Molly Ivins criticized in Chicago Trib LTTE, and my response

Martin Eden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-03-07 04:45 PM
Original message

Molly Ivins criticized in Chicago Trib LTTE, and my response

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702030013feb03,0,3225951.story?coll=chi-newsopinionvoice-hed">This letter appeared in the Saturday Feb 3 Chicago Tribune. Here are some excerpts:

<<snip>>
For all of the mean-spirited vitriol Ivins heaped on fellow Texan Bush, let me pose the question: What would have Molly Ivins' response been to Sept. 11, 2001?

Would she have shown leadership by creating an agency to step up security in our airports and cities?

Or would she have sought to meet with Osama bin Laden and try to reason with him?

Would she have the courage to send troops to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, or would she have assembled a blue-ribbon panel of liberal academics to ponder the problem?

Would she have waited until it was too late to verify that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction before taking action to protect America <<snip>>

Ah, but you see, that's the beauty of being a critic.

You're never accountable for your own actions, if you don't take any.

I spent this morning composing a response to this freeper, which I will send to him in the mail;

I’m writing to you under the assumption you are the person whose letter Ivins’ criticism was published in the Chicago Tribune on Saturday. I apologize in advance if you are not that person, or of you are and take personal offense at this reply to your letter, which requires a longer response than is likely to be printed in the newspaper.

I will begin by commenting on your closing statement “Ah, but you see, that’s the beauty of being a critic. You’re never accountable for your own actions, if you don’t take any.” What should be obvious here is that it is not the job of newspaper columnists to make decisions on foreign policy. Their job is to comment upon on the actions taken by our government, and they are indeed held accountable as are we all for the quality of our work. More importantly, the role of a free press and open dissent was recognized by our Founding Fathers as essential to preserving the liberties they established. It is appropriate to take issue with the ideas expressed by Molly Ivins, but it is entirely illogical to berate her for not taking or being held accountable for actions that are not her job.

This leads me to your question “What would have been Molly Ivins’ response to Sept 11, 2001?” Any answers to this or your other questions are highly speculative because neither you nor I can know what Molly Ivins would have done if she were in a position to make such decisions (which, of course, she wasn’t). I will not attempt to speak on her behalf, so I will speak on my own.

In regards to actions taken or not taken, George W. Bush essentially ignored the many warnings of an impending attack that were issued before Sept. 11, 2001. Richard Clarke, who served in national security roles under four presidents (3 Republican, 1 Democratic), repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get this administration to focus on the al Qaeda threat. It remains to be seen whether 9/11 could have been prevented, but it cannot be disputed that Bush failed to devote the resources the threat demanded.

In the wake of the attacks, I think any president of either party would have demanded the extradition of bin Laden and taken military action in Afghanistan when the Taliban refused. Unfortunately, much of the military action was left in the hands of the Afghan Northern Alliance and bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora when our agents on the ground called for but did not receive the forces to prevent it. The real shame is that Afghanistan is becoming a failed nation-building operation and the Taliban is making a comeback because our attention and resources were so quickly diverted elsewhere.

In your letter you ask “Would she have shown leadership by creating an agency to step up security in our airports and cities?” I think you should be aware that the Department of Homeland Security was proposed by Democrats and that Bush initially opposed it. You should also be aware that the 9/11 Commission has given the Bush administration mostly failing grades for failing to take recommended measures to improve security in our cities, ports, and other vulnerable targets.

Your question that really made my jaw drop was “Would she have waited until it was too late to verify that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction before taking action to protect America…?” If you recall, the UN weapons inspectors were readmitted to Iraq with access to every site in order to make that verification. If Saddam Hussein posed any kind of a threat it certainly wasn’t imminent with the inspectors present and the world’s greatest superpower poised to strike at the slightest provocation. Have you ever thought about why Bush would not give the inspectors the time they were requesting to complete their work? The inspection team was already coming to the conclusion that the extensive infrastructure required to produce nuclear weapons simply didn’t exist in Iraq, and before long they would also have determined that massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons didn’t exist either.

Given the fact that several key members of the Bush administration were advocating the invasion of Iraq long before 9/11, that the Downing Street Memo shows Bush had already made up his mind to invade by the summer of 2002, and that so many of their claims about WMD and ties to al Qaeda were disputed by experts within our government prior to the invasion, it seems to me that the real “imminent threat” was that the primary rationale for this war would have vanished along with the “mushroom clouds” we were told to fear.

Some of the facts you should consider:
• The CIA told the Bush administration that allegations of Saddam trying to purchase uranium in Niger were not reliable, but he used that claim anyway. The allegations were based on crudely forged documents.
• Our foremost experts on uranium enrichment reported that aluminum tubes purchased by Saddam were ill-suited for centrifuges, but Condoleeza Rice on national TV insisted they were “really only suited” for building nukes.
• The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concluded there was no operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda, but Bush repeatedly made that connection when pushing his case for war.

These are far from the only documented examples in which the Bush administration cherry-picked, distorted, or ignored intelligence that did not support its predetermined decision to invade Iraq. I think this invasion was primarily about oil, Israel, and the misguided theory that we can transform the Middle East to our liking through the barrel of a gun. Even if, despite all the evidence, you choose to believe Bush was honestly mistaken about the threat posed by Iraq, can you for one minute deny that his decision and his management of this intervention has been a disaster for the United States and for Iraq?

At the cost of more than 3000 American lives and half a $trillion taxpayer dollars we have an Iraq that is widely acknowledged as a much greater terrorist threat now than before. We supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s because his secular regime was a bastion against the Shiite Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. Now Iraq’s Shiite majority is in power and Iran stands to be the big winner at our expense. The Sunni minority is engaged in a civil war against the Shiites and continues to mount a deadly insurgency against our troops. Jihadis have flocked to Iraq since the invasion, and the CIA’s National Intelligence Council reported that Iraq has become the recruiting and training ground for the next generation of professional terrorists.

In your letter you mentioned accountability. Shouldn’t the president of the United States be held accountable when his administration is responsible for this colossal strategic blunder at such terrible cost?

Well, Molly Ivins thought so, and she did her darndest to call George W. Bush to account. The Chicago Tribune, much to its credit, publishes columnists from both ends of the political spectrum. Opposing points of view are vital to our national debate, and strong dissent with our government’s actions remains an essential freedom.

I for one think Molly’s criticism of Bush was absolutely necessary, painfully true, packed with humor and wit, and right on target. And thankfully, I am far from alone. Her voice will be missed.

Sincerely,
name withheld for security reasons

P.S.
I would very much like to get a response from you, but in this day and age it is prudent to not divulge information regarding identity. I found your address by googling your name. Rest assured this is the only thing you will get from me.