Tuesday, April 17, 2007


As always Victor Davis Hanson gets right to the essence of the matter I alluded to in th previous post. He laboriously summarizes all the "big" scandals--Scooter Libby's NOT revealing the name of Plame; the Duke non-case; Alberto Gonzales firing 8 lawyers (when Clinton's AG fired dozens); and the recent lynch mob after Paul Wolfowitz' head:

Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion — nothing, however, ranking with the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan, whose son profited by United Nations exemptions given through his family ties. In today’s moral calculus, presiding over a $50-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that led to frequent death in Iraq and profit among global elites is a misdemeanor, recommending a pay package for an employee one dates is an unforgivable felony.

One could go on with the furor over the misdirected pellets from Dick Cheney’s shotgun, or the clamor for the Rumsfeld resignation. Yet contrast all this hysteria with the slight whimpers surrounding recent controversies over conflicts of interest or lapses in judgment surrounding Richard Armitage, Harry Reid, or Dianne Feinstein. The destruction of federal documents that might well alter history’s consensus by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was a snore for most journalists.

What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials?

Payback for Iraq.

What we have here is the ad hominem attack writ large and infused with psychological displacement . Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself; and I would describe ad hominem with displacement is attacking everybody who has a connection to the person you want to attack so as to discredit that person and whatever he has done that you don't want to attack directly. Because that's what it is; ongoing personal attacks on people connected to Bush for the express purpose of subverting and discrediting "his" Iraq war.

This behavior that Hanson discusses is not just payback for Iraq--it is payback for 2000. It is payback for 9/11; it is payback for all the shame and humiliation of the Clinton impeachment.

But make no mistake about it, it is payback. And to get even; to "undo" everything and everyone connected to this Administration is absolutely necessary to maintain a disintegrating political self-esteem and the loser ideology they subscribe to.

Do you wonder why there has been no serious discussion in this country about the Iraq war? The reason is that the side making up the bogus scandals to undermine the Bush Presidency doesn't really want to debate how to win the Iraq war--they want to lose it, so as to further discredit a Republican president that they despise. They don't want to argue on the merits; or discuss strategy-- because their fundamental position has no merit; and the only strategy they are capable of creating relates to regaining power. The trivialities and personal attack-scandals the Democrats and the left hype and choose to focus on simply pale in comparison to the unbelievable actions of their own---people like Sandy Berger and Kofi Annan to name just two. Both of these individuals have basically gotten off scott free for their amazing behavior--behavior the import of which cannot be underestimated.

But I want to focus once again on Berger in light of recent revelations.

Why should we care about Sandy Berger? No one--left or right-- in their right mind would blame either Bill Clinton or George Bush for 9/11. The sole responsibility and blame for the vicious attacks of that day rests squarely on the religious fanatics who planned and carried it out. Period.

But, don't you see? Berger's behavior suggests that there is something that Clinton's Administration wants desperately to hide. Enough of a something to make a public servant like Berger risk his entire career and a stint in prison (which he should have received) to try to keep it hidden. And, if that is the case, then there is likely something important we need to know that perhaps could have made us more vigilant sooner; but almost certainly is necessary to understand to help us prevent future attacks. And, wasn't that the entire purpose of the 9/11 Commission??? To discover why we were so vulnerable to these jihadists and come up with recommendations so that we could be better prepared in the future?

How can you plug a hole in the dyke if you don't know where it is?

I don't want to excoriate Sandy Berger because he was in the Clinton Administration. I want to bring him to task for his self-serving, criminal behavior; and for allowing himself to be more concerned with protecting his and Clinton's "legacy" than with helping this country prepare itself better for future terrorist attacks. He is putting his country at risk to satisfy his own narcissism.

What does it say about his character that he is willing to risk all to preserve his and Clinton's legacy? Nothing less could have motivated him to do what he did. I have considerable contempt for this sort of blatant narcissism that seems pervasive these days in our elected officials in general--let alone a former National Security Advisor for this country.

What bugs me is the beautiful indifference; the big yawn from the media and the left about Berger's criminal behavior, which impacts all of us who live in this country. Their lack of curiosity is stunning. They want to be free to blame Bush--and Bush alone-- for 9/11, even as they whine when the trail leads back to their own.

If nothing else, the Bush Administration has to account for looking the other way at Berger's activities; and one wonders what information they do not want the public to know about this matter. Even the judge in the case was outraged at the lenient sentence recommended by the prosecution.

How much denial is it possible for a group of people to engage in? How much narcissism does it take to ignore the important questions, and studiously and repeatedly focus on the trivial and the bogus? How much self-delusion and hysteria will we be subjected to before the Democrats, the left and their shills finally open their eyes and understand that we are at war with an implacable enemy who wants to destroy us? When will they realize that it is not about them?

I fear the only response we will ever get from these yahoos is a big yawn.

No comments: