Fox News broke the
story regarding a memorandum that surfaced dealing with political strategy
on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The memo provided a
“game plan” for how Democrats should proceed in their most cherished goal:
defeat George Bush in 2004. It was my understanding that this historically
nonpartisan committee should be more concerned with winning the war on terror,
but this event proves otherwise.
Email Michael Nevin, Jr.
Instead of focusing on intelligence gathering capabilities and procedures,
this reproachable memo suggests Democrats should “verbally mention some of
the intriguing leads we are pursuing.” When did the dissemination of
classified information become encouraged? The memo also calls for an
independent commission to be established during the 2004 election year.
Democrats were unapologetic and incensed about the memo being made public.
Senator Jon Kyl responded, “Democrats had the audacity to suggest the Senate
investigate how these attack plans might have been obtained -- the equivalent
of offenders blaming the cops because they got caught. This effort
at spin control is patently absurd in any event, since by Senator Rockefeller’s
own admission, this strategy memo was not an official committee document
and certainly contained no intelligence information.”
If certain Democrats want to launch an independent commission into intelligence
gathering procedures that lead us to war, then let’s begin with calling former
members of the Clinton Administration to the stand. Although Clinton
may have allowed the Iraq threat to ferment, he did seem to understand that
Saddam Hussein was a grave danger. Much of the intelligence gathering
of Iraqi threat assessment, which would later be used to justify war, took
place during the Clinton years. How is it that so many former Clinton
Administration officials have begun to suffer from amnesia? Former
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was in France recently to promote
her new book. “America is much stronger in a multilateral system, we
must be on the same side, work with other people in the world. It shouldn’t
be America versus the others,” Albright said, speaking in French. She
added that France was “a little bit right” to oppose the U.S. led war in
Iraq. However, Albright sung a different tune in 1994 when she was
U.N. Ambassador. While speaking to the Security Council during a discussion
on Iraq, Albright stated: “We recognize this area as vital to U.S. national
interests and we will behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and
unilaterally when we must.” Maybe she could only expand her book market
with anti-American drivel.
Critics of the war in Iraq have failed to take note of David Kay’s interim
report on his ongoing investigation into Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Kay states, “We have found people, technical information and illicit procurement
networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate
global proliferation. Even in the area of actual weapons there is no doubt
that Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons.” Kay, later
in an interview, said, “What we have found is a substantial body of evidence
that reports that the Iraqis had an intention to continue weapons production
at some point in the future. We've also found undeclared activities in the
chemical and biological and missile area that were never declared to the
U.N. and not discovered during inspections.” This October 2 report
was given to the same members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
who would later be caught passing notes in class. When the memo, ostensibly
written by a Democratic staff member on the intelligence committee, surfaced
a month after Kay’s report, it became obvious that regaining political power
takes precedent over America’s war on terror.
Bad news for the antiwar crowd just seems to keep pouring in as yet another memorandum was obtained by the Weekly Standard
in late October. Remember all the talk about Saddam and bin Laden oblivious
about one another? Put that myth to rest. In his article, “Case
Closed,” Stephen F. Hayes writes, “Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had
an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training
in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorists
attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial
support for al Qaeda—perhaps even for Mohamed Atta—according to a top secret
U.S. government memorandum.”
At some point, one would expect that most Democrats in leadership roles would
back the war on terror given the vast amount of privy information at their
hands. Most Democrat constituents favor a strong national defense and
depend on their representatives to make scrupulous decisions. Senator
Zell Miller (D-GA) condemned members of his own party when news of the memo
surfaced. Miller opined, “Heads should roll.” The radical, antiwar
fringe will doom the Democratic Party unless they jettison this group.
Our enemy has been mounting an enduring campaign against us but only after
September 11 did many of us start to pay attention. Failure in Iraq
is not an option because it would doom American foreign policy. Our
enemy understands this and is determined to make the task difficult.
The terrorist will make no distinction between Republican and Democrat, conservative
and liberal, patriot and protestor. Unless you’re selling books in
France, it may be time to put partisan politics to rest. American soldiers
are in harm’s way. Their lives are more important than leaked memos
and election cycles.
Michael Nevin is a California law enforcement officer.
this Article to a Friend