Professor Pipes

Submitted by John Philips (Japan), Sep 20, 2006 at 22:18

>9/11 changed much for conservatives, little for liberals. Yes, that's true. Bill Clinton was going after al-Qa'ida, and the Republicans (with the honorable exception of Daniel Pipes) were going after Clinton, claiming it was all just a "wag the dog" distraction from the Lewinsky scandal, which they all (again with the honorable exception of Daniel Pipes) insisted was so important we had to drop everything to impeach him immediately. You don't believe me? Read this recent blog entry from RedState @ http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/kmaher/2006/sep/11/path_to_9_11_clinton_puzzles_me

"Everybody thought his response to the embassy bombings was sleight of hand to distract from Lewinsky. I know I did." Daniel Pipes didn't speak for all, or even very many, conservatives then. So how did September 11 even happen? It happened on Bush's watch. Clinton told him that al-Qa'ida was the biggest threat to national security. Bush ignored him and changed the subject. The transition team gave him a 20 page paper on capturing bin Ladin and he ignored that, too.

Al-Qa'ida was so low a priority that Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" (as Cheney put it), George Tenet was "running around with his hair on fire" and the Presidential Daily Briefing that said "Bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US" was also ignored. And where are we now? The trail is cold, because Bush insists on fighting an unrelated war in Iraq. These are all facts, whether conservatives want to face them or not. >Liberals widely accuse conservatives, for self-interested reasons, of exaggerating the threat.

The liberals I read are upset that the ports aren't secure, the Taliban are growing, Pakistan just acceded to an Islamist mini-state in Waziristan, and bin Ladin got away. e.g. http://dnc.org/a/national/real_security/ http://securingamerica.com/node/1471 and http://democrats.org/a/2006/09/gop_abandons_91.php

Conservatives seem to just make up things they claim "liberals" believe. Then they repeat these things to each other ad nauseam until they all believe them. It has nothing to do with reality. Seriously, what you claim is not a reflection of what liberals are really saying. It is just a Republican noise machine talking point that someone is feeding you. Get out of your bubble and find out what liberal Democrats are really saying.

You might find yourself in more agreement with them than you think. And even if you disagree with them you would be more effective in your arguments against them if you actually understood what they are saying... >As I pointed out already in 1994 (in a National Review article), the current debate divides along lines closely mirroring those concerning the Soviet Union. Conservatives, being prouder of what Americans have created, worry more about external threats and urge confrontation; liberals, being more self-critical, are more sanguine, and prefer conciliation.

Wait, let me get this straight. Nixon and Kissinger were liberals with their detente, but Truman and Kennan were conservatives with containment? Kennedy must have been a conservative, too. Gee, what interesting new redefinitions of "liberal" and "conservative" these are. The reality is that liberals were friendlier to the non-aligned nations, to try to get them on our side. Conservatives were busy making enemies instead of friends. Both were equally anti-Communist.

But going back and fighting the political battles of the Cold War again doesn't really contribute anything to the struggle at hand. Let's not go there. Not only would it hurt both sides it won't do any good now. This argument just makes you less credible in the present. Leave it alone. >Put differently, 9/11 mobilized conservatives against radical Islam even as it mobilized liberals against conservatives. How about admitting that the embassy bombings mobilized liberals against radical Islam even as they mobilized conservatives against liberals. Conservatives like Ann Coulter are still more concerned with attacking liberals than they are with uniting the country. I thought you were different. If you really want to unite the country you have to put Democrats in top cabinet posts. Lincoln appointed a Democrat as his Secretary of War. FDR appointed a Republican as his. Wilson didn't, and didn't take any Republicans to Versailles, and then couldn't understand why they wouldn't support his League of Nations.

It doesn't matter whether he (or Bush) was right or wrong. That's just how it works. >Looking ahead, nothing but an atrocity of terrible proportions will wake liberals and make "united we stand" once again a meaningful slogan.

The only debate now is over Iraq. Most Democrats say it is distracting from the job of catching bin Ladin, and would like to put more troops in Afghanistan. They are upset that bin Ladin got away and that the trail is cold. That happened on Bush's watch, and I can't understand why the "party of personal responsibility" won't make him take personal responsibility for it. Most Republicans, on the other hand, still think Saddam was behind 9/11. Shouldn't you be explaining to them that we took out one of bin Ladin's worst enemies in the Arab world? Shouldn't you explain that under Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton our worst nightmare was a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq aligned with Iran? Shouldn't you explain that that former worst nightmare is now probably the best we can hope for?

Can't you admit that the Bush administration has been, against its own intentions, fueling the growth of radical Islamism in the Middle East? Or are you more interested in fighting "liberals" than in fighting radical Islam?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".