I don't know any other major political figure who has been as right about as many national-security matters, as consistently, and as early, as Gary Hart has been. I'm thinking about his role in creating and leading the Congressional "military reform caucus" in the 1980s. But I know that the most famous illustration in most people's minds is his role as co-chair of the "U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century," aka the Hart-Rudman Commission.
Early in 2001, the commission presented a report to the incoming G.W. Bush administration warning that terrorism would be the nation's greatest national security problem, and saying that unless the United States took proper protective measures a terrorist attack was likely within its borders. Neither the president nor the vice president nor any other senior official from the new administration took time to meet with the commission members or hear about their findings.
I agree with this assessment of Hart. The guy has been as astute an observer of geopolitical issues as anyone I can think of in American government over the last generation. It's a testament to our hypocritical, self-destructive puritancial streak, and a willingly gulled, superficial media that Hart's political star flamed out as quickly as it did.
It's a weird trait -- when it comes to smart people who have the capacity and goodwill to help others, we ravenously eat our young; when it's frat-boys and chickenhawks who never did a goddamned thing in life unless there was something in it for them, we vote for their moral certitude. Or something.
Anyway, here's the kicker:
The commission had 14 members, split 7-7, Republican and Democrat, as is de rigeur for bodies of this type. Today Hart told me that in the first few meetings, commission members would go around the room and volunteer their ideas about the nation's greatest vulnerabilities, most urgent needs, and so on.
At the first meeting, one Republican woman on the commission said that the overwhelming threat was from China. Sooner or later the U.S. would end up in a military showdown with the Chinese Communists. There was no avoiding it, and we would only make ourselves weaker by waiting. No one else spoke up in support.
The same thing happened at the second meeting -- discussion from other commissioners about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, anarchy of failed states, etc, and then this one woman warning about the looming Chinese menace. And the third meeting too. Perhaps more.
Finally, in frustration, this woman left the commission.
"Her name was Lynne Cheney," Hart said. "I am convinced that if it had not been for 9/11, we would be in a military showdown with China today." Not because of what China was doing, threatening, or intending, he made clear, but because of the assumptions the Administration brought with it when taking office. (My impression is that Chinese leaders know this too, which is why there are relatively few complaints from China about the Iraq war. They know that it got the U.S. off China's back!)
Lee Hamilton, who had also been on the commission, was sitting at the same lunch table and backed up Hart's story.
Oh, sure. Lee Hamilton. Gary Hart. Snort. Heh-indeedy. They're lying. That's the reflexive response from The Most Ethical Administration Evah, and its retard supporters -- either everyone else is lying, or (as is the operative tack in defending the Libby commutation) they do it too. It's like arguing with a nine-year-old, an especially dumb one.
Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, it was the Chinese collision/forced landing of our spy plane back in April 2001, not even 100 days into this nightmare, where we got real proof of what a dim-bulb
Is this real life or is it cruel satire? The scene is the Oval Office. The time is early April 2001. The United States and China are locked in a stand-off with 24 American aircrew held captive, their spy plane downed. Behind the desk is President George W Bush, grilling his aides on this complex diplomatic confrontation. Just as John F Kennedy interrogated his advisers during the Cuban missile crisis, so it falls to Bush to put the single question that might get to the heart of this superpower showdown.
So what does Bush ask? "Do the members of the crew have Bibles? Why don't they have Bibles? Can we get them Bibles? Would they like Bibles?" Then the president remembers a strategic factor even more crucial. "Are they getting any exercise?"
This should have been an early and accurate indicator of what we were in for. The same braintrust that promotes a boob to the most important job in the world is the same ridiculous machine that foists a fourth-rate mind like Lynne Cheney upon a serious foreign-policy apparatus.
No comments:
Post a Comment