Jewish World Review May 21, 2002 /10 Sivan 5762

Clarence Page

Clarence Page
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Now McKinney's lunacy sounds like the Democratic Party line


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | A lot of people are looking into what President Bush knew and when he knew it in connection with the Sept. 11 terror attacks. They should be asking about what he didn't know and why he didn't know it.

First of all, in fairness to the Bush administration, there's no way that James Bond, Austin Powers or John Shaft, let alone George W. Bush, could have put together the pile of miscellaneous clues that now stand out so brightly and come up with a scenario resembling the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

The White House most likely did not see 9-11 coming any more than the previous administration did, no matter how much Bill Clinton's loyal opposition keeps blaming him for 9-11 and just about everything else that is wrong in the world.

Yet, what stands out clearly in hindsight at the Bush White House also looks embarrassing enough to be seriously damaging to the president's carefully crafted image of post-9-11 brilliance.

The White House confirmed disclosures by CBS News that the administration knew as far back as May 2001 that al-Qaida operatives possibly were plotting a hijacking and that the president was briefed in August on the possibility.

Sure, the data were vague and incomplete. Nevertheless, it did not sound at all pleasant to hear White House spokesman Ari Fleischer try to dismiss the reports because they related to a "traditional" hijacking, not a suicide crash.

Adding to Bush's woes, the paranoid wing of Bush's opposition, as represented by Rep. Cynthia McKinney, feels vindicated. When the Georgia Democrat called for a probe in mid-April into whether the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks, right-wing commentators rose up to lambaste her as a wacky conspiracy theorist.

Even fellow Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia called her remarks "dangerous, loony and irresponsible."

Suddenly, barely a month later, her remarks sound like the Democratic Party line.

Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress sternly called for wider investigations. Why, they asked, did it take eight months for this new information to dribble out? Even Republican Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned why the folks at the FBI, in particular, were "asleep."

The only difference between McKinney and her party leaders, it appears, is that they waited to gather a few more facts before making their charges. McKinney, by contrast, did not wait for facts when broad, sweeping conjecture would do.

She was "not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11," she said. Still, she said, the mere possibility that Bush might have let thousands die needlessly to spark a war and benefit his pals in the defense industries was enough reason to have an investigation.

Oh? If the mere possibility that somebody was getting rich off of a calamity were enough reason to call an investigation, Washington would be doing nothing but investigations.

McKinney would do well to remember that both sides in Washington play the blame game. It was not too long ago, for example, that Republicans blew eight years and $73 million of the taxpayers' money on a news-making but largely fruitless probe of Bill and Hillary Clinton's Whitewater land deals. The Clintons survived with surprisingly high approval ratings partly because so many of the attacks against them were transparently and cynically political.

So I've got a political peace plan to offer: Democrats should stop blaming Bush for 9-11 if Republicans will stop blaming Clinton and vice versa. Instead, both sides should join together to find out what went wrong so we can prevent it from happening again.

A fair and balanced probe is not going to be easy in Washington's politically charged, camera-preening atmosphere. Politicians inevitably are tempted to look and sound like they're only one short step away from a grand jury, then fail to deliver. In the meantime, some poor suspected scapegoat's reputation is left needlessly trashed.

Besides, no matter who gets named or blamed or suspected, commissions never fully satisfy the conspiracy theorists. Right, Oliver Stone?

Even in an election year, the country needs to come together in matters of mutual concern like our national security. We should never silence vigorous and healthy debate. We do need to avoid cheap shots. We don't need scapegoats. We need to find out what went wrong and try to make it right.



Comment on JWR contributor Clarence Page's column by clicking here.

Up

05/19/02: A paradox of historical proportions
05/14/02: 'Murphy Brown' revisited in age of Ozzy
05/10/02: America looks like a model of tolerance and inclusion
05/07/02: Forget it, Bill, you're no Oprah
04/26/02: Mapping out ethnic and racial change
04/23/02: A game of another color
04/19/02: It's high time to open up pot-law debate
04/11/02: 'Osbourne' family values rock, aging Ozzy quakes
03/22/02: Zimbabwe election leaves world sleepless
03/19/02: A slur? Where is thy sting?
03/15/02: A Pearl of wisdom for reporter's unborn son
03/12/02: Army race and gender policies on trial
03/08/02: A short list of losers to be left behind
03/05/02: Revenge of the 'mediasaurus'
02/26/02: Jihads aren't just for Muslims
02/26/02: It's hard to be 'objective' during wartime
02/19/02: Hollywood's new villain: Your HMO
02/12/02: Father of 'Manchild' leaves lasting message
02/08/02: $nookering the reparations crowd
01/31/02: Prisoners of a War of Words
01/29/02: One more Enron woe: Al Sharpton & company
01/25/02: Searching for slaves in bin Laden's attic
01/22/02: Andrew Young's newest 'friend'
01/08/02: Hard-earned lessons from 9-11
12/18/01: Whatever happened to questions about the birds and the bees?
12/14/01: The "White Negro" Taliban?
12/07/01: Jackson's turn to gloat
11/27/01: Friendly warning from a lover of liberty
11/21/01: The face of hunger is changing
11/15/01: Our troubled sense of trust
11/08/01: Lessons about terror from the 'hood
11/06/01: Getting used to the 'new normal'
11/02/01: Wicked ways to make them talk
10/30/01: It's not just about bin Laden
10/26/01: More than mail fell between the cracks
10/23/01: Terrorists threaten urban recovery, too
10/18/01: Sometimes, assassination warranted
10/15/01: Self-censorship rises again
10/12/01: Contradictions illustrate the complicated nature of the new terrorism
10/05/01: Look who's 'profiling' now
10/01/01: Don't trash liberty to save it
09/28/01: Life, love and cell phones during wartime
09/24/01: How to catch an elusive terrorist
09/21/01: The war I was waiting for
09/17/01: When rage turns to hate
09/13/01: Terror attack tests US, let's give right response
09/06/01: U.S. should have stayed and argued
09/04/01: Columbine killer's parents get upclose and personal
08/31/01: Virtual kids? Log me out
08/28/01: Two Africans, one black, one white, same fight
08/23/01: Sharpton for president
08/20/01: Shaking up the rules on keeping secrets
08/16/01: Bush's u-turn on racial goals
08/09/01: Outsider Bubba comes 'in' again
08/06/01: Not ready for 'color-blindness' yet
08/02/01: Immigration timing couldn't be better
07/26/01: Summer of Chandra: An international traveler's perspective
07/17/01: Overthrowing a régime is only the beginning
07/10/01: Big Brother is watching you, fining you
07/05/01: Can blacks be patriotic? Should they be?
06/19/01: Get 'real' about marriage
06/12/01: Amos, Andy and Tony Soprano
06/07/01: Getting tough with the Bush Twins
06/05/01: Bringing marriage back into fashion
05/31/01: "Ken" and "Johnnie": The odd-couple legal team
05/24/01: Sharpton's challenge to Jackson
05/22/01: Test scores equal (a) MERIT? (b) MENACE? (c) ALL OF ABOVE?
05/17/01: Anti-pot politics squeeze the ill
05/15/01: Was Babe Ruth black?
05/10/01: U.N.'s torture caucus slaps Uncle Sam
05/08/01: 'The Sopranos' a reflection of our times
05/03/01: 'Free-fire' zones, then and now
05/01/01: War on drugs misfires against students
04/26/01: Another athlete gets foot-in-mouth disease
04/23/01: 'Slave' boat mystery reveals real tragedy
04/19/01: McVeigh's execution show
04/12/01: Not this time, Jesse
04/05/01: Dubya is DEFINITELY his own man, you fools!
04/02/01: Milking MLK
03/29/01: The candidate who censored himself?
03/22/01: "Will Hispanics elbow blacks out of the way as the nation's most prominent minority group?"
03/19/01: Blacks and the SATs
03/15/01: The census: How much race still matters in the everyday life of America
03/12/01: Jesse is a victim!
03/08/01: Saving kids from becoming killers
03/01/01: Parents owe "Puffy" and Eminem our thanks

© 2001 TMS