Request For Admissions

Michael Smerconish is an occasional contributor at the Huffington Post, and one with whom I rarely agree, because he appears to be a Bush apologist. However, he has written an article that I think is very interesting.

He talks about his days as a lawyer and how, pre-trial, often both sides would take a list of simple true/false statements and answer them. Whatever was agreed to as true by both parties was admitted as fact in the trial. This was to cut down on the bickering over minutia, to keep the trial as focused as possible.

He proposes such a list with regard to 9/11 and Katrina, and while I think his list of questions is somewhat slanted, I wanted to take a crack at answering them.

I think they’re interesting, and I would love to have anyone else who reads this blog go through the same list of statements and answer them. Admit, Deny, Unsure and add explanation or clarification as you see fit.

Here we go:

Admit or Deny:

9/11 was the work of radical Islam.

Admit.

Post 9/11, there was a consensus in America to be “forward leaning” with regard to radical Islam, meaning, to be pre-emptive if necessary to protect us against further attack.

Admit, but the key word there is “radical”. An important distinction.

Iraq played no role in the events of 9/11.

Admit.

Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.

Unsure. My impression is that this belief was based more on a “want to believe” than actual hard facts. I believe there were those who were misled about the state of the intelligence, and I believe that among those, there were those who reasonably perceived a threat that didn’t exist. I’m not sure that, at the very top levels, the belief in the WMD was justified.

Hussein’s perceived possession of WMD was the primary reason advanced by the Bush Administration in support of the invasion of Iraq.

Deny. It was one of several which was at the time and going forward have been presented. Depending on the day and the audience, it was AT TIMES the primary reason. At other times it was secondary. Sometimes far secondary.

It is now apparent that Hussein had no WMD, meaning, the Administration’s predicate for going to war was faulty.

Admit.

Hussein was, nevertheless, an evil SOB.

Admit.

The fact that the Administration was wrong does not mean that the President lied to us concerning WMD.

Deny. The fact that someone is wrong does not mean someone NECESSARILY lied, but this is worded so as to try to sound like an admission that the President did NOT lie. As stated above, I dispute the characterization of the mistake as being merely “wrong”. I believe the intelligence was cherry picked to make the case for WMD when there was plenty of credible evidence (Hans Blix and other weapons inspectors, etc) that was completely discounted in the rush to war. In the facts as I perceive them, the only way the President did not lie directly to us is if he lied to HIMSELF, to the point that he believed it. Then he was not technically lying to the American public, but lies were told at some point that culminated in untruths being told to the American public. In my book, that’s almost the same as directly lying to the American public.

The war in Iraq is going poorly.

Admit.

It is entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Hussein with a leadership regime that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly toward the United States, albeit, one that does not represent the evilness of Hussein nor the type of threat that he could have become.

Admit.

Leaving Iraq immediately would embolden insurgents and terrorists.

Uncertain. I do not believe the link between terrorists and the insurgents has been proven. I believe there is a lot more reason to believe the insurgents are people who feel we’ve wrongly invaded and are fighting back against what they perceive as an unjust occupation than because they are somehow aligned with terrorists. I believe that if we were to invade, say, Harlem (another area with a largely poor and poorly equipped populace), we would face some of the same tactics we face in Iraq, as residents fought back with “terrorist” tactics not because they liked terrorism, but because it was all they had. When attacked, you fight back as best you can. If attacked by a larger, stronger enemy, you have to fight dirty to have a chance.

Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists.

Mostly. It provides a focal point for radical Islamists. It provides the reason for the existence of the insurgency (although as long as a government we helped install is in place, our exit might not completely eliminate the insurgency).

Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal.

Admit as stated, deny the implication. It’s all in the words “as soon as possible”. We’ve clearly made a mess of the country, it wouldn’t be fair to just leave. But setting a timetable for withdrawal and starting to negotiate the turnover of power to the government in place, in my view, would take the wind out of the insurgents sails, as long as they believed we fully intended to abide by our word, something I don’t think they have any reason to believe to this point. We should leave in a controlled fashion, but we should be working towards that goal.

It is time for the Administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.

Mostly admit. It should not be exact and inflexible, open to modification if we perceive we’re doing more damage by leaving too quickly. But we should be making an effort in that direction. However… I admit that there’s no perfect solution. The problem is that we’re in a mess we should never have been in (in my opinion). I think some on the pro-Bush side tend to say the Left is no better because they don’t have a plan, but that’s kind of like building an entire building with substandard materials, and then calling the homeowner names because they don’t have a plan to deal with the problem. The problem should have been dealt with initially, expecting others to have a better plan that you do after you’ve already soiled your bed is a bit wrong.

It is reasonable to assume that many national guardsmen who would otherwise have been in America, and in a position to respond to Hurricane Katrina, are instead in Iraq.

Admit.

The President did not cause Hurricane Katrina.

Admit. I would add here, neither did Gov. Blanco, Mayor Nagin or any local official either. (Not being partisan, but if we’re going to have this list, we really should be complete).

The immediate federal response to the hurricane was poor.

Admit.

The immediate response of the City of New Orleans was itself inadequate.

Admit. But I think it’s interesting that just in the questions, you flag the federal response as “poor” but the City’s response as “inadequate”. I would actually reverse them. The City’s response was poor. Adequate intention poorly executed. I would term the federal response to be poor intention inadequately executed.

Among the victims in New Orleans, the worst hit was the poor, most of who are black.

Admit.

The City of New Orleans has a black mayor.

Admit.

Those who accuse the federal government of “racism” in its poor response have been silent with regard to New Orleans’ black mayor.

Admit, but I think there is a difference. My belief is that the local government was poorly prepared but did their best when it hit. Clearly, Mayor Nagin went out on a limb by ordering the mandatory evacuation when many previous Mayors would simply have ordered a RECOMMENDED evacuation. In interviews, the Mayor, the Governor and everyone else in local government appears harried and sleep deprived. They’ve been working hard. They could have prepared better, but it’s hard to fault them when they’ve clearly been working hard in the aftermath.

Blacks were the worst hit because as a group, they were the least economically able to cope with the emergency, and were least likely to have access to transportation or alternative accommodations; many simply refused to leave.

Admit, but I think it’s fairer to say the POOR were the worst hit because as a group they had… That there is a much higher percentage of blacks than whites in the group “the poor” doesn’t change that there ARE black people who DID have the resources and DID evacuate. Making this statement with “Blacks” as the subject rather than “The poor” is (IMO) unnecessarily racist.

A person who steals food during Hurricane Katrina in the absence of relief from local, state or federal governments, is doing what is necessary for his survival.

Admit.

A person who steals a flat screen in the midst of Hurricane Katrina is a looter.

Admit.

Four years removed from 9/11 we do not appear prepared to cope with the aftermath of a large-scale attack.

Admit.

Four years removed from 9/11 we remain vulnerable to attack by radical Islam because political correctness has blinded us to the commonalities of those who seek to kills us.

Deny. What is the commonality between a hurricane and a religious extremist? What is the commonality between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing (the second worst terrorist attack on our country)? We remain vulnerable because we did not have SUFFICIENT blinders with regard to commonalities between those who attacked us and those who merely dress the same and share a religion, something which we DIDN’T do with Christian extremist Timothy McVeigh. If we had not been drawn into a resource-depleting war in Iraq based pretty solely on the fact that they were also Islamic people with turbans and oil, we might have had more resources to spend on catching Osama bin Laden and to further our readiness at home to respond to disasters, both natural and man made in nature.

Liam.