Be Afraid...But Don't Worry

On July 11, 2007, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff warned that the United States faces an increased risk of terrorist attacks. He later described his concerns about future attacks as "a gut feeling." I'm sure, at least I hope, it was based on more than intuition. Mr. Chertoff is certainly privy to intelligence that could cause the stomach to feel a bit uneasy. "We could easily be attacked," Mr. Chertoff stated. "The intent to attack us remains as strong as it was on September 10, 2001." Nonetheless, he failed to give any specifics as to what type of attack might be in the works this summer or fall.

Unfortunately, the last time we had reports like "Al-Qaida Plots New Attacks on US Soil," four airplanes were hijacked and thousands of people died. On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a daily briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The report stated that a Bin Laden "cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youths for attacks." In addition, signs indicated that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida might be planning to hijack US aircraft. And the report came to an end with the following: "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of buildings in New York." The rest is history.

And on July 17, 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that the US faces a "heightened threat environment." The following are excerpts of an article by the Associated Press as printed in the Chicago Tribune:

• "The findings focused most heavily on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, which was judged to remain the most serious threat to the United States."
• "In addition, analysts stressed the importance of al-Qaida's increasingly comfortable hideout in Pakistan that has resulted from a hands-off accord between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders along the Afghan border."

The NIE report included three potential terror threats to the US:

1. Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.
2. The number of homegrown extremists in the U.S. and its Western allies is growing, fueled by Internet web sites and anti-American rhetoric.
3. So-called "single issue" terrorist groups probably will attack here on a smaller scale. They include white supremacists, anarchists and animal rights groups, such as Animal Liberation Front.

So where does this leave us? Well, there are two ways of viewing this latest information:

1. It's just one of many false reports or reports that will not materialize
2. It's the real thing

There is no way of knowing for certain, and I suspect the government will have to live with that reality. If something does happen the government can claim, "there was no way of knowing for sure." And if nothing happens, they can say, "we were just doing our jobs." I'm not blaming our government for this. It's just an inconvenient truth. For this reason, I suspect we hear contradictory generalizations like "Be Afraid...But Don't Worry."

So what are we to make of all this? It's not so much knowing with certainty what will happen (an impossibility) as it is our willingness to allow ourselves to get diverted or distracted from the most important task at hand: containing terrorism. The important question here is: Who is diverting our attention and why are they doing so? I believe the Neoconservatives and their Project for the New American Century are the source of the problem.

First, let me preface the following by saying that I do not believe the Neocons or the Bush Administration planned 9/11 or allowed it to happen, but I do believe they have used their influence and power to take advantage of 9/11 at the expense of US soldiers, the American people, and Iraqis. Having said that, I do believe government conspiracies exist. If one doesn't believe in such conspiracies, then one might argue that Watergate or Iran-Contra never happened.

So what do the Neocons represent? The following are excerpts from the Neocons' Statement of Principles:

• As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

• Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

1. We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
2. We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
3. We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
4. We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, signed and helped write the Statement of Principles and ideals set forth by the Neocons and their Project for the New American Century. So what are the responsibilities the Neocons are so worried about? Those responsibilities are "defense/national security, global leadership and spreading democracy." For more information, please visit the Neocons' website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/. By the way, the Project for a New American Century is an American neoconservative think tank that seeks to exert influence on United States foreign policy and national security.

The best way to understand the Neocons is to actually read their strategies. On November 16, 1998, nearly three years before 9/11, The Weekly Standard (a neoconservative magazine) wrote an editorial entitled "How to Attack Iraq". Other articles concerning this matter can be found here. It's safe to say the Neocons were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. Sure, others also believed this, but to say that everyone believed Iraq had WMDs is categorically wrong. Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector, was the most outspoken critic. Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official, was also skeptical. And many experts and former government officials expressed their concerns in the documentary Uncovered: The War on Iraq.

Despite the skepticism concerning Iraq and WMDs, the Neocons continued to beat the drums of war. Then 9/11 happened and all signs pointed to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But almost immediately, the Neocons were focusing their attention on Iraq and its alleged connection to 9/11. Gary Schmitt of The Weekly Standard wrote an article titled "Why Iraq?"on October 19, 2001, just 5 weeks after 9/11. In the article, Mr. Schmitt outlined exactly why the US should invade Iraq. The article is even posted on the Necons' website.

On October 7, 2001, the United States military invaded Afghanistan. I believe the war in Afghanistan was a justifiable response to 9/11, and it put the United States in a great position to contain and monitor Iran and Pakistan. Unfortunately, we have since diverted our attention to the tasks of invading and occupying Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. As a result, Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members are still at large, and they have regrouped along the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Again let me reiterate that I do not believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the Neocons to plan or let 9/11 happen. But I do believe there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, and 9/11 provided that opportunity. Even if Iraq had WMDs, that does not mean Hussein conspired with the terrorists of 9/11. In fact, all evidence suggest Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And if you believe they did, then you do believe in conspiracies.

What, if anything, does all of this mean?
Will a new terrorist attack on US soil convince the Neocons to take advantage of the opportunity? And if they did, what would they do? Would Dick Cheney decide to run for President? Doubtful. Would the Neocons support a Republican candidate that would continue to carry on the ideals of The Project for the New American Century? They already are. Would the Republican Party and the Bush Administration use scare tactics? They already are. Would Congress and the Democrats give President Bush the authority to wage more war? Probably. Would US troops stay in Iraq indefinitely? They already are.

Mr. Chertoff and the National Intelligence Estimate are not the only ones who think an attack is imminent. Rick Santorum, former Republican Senator of Pennsylvania said the following on July 10, 2007:

• "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view."

Well, I have a "gut feeling," too. My "gut feeling" is that something will happen in Iraq or Iran later this year that compels the US to respond in the form of aerial attacks on strategic targets in Iran. This of course, opens the floodgates in Iraq leading to a full-scale regional war (in full swing by spring 2008).

Another scenario is that the US is attacked again and the Republicans start to play the fear card as the presidential campaign picks up (see video below). Then...

As a loyal Bushie (on the Iraq war), McCain is endorsed by the White House as the person best suited to carry on the war. With little or no foreign policy or war time experience, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards lose ground as the American public grows more fearful. McCain selects Guiliani as his VP and the memories of 9/11 inspire millions to re-elect a Republican to the White House. God save us!?!?

Let's hope Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Santorum, and I are incorrect.

Postscript: I realize future terrorist attacks in the United States are probably inevitable, but I do not believe fighting wars of attrition on distant shores is the way to win the "War on Terror." Isn't war itself terrifying? And it's not about winning or losing, it's about containing and neutralizing. Our best defense is proactive intelligence, strong multi-national alliances, strategic strikes when necessary, and some luck (like the British had in London). Over-extending our armies and fighting unpopular wars only serve to weaken our great civilization.

Should Jefferson and Vitter Resign?

The scandal surrounding Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana is really a no brainer unless he is in fact innocent. Only he would know for sure. But even then, I'm sure there are ethical issues to be addressed. Mr. Jefferson was indicted on June 4, 2007 on 16 counts for charges including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire-fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Mr. Jefferson pleaded not guilty to the charges on June 8, 2007. I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty," but the evidence sure doesn't look good for Mr. Jefferson.

The scandal involving Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana is a bit more complicated. Mr. Vitter offered a public apology on July 9, 2007, for events involving solicitation of an illegal escort service. Phone records show that Mr. Vitter's number was called five times at his request from October 1999 to February 2001. And recent accusations by a New Orleans brothel allege that Mr. Vitter was a paying customer in the 1990s. Apparently, the statutes of limitations have expired, so it is unlikely that Mr. Vitter will face any criminal charges such as adultery or soliciting prostitutes. If that were the end of the story, I could easily say that Mr. Vitter should remain in office. However, some of Mr. Vitter's past statements bring into question the legitimacy of his integrity.

People make mistakes, and it's okay to make mistakes. It's also okay to make mistakes, learn from them, and then help others from making such errors. It's even okay to claim family values and make mistakes. But one should be careful about condemning others for their mistakes. In 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky Scandal, Mr. Vitter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that extramarital affairs were grounds for resignation. If an extramarital affair is grounds for resignation, isn't soliciting prostitutes also grounds for resignation? If you are going to preach, be careful what you say.

Mr. Vitter has also been a diligent opponent of same-sex marriage. While running for US Senator of Louisiana in 2004, Mr. Vitter released the following statement on protecting the sanctity of marriage: "This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won't do anything about it. We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage."

Well, I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Vitter and his belief in the sanctity of marriage are the victims of gays and lesbians seeking the opportunity to enjoy something Mr. Vitter values so much. As a Christian, Mr. Vitter should know that the Bible has a lot more to say about adultery than homosexuality. Mr. Vitter should also know that the Bible says the punishment for both adultery and homosexuality is death. Fortunately, Jesus gave us a new way of thinking and loving.

Having said that, it would not anger or even disappoint me if Mr. Vitter decided to remain in office. If I were in a position to do so, I would forgive him. Much the way Jesus came to the defense of the prostitute who was about to be stoned to death. Apparently, Mr. Vitter's wife has decided to forgive him as well. Mrs. Vitter once implied that she would cut off her husband's penis if he cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter made this comment in response to a question regarding the infidelity of Bob Livingston, a former congressman from Louisiana who resigned from office in May 1999.

For the record, I will state that I believe former President Clinton should have resigned and served time. Not because of his adultery, but because he lied under oath and obstructed justice. If President Clinton had admitted his guilt from the beginning, or at the very least when he was under oath, I would have been content with him staying in office.

And Mr. Scooter Libby also lied under oath and obstructed justice. To Mr. Libby's credit, he did resign. However, President Bush commuted Mr. Libby's 30-month sentence because he thought it was too harsh. As a result, Mr. Libby did not go to jail. If the sentence was too harsh, why didn't President Bush just reduce the sentence to 1 year or 6 months?

And Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley, former Republican congressmen, did the right thing when they resigned. Mr. Cunningham is currently serving 8 years in prison for a number of convictions, and Mark Foley received counseling after sending suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenagers.

So should Jefferson and Vitter resign? Yes for Jefferson. No for Vitter. I wrote this post to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. All too often, Democrats try to separate individual responsibility from a person's actions, and Republicans try to legislate morality they don't always live up to. Somewhere between the ideals of the Democrats and the Republicans is a middle path. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all talk about a middle way. The Bible says, "Do not swerve to the right or left; Do not turn aside to the left or to the right." Jesus also talked extensively about love, forgiveness and the importance of not passing judgment on others. Sure, there must be consequences, but there is nothing anyone could do to keep me from loving or forgiving him or her, not even my enemies.

If you get a chance, please read God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis.