he claimed that Obama's pre-occupation with "transforming" American society had somehow led to the Detroit attack.

So here is my conclusion, and it was difficult for me to come to, but I believe that if a 9-11 attack took place under Obama, we would see a much different reaction from the GOP than we saw from the Democrats on that fateful day. We wouldn't see statements invoking national unity or calling for support for President Obama. We wouldn't see former Bush administration officials calling on Americans to support President Obama. Instead we would see Republicans Representatives and Senators rush to the studios of Fox News to denounce Obama. We would see campaign consulting firms grinding out fund-raising letters for Republicans even as Americans were burying their dead.

It pains me to come to this conclusion. I hope that we never have to find out if I am right, and if such a horrible tragedy occurs again, I hope that I am wrong about the Republican response. But given their actions over the last week or so, what other conclusion can I come to?

Dick Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" and Global Warming

In the book The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind, Suskind points out that Cheney apparently promulgated the so-called "one percent doctrine" after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The doctrine goes like this: If there is a one percent change that a terrorist group might obtain nuclear weapons, or commit some other act of mass terrorism, the United States has to act as such possibility is a 100% certainty.

Now, of course, the ramifications of such a policy are very serious. It can lead to such things as condoning torture, holding people without any explanation, illegally intercepting Americans' conversations, and other unconstitutional acts. It also means that other branches of the American government cannot be informed of what the executive branch is doing because they might disagree with the doctrine.

Putting aside those problems, however, here is a question: Why doesn't Dick Cheney apply the same standard to global warming? There is certainly more than a 1% chance that global warming will occur and occur on a scale that is catastrophic. Yet, the Bush Administration, and other Republican skeptics of global warming would never accept such acting on only a 1% change of global warming occurring.

Apparently, to Dick Cheney, global warming is not nearly as significant as a terrorist attack on the United States, and yet, the consequences of global warming could be far greater than the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks.

Bush's DOJ Throws Out Separation of Powers

Harper's Magazine Online has a very interesting article out which is a speech given by newly elected Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. In this speech, Senator Whitehouse discloses that he has read memos prepared by the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. Here basically is what he says the memos claim:

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Later on in the speech, Senator Whitehouse puts forward in plain English that these propositions mean:

In a nutshell, these three Bush Administration legal propositions boil down to this:

“I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”

“I get to determine what my own powers are.”

“The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”

True conservatives are supposed to honor tradition and not seek radical change of governmental institutions. One of the most honored traditions in American jurisprudence is the concept of separation of powers. Senator Whitehouse in his speeech sets forth how that theory is supposed to work:

Our Constitution has as its most elemental provision the separation of governmental powers into three separate branches. When the government feels it necessary to spy on its own citizens, each branch has a role. The executive branch executes the laws, and conducts surveillance. The legislative branch sets the boundaries that protect Americans from improper government surveillance. The judicial branch oversees whether the government has followed the Constitution and the laws that protect U.S. citizens from violations of their privacy and their civil rights.

This concept was set forth in the Constitution as a check on the arbitraty exercise of governmental power. As Chief Justice John Marshall established in the opinion of Marbury v. Madison, it is the province and duty of the judicial branch of government to say what the law is and how, in the final analysis, the Constitution is to be interperted.

Since Bubble-Boy and the Duck Hunter don't like their power limited, however, they get other American institutions to do their dirty work for them. One of them is the Department of Justice. Another is the Pentagon. Another is the CIA. Still another is the Department of State. All of these institutions have been corrupted by this Administration, as, indeed, has the standing of America in the world.

The Smug Sanctimony of Joe Lieberman

The MSNBC website has an article dated October 31, 2007 up that shows the smug sanctimony of former Democratic Senator and now Independent Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is shocked, shocked we tell you, that the amendment he drafted with right-wing Senator John Kyl of Arizona is being used to attack Hillary Clinton. He doesn't understand why we don't trust the Bush Administration not to get us into a war with Iran. To quote Smug Joe: "“At some point, we’ve got to get over this distrust and partisanship.”

Well, here is what's so aggravating about Smug Joe: When he makes comments like the one quoted above, he isn't talking about Bush and Republicans getting over being partisan and distrustful, no, the only people that SJ thinks need to change are Democrats. He apparently wants us to overlook the Bush record of lies, coverups, stonewalling, incompetence, and corruption in Iraq and all get behind Bush's plans for Iran.

Now, SJ doesn't want us to think that he is for war with Iran, no siree, he's not for that, but, then again, “I’m not gunning for military conflict with Iran, but if they keep killing our soldiers, you can’t just sit back and let it happen.”
Now what the hell does that sound like if not an excuse for a war with Iran? Is SJ suggesting that if his economic sanctions don't work, he won't be advocating for war with Iran? Is he telling us that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, he won't be calling for military strikes on Iran? If he isn't talking about war, just what in the hell is he talking about?

This is what the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, thinks about a war with Iran:
"[It]has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it." He went on to say that America should be very, very careful about getting involved in a war with a third Muslim country.

Now see here is the difference between professional military officers like Mullen and people like Cheney, Bush, and Lieberman: he has actually been in war and knows what it is like. He has responsibility for the lives of men and women serving under him. He didn't skip the Vietnam War and then spend the rest of his adult life trying to make up for not going by playing with the lives of other people's children. Wonder if Smug Joe would be so cavalier about a war with Iran if his children were serving in Iraq?

Chris Matthews Claims Cheney Pressured NBC to Silence Him

Chris Matthews was at a 10 year anniversary party for the cast of Hardball, his nightly television show, and when he made some remarks, he claimed that the difference between the Clinton and Bush Administrations was that the Clinton Administration never tired to silence him. This is a quote from an article about the event:

In front of an audience that included such notables as Alan Greenspan, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, Matthews began his remarks by declaring that he wanted to "make some news" and he certainly didn't disappoint. After praising the drafters of the First Amendment for allowing him to make a living, he outlined what he said was the fundamental difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton camp, he said, never put pressure on his bosses to silence him.

“Not so this crowd,” he added, explaining that Bush White House officials -- especially those from Vice President Cheney's office -- called MSNBC brass to complain about the content of his show and attempted to influence its editorial content. "They will not silence me!" Matthews declared.

He also used the line that the Bush Administration has "finally been caught in their criminality." This is yet one more sign that Washington media types have turned on the Bushies. This is going to be one long year and approximately three months for them. Not as long as it will be for the rest of us, but long nevertheless.

Seymour Hersh Believes Bush Getting Ready for Iran Attack

On the New Yorker website is an article by Seymour Hersh that goes into where the Bush Administration is at regarding Iran. Hersh's article points out that the Bush Administration believes that Iran is five years away from developing a nuclear weapon and that the American public is not buying into its fear campaign against the Iranians. Therefore, what Cheney, aka Darth Vadar and Bubble-Boy want to do is attack Iran and justify it by claiming that they are protecting American troops in Iraq.

Here is an interesting quote from the article:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

We wonder how the Republicans in Congress feel about Dick Cheney and George W. right about now. They have staked their political futures to a man who doesn't give a "rat's ass" about their futures.

UPDATE: Here is a link to www.pollingreport.com's page on polls about Iran. It shows that a strong majority of Americans do not want the Bush Administration to attempt military action against Iran over its nuclear program.

Alan Greenspan Says Iraq War is About Oil

Alan Greenspan has a new book out in which he is quite critical of the Bush Administration. Most of the press coverage of the book has been centered around his complaints about Bush and his disappointment with Cheney, who he served with in the Ford Administration. There is, however, a fascinating quote about Iraq. Here is the quote:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Now, apparently, he doesn't go into an explanation of what this quote means or why he believes that the Iraq War is about oil. This could just be speculation, but if it is, it is speculation coming from a man who is wired into both Republican and Washington power circles. The next time that some Bush loyalist tells you that this war was started because of weapons of mass destruction or to spread democracy, or any of the other discarded reasons we have been given, give them Greenspan's quote.

Duck Hunter's Staff Working Against Bubble-Boy

Steve Clemons, who runs ABC's political website called The Note, writes in the Huffington Post that Cheney's staff is working to undermine Bush's policies. This is a quote from the article:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the president is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

If this is true, the implications are staggering. First of all, if you are President you cannot allow your VP to undercut your efforts in anything, let alone diplomacy in the MidEast. Second, again if true, you cannot allow staffers to the VP to undercut your Secretary of State, who is a cabinet official that you appointed. Finally, if true, it shows why Cheney shouldn't have been given the power that Bush gave him, especially in matters of national security.

All of this, though, is probably good news for Democrats from a purely political point of view. The 2006 election meant that Bush had to realize that there are now peple in positions of power to act as a check on him. He is realizing this far more than Cheney. Cheney is still in full combat mode, acting as if nothing has changed for the Bushies since the election. This means that the Bushies are starting to fight among themselves.

We have seen this very recently in Gonzales's Justice Department, and now we may be seeing it in fighting between Cheney and Rice for Bush's support. The more they fight among themselves, the less power they can exercise.

Of course, from the point of view of American diplomacy in the world, this is not good news. Nor is it good news for the residents of the Persian Gulf because, if Cheney wins the struggle, the changes of a war with Iran increase.

Being Criticized by Cheney on Iraq is Like Being Called Ugly by a Toad

Dick Cheney is at it again. He gave a recent speech to the Heritage Foundation blasting Democrats for trying to bring American troops home from Iraq. Here is a guy who has been wrong in everything he has said about Iraq criticizing Democrats for trying to get American troops out of the middle of a civil war.

This is the man who said that American troops would be greeted as liberators.
This is the man who said that there were ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda.
This is the man who said that Hussein could produce a nuclear bomb within one year.
This is the man who keeps lying about Iraq four years after the war started.

Being told you are wrong about Iraq by Dick Cheney is like being told you are ugly by a toad, like being told you are heavy by an elephant, like being told, well, you get the picture. Its past time to take anything this man says about Iraq seriously.

How Obama Handles Attacks from Republicans

About two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, said that if Obama got elected his policy for Iraq would be a victory for terrorists. Obama replied that if Howard was so much in favor of the Iraqi War, he should send another 20,000 Australian troops to Iraq to help relieve the American military.

This last week, speaking in Austin at a rally, he made a response to Dick Cheney's assertions that the British pull down of troops in Iraq is a good sign. He listed all the things that Cheney has said about the war that turned out to be wrong. He also said that if Dick Cheney says things are going well, then you know that "you are probably in trouble."

We think that Democrats often get themselves in trouble by trying to have it both ways. They often disagree with Republicans using language that tries to have it both ways. That doesn't cut it and makes the speaker look weak. If you think that Republican policies are a disaster for America, say so, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try and play cute. It doesn't work.

(Click on this entry's title to read more about Obama's comments about Darth Vader, ie, our country's Vice-President.)