Random Thoughts

On the 9/11 Commission, John Kerry, and Liberal inconsistency

by Heidi Parent
05/01/04

We’re doing the people’s business so leave us alone

Co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, was recently asked why his Commission members are appearing on so many TV talk shows. After all, shouldn’t members reserve judgment until all the findings are in? Chairman Kean responded that he encourages his members to appear in an effort to “bring the public along” so the commission is “not operating in secret.” But Chairman Kean’s open policy quickly closed when questioned about commission member Jamie Gorelick’s conflict of interest. (While Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration Gorelick authored a memo that deepened the lack of communication between the FBI and CIA.) Chairman Kean responded to the questions by praising Gorelick as one of the “finest members of the commission” and went on to growl, “people ought to stay out of our business.” Stay out of their business? So much for not operating in secret.

9/11 Commission report

Don’t expect anything of value to come from the 9/11 Commission’s final report. First, their credibility has been badly damaged by Jamie Gorelick’s conflict of interest. Secondly, this “bipartisan” commission has quickly morphed into a partisan sideshow. But those facts aside, no matter what the report really concludes, the media will spin it so Bush is found at fault. Paranoia? No, it’s just their track record. Take yourself back to the 2000 Florida recount for a recent example. Reporters I watched that night initially interpreted the Supreme Court decision as “bad news for the Bush camp” because that’s what they hoped it meant. It wasn’t until they actually read the decision that they realized, oops – it’s actually bad news for Gore. And that is why I anticipate the Commission’s report to be greeted with a spin job that would make even Bill Clinton jealous.

John Kerry: Rewriting History

John Kerry recently claimed that “this Administration has stubbornly refused to involve other countries in the real decision making [in Iraq], in the sharing of power and authority, and therefore they’re unwilling to share the risk and the burden, and can you blame them?” Was Kerry’s claim challenged by the media? Of course not. Should it have been? Definitely. Bush did not “stubbornly refuse to involve other countries.” He welcomed any country that wanted to join the coalition – and many did. In fact, the coalition that President Bush has built is larger than the coalition his father built in the first Gulf War. But do we hear this fact reported in the press? Nope. They just continue to repeat the Left’s mantra about “going it alone” and acting “unilaterally.” Chalk up another in the unfair and unbalanced column.

No war plan?

Shortly after the war in Iraq began, Democrats criticized the president for recklessly rushing our country to war without a plan. However, Bob Woodward’s new book, Plan of Attack, reveals that in November 2001 President Bush ordered Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to draw up a contingency war plan for Iraq. Well, what do you know, Democrats? There was a war plan after all.

Slow down, Hurry Up, Slow Down

Leading up the war in Iraq, Democrats urged the President to take it slow and not “rush to war.” Once we were in Iraq they demanded the administration develop an exit strategy. Now they have changed their tune yet again and are urging the President to not be so hasty in turning over control to the Iraqis on the June 30th deadline. It is obvious (if it wasn’t already) that steady leadership is not in their playbook. Changing positions with the blowing wind, however, is chapter one.

We’re outraged! (But only when it benefits us)

The President’s first campaign commercial briefly showed a flag draped stretcher being removed from Ground Zero and the Left went berserk claiming the use of the image was disrespectful to the victims of the terror attack. (In truth, they opposed the shot because it reminded voters of the strong leadership displayed by Bush after 9/11, and they couldn’t afford to let that happen during an election year.)

Now images of flagged draped coffins are once again making headlines as the media has begun showing images of coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Is the Left outraged? Quite the contrary. They are calling for the release of more pictures of flag draped coffins in the hope that the images will cause support for the war to wane. I guess the Left only protects the memory of the fallen when it also benefits them politically.

C’mon, Mr. President. It’s only two little words

During his recent press conference, President Bush was asked countless times to apologize for 9/11, the Iraq War, and basically having the gall to breathe in and out so frequently. Funny, I don’t recall the media demanding that Bill Clinton apologize for, oh I don’t know, lying under oath, having sex in the Oval Office, Travelgate, Whitewater, questionable pardons, questionable campaign contributions, missing FBI files…

$97 is $97

I have to laugh every time I hear some liberal criticize the President’s tax cuts on the grounds that it increases their tax refund by only a few measly dollars (i.e. “Big deal. I only got back $97 more this year than I got last year.”) But what really floors me is that many of these same liberals are now calling for Bush’s head because of rising gas prices. Based on their logic I don’t see what the big deal is. After all, rising gas prices only costs them a few dollars more a year. If getting $97 back from the government means so little, why should spending $97 more on gasoline mean so much?