Delay of Game
Ralph Peters:
This isn’t a normal election year. We are at war. While many domestic issues deserve debate, the War on Terror demands unity of purpose from both parties. It is essential that our enemies understand that we’re united in fighting terrorism.
That’s not the message we’re sending.
While this week’s “9/11 hearings” on Capitol Hill are useful to a degree, they’re poorly timed. Both parties hope for political gain, while our paramount goal should be protecting our country.
The worst election-year sin is the focus on past errors, real or purported, and the lust to assign blame. What’s done is done. We need to concentrate – hard – on the future.
Unfortunately, serious thinking about the threat is on hold until November. We need the best that both parties have to offer. Instead, we get the worst. Winning elections trumps defending our citizens.
I couldn’t agree more. These hearings have been worse than useless. I don’t recall; when were hearings held on the Pearl Harbor debacle?
Hearings for the various investigations into Pearl Harbor were held from 1941, just after the attack (well, the first panel was convened then), all the way into 1944. Not every day, but off and on, weeks and months here and there. And you know Dewey spoke about his opposition to FDR’s handling of the war in his campaign. He even acused FDR of causing the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen in the war because he skimped on war materiel.
So – the question is: How do we discuss the War on Terror during the election year? Not discussing it is not possible, so how do we go about it?
Do you really think no mistakes were made, and no questions should be asked? Is our collective faith in the workings of our government and society so weak that we cannot stomach self-criticism, even for such an essential debate as this?
Here’s a quote from one of your own:
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”
Senator Robert Taft, Republican from Ohio, December 19, 1941
What’s done is not finished, if mistakes continue to be made. We have to be bigger than this. And let al Qaeda dance around all they want. They’ll still get their asses kicked.
CS
Well Cap’n, I’m not a Republican, so I don’t know what “one of your own” refers to. I do know that in an environment where gaining advantage at the ballot box, settling scores, and selling books is the primary consideration, the honest examination of facts becomes secondary. Thank goodness Adm. Kimmel and Gen. Short didn’t have contracts with Simon and Schuster, and there weren’t any 24 hour cable news channels.