John Lofton

September 17  2004

Without a doubt, one of the more bizarre statements President Bush has made regarding his decision to go to war in Iraq is what he told an audience in Brecksville-Broadview Heights, Ohio, on September 4, 2004. He was applauded when he said: “Knowing what I know today, knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision.”

Well, so much for hindsight being, supposedly, 20/20.

I say this statement is bizarre because of what Mr. Bush knows today. Among other things, he knows that his major reasons for his going to war have been proven false. He knows that --- as of now anyway --- no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq. He knows Iraq had no capability to cause a “mushroom cloud” to appear anywhere.

In other words, Mr. Bush knows that his major rationales for going to war in Iraq were spurious. But, he says he would still have gone to war in Iraq!

And there’s something else Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have said that for the life of me I do not understand. Mr. Cheney, obviously referring to the possibility that John Kerry might be elected President, said that if this happens: “We'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.”

In an address on May 13 to the 40th anniversary dinner of the American Conservative Union, President Bush attacked what he said was John Kerry’s view that the war on terror should be less of a military operation and “far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation.” He said, to applause:

“I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts, and thought by some to be settled. And yet, the terrorists were still training in Afghanistan; they were still plotting in other nations; they were still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got.”

On May 21, in Longview, Texas, Vice President Cheney, at a reception for Congressional candidate Judge Louis Gohmert, made the same point: “[Senator Kerry has said] opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of a law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us.”

But, I find this kind of talk puzzling. Why this hostility to due process of law, you know: Arrest, witnesses, evidence, a speedy trial, etc? And if the President and Vice President really mean what they say, why hasn’t what they say been consistently implemented? And what, exactly, does what they say mean?

If the war on terror means we’re at war with terrorists, and the “law enforcement” model has proved “entirely inadequate,” as Cheney says, then why, when we captured Saddam Hussein, didn’t we simply shoot him dead on the spot? But, this was not done. Instead he was arrested, put in jail and is now awaiting some kind of trial.

And what Mr. Bush says about the law enforcement model being followed in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is disingenuous. Despite what the President implies, nobody thought that handling this matter “in the courts” would “settle” anything --- other than dealing with those involved in this specific act of terrorism.

It’s true that even though the 1993 World Trade Center bombing terrorists were served with legal papers,

terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. Terrorists were still plotting in other nations. And terrorists were still drawing up more ambitious plans. But, nobody thought that any of this would be stopped by prosecuting the 1993 terrorists.

I’m not the only one who has noted this inconsistency. On May 26 of this year, in the White House briefing room, the following exchange occurred between members of the press and Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan:

Q: Scott, in the past, the President, has criticized John Kerry for saying that fighting terrorism was more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation than a military one. And now you're having this news conference with law enforcement officials trying to get information to help fight the war on terror. Isn't that hypocritical for the President to be criticizing John Kerry for what he's doing –

McClellan: Not all it. I don't think you've maybe been listening to what the President has been saying. He's saying that the war on terror is fought on many fronts, but the best way to win the war on terrorism is to take the fight to the enemy. And this is a war. This is a broad war against terrorism. September 11th changed the equation and taught us that we must confront threats before it is too late. And that's exactly what this President is doing. But the war on terrorism, the President has said from very early on, is fought on many fronts. It's fought on the law enforcement front; it's fought on the diplomatic front; it's fought on a number of different fronts -- the terrorist financing front, for another example.

Q: In March he said -- at a speech in California, he said -- quoting John Kerry, saying exactly that, "the war on terror is far less of a military, far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation," the President said he disagreed with that, and pointed to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, as an example.

McClellan: Yes. And what's your question about that? That statement stands. Those who suggest that we are not at war on terrorism, that it is not a military operation –

Q: Why do you not have [Homeland Security] Secretary Ridge at the news conference?

McClellan: -- don't have an understanding of what we're facing in the 21st century.

Q: But why is Secretary Ridge not at the news conference?

McClellan: Secretary Ridge has been out there talking about these threats that we face prior to today even, and he was certainly on the morning shows earlier today. But that's why I said the war on terrorism is fought on multiple fronts. There's the law enforcement front; there's the terrorist financing front; there's the diplomatic front; and there's the military front. And certainly, from the military standpoint, that's the way we go on the offensive and take the fight to the enemy. That's the way you win the war on terrorism. That's the way you stop attacks from happening in the first place.

Well, excuse me, but what Mr. McClellan says is not true. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney may have said that the fight against terrorism must be conducted on multiple fronts. But, both men have repeatedly and explicitly stated that one way in which this fight must not be fought is the failed way of treating terrorist attacks as if they are just “criminal acts”, because, in the President’s words, “it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.”

So, I repeat: Why is the Bush Administration so hostile to the due-process-of-law approach to dealing with terrorist attacks --- arrest, witnesses, evidence, a speedy trial, etc? And why does Mr. Bush say that if, when he launched his war against Iraq, he back then what he knows now, he would still have invaded Iraq? Why does he says this since this war has been such a disaster? I don’t get it.

----------------------------

John Lofton, Communications Director for Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Anthony Peroutka, calls himself “a recovering Republican.” He once worked at the Republican National Committee where his bosses were George H.W. Bush and Sen. Bob Dole. His email address is JLof@aol.com.



 

Join The Cause | About The Cause | On The Issues | Projects/Events
Resources | Archives | Contact Us | Search | Home