National security appears to the make-or-break election issue this year among independent voters. John Kerry can -- and
should -- win over Bush on national security hands down in the court of public opinion. There are two main reasons why this hasn't happened yet:
- The media continue their insidious "disinforming" of the American public by not informing them, in depth and consistently, of the biting fact that the highest-level former military, intelligence, and foreign service officers in this country are virtually unanimous in condemning Bush's foreign, military, and anti-terrorism policies; many of them are so concerned about our national security that they are actively working for the Kerry campaign. That Kerry has won over an Air Force general (Tony McPeak), who is a former Republican, underscores how desperate our national security situation truly is; and
- Spokesmen for the Kerry campaign (most recently and appallingly, Mary Beth Cahill on NPR's "Morning Edition" today), instead of hammering home that Kerry is much stronger than Bush on national security, try to divert the focus from national security by claiming that it is only one of a number of important issues. Pay attention, Mary Beth: people who are worried about whether or not they and their children are safe are not going to be diverted from that primary concern by a discussion of the economy or health care issues.
This situation will not change unless Kerry in Thursday night's debate, and his spokesmen and surrogates in their various interviews, make the following arguments
over and over again, in succinct "sound bites", backed up supporting evidence from non-partisan and bi-partisan sources:
- Bush and his closest national security advisors (Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc.) have shown a consistent and unconscionable refusal to listen to those -- e.g., anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the State Department, career military in the Pentagon, and intelligence operatives with expertise in Iraq and the Mideast -- who know best who and what are the true dangers our country and what policies and actions are feasible from a military and diplomatic standpoint. This arrogance, ignorance, and self-serving obstruction of getting the truth to the public is clearly seen in the 9/11 Commission's report (which, although the Commission chose not to draw conclusions, allows those conclusions to be drawn easily by anyone with a brain), in Senator Bob Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, and in the decision of the 9/11 widows to support Kerry. These "Jersey girls" have spent the past three years poring over every document and record bearing on the 9/11 attacks and fighting the Bush administration every step of the way in their attempt to bring the facts to light.
- Bush stopped "taking the war to the terrorists" when he let Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora and severely reduced our military personnel and resources in Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq did not "take the war to the terrorists". A 2001 CIA report (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/patterns.pdf) documenting international terrorist activity noted that Iraq's "terrorism" was against dissidents and explicitly stated (p. 33) that "[t]he regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." In fact, our invasion of Iraq has increased terrorist activity both by destroying the security of the Iraqi borders so that terrorists from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia have flooded into the region, and by engendering a domestic, nationalist terrorist movement where none existed before. The increase in terrorist numbers internationally is documented in a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
- We cannot fight a war on international terrorists without the support of the international community. But President Bush has alienated, and continues to alienate, the allies we most need to prosecute this war on terrorists. The most recent example was his address last week before the United Nations. He refused to apologize for (1) having Colin Powell present before the U.N. General Assembly false intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq, (2) his failing to obtain support from the U.N. for the invasion itself, and (3) his miserable failure to administer properly the occupation of Iraq in terms of providing security, restoring basic utilities, and undertaking in a timely, skillful, and efficient manner the reconstruction efforts needed. The international community demonstrated its displeasure by applauding not once during Bush's entire speech, and bestowing only token, polite applause at the end of the speech.
The above three points are all recognized by most of the nation's top (retired) experts on national security. These generals and admirals, high-level CIA and other intelligence officers, and ambassadors have been virtually unanimous in their criticism of George Bush's policies and their damaging effects on our national security and international position. A number of them are publicly supporting John Kerry (by the way, these names should be up front and center on the Kerry web site). Among the military, e.g., Gen. Merrill (Tony) McPeak, former US Air Force Chief of Staff, e.g., registered as a Republican when he retired and worked for the Dole campaign in 1996 and Bush's own campaign in 2000; he is now an enthusiastic member of Kerry's senior military advisory group, a team of generals and admirals which also includes
two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Adm. William Crowe and Gen. John Shalikashvili), former Director of Central Intelligence Adm. Stansfield Turner, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command Gen. Joseph Hoar, and former Supreme Allied Commander-Europe Gen. Wesley Clark. By contrast, well-respected conservative military figures such as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who spoke in support of Bush's candiacy at the 2000 Republican National Convention, have disavowed Bush in this election campaign. The stunning lack of military advisors of high stature on the Bush campaign screams volumes about the military's distrust of Bush's policies, their frustration with his obstinate refusal to listen to career military in the Pentagon, and their fears about the national security of this country should Bush be re-elected.
Similar concerns are evident in the diplomatic community. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke are both serving as advisors to the Kerry campaign; other diplomats serving with and/or supporting John Kerry include former Assistant Secretary of State George Moose and former Ambassadors Edward Gabriel (Morocco), Ray Mabus (Saudia Arabia), Douglas "Pete" Peterson (Vietnam), and William Harrop (Zaire and Israel). Harrop, in a MoveOn PAC ad, explicitly states that he voted for George Bush in 2000.
Perhaps the most vocal element of the American national security community in raising the alarm on Bush's policies and actions has been the intelligence community, particularly those elements of the intelligence community which are involved in anti-terrorism. Rand Beers (USMC), Former Special Assistant and Senior Director for Combating Terrorism for the National Security Council, is Kerry's senior national security advisor. A group of CIA officers published an open letter to President Bush over a year ago, criticizing his misuse of intelligence, and calling for Vice-President Cheney's immediate resignation. Interestingly, they also directed strong criticism at Congressman Porter Goss, Bush's nominee to succeed William Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence: "Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co -chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss ' loyalties lie can be seen in his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney 's insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee --an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation." (July 2003 open memo of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, available at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0714-01.htm)
Finally, the single most critical voice against President Bush has been that of Richard Clarke, head of antiterrorism under both Clinton and Bush, and a conservative hawk who served both Republican and Democratic administrations for over two decades. Anyone who has read Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, cannot fail to be struck by the stubborn and deliberate lack of concern about terrorism throughout the Bush administration prior to 9/11, by the administration's utter failure to act with alacrity and organization in handling the 9/11 terrorist attacks themselves in the first minutes and hours, and by Bush and his advisors' unwillingness to focus on al-Qaeda and insistence on pursuing an anti-Iraq policy against all evidence to the contrary.
The failure of the American press to bring these facts in a coherent way to the attention of the American public can be the result of one of only two flaws in the media: journalistic incompetence, or active support of the Bush administration. In either case, the press' failure to inform the American public -- with the result that the majority of Americans erroneously believe Bush to be stronger on national security than Kerry -- is influencing the election in a way that may well truly endanger our national security. Don't journalists and commentators care about their own safety and that of their families?
P.S. If you agree that these are important arguments to bring before the nation, please recommend this diary.