It seems that the mainstream left in the U.S. is dangerously close to becoming infected with what I have dubbed "Burtonitis." This disease is named after Indiana's Dan Burton, who was my congressman for a time. Now, it's not fair to pick on old Dan exclusively, since this disease has appeared in many times and places. We could just as easily call it McKinneyitis these days. But he became the first to epitomize it in the Internet Age, so I think the appellation is apporopriate.
In this hilarious, spot-on cartoon from Salon, Ruben Bolling hits the nail on the head. Bolling is a very left-of-center guy, so the fact that he can recognize the problem is reassuring. Nevertheless, I consider it my duty raise public awareness, in the hopes of helping prevent the spread of this disease on the body politic.
During the Clinton years, Dan Burton led the charge in Congress for those who thought Clinton was more than just dishonest, but actually a murderer. Throughout the 1990s, Burton spent...
...endless time excoriating President Clinton for "covering up" his role in the death of White House aide Vince Foster. Washington's park police had found Foster dead one night in a small park, and after investigation concluded that he'd killed himself. After looking into it, bulldog prosecutor Ken Starr concurred: there was no basis for any allegation that the White House killed Foster or engaged in a coverup.
Not good enough for old Dan, though. He just kept right on going, feeding into the paranoia of certain segments of the Right. Even now, some web sites still carry accusations that the Clintonistas killed Vince Foster. They just won't let it go. Burtonitis: when a rational, reasonable explanation still has some unexplained gaps, find a paranoid conspiracy theory to fill the holes and ride that theory out for all it's worth. Claim you're just being reasonable, just asking questions. Use it for partisan advantage whenever and wherever possible.
Note the following two bits of asininity from the Right:
What Was Al Gore's Role? by Neal Boortz, published on September 24, 2001.
The Cost of Life by Jon Loose and Connie Hair on September 23.
These folks attempt to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton and Gore. Hey, after all, Bush had been in office less than 8 months when the attacks occurred, so it would make sense to put most of the blame on Gore, right? I hope when you read that stuff, your lip curls into a snear and you're saying, "shut up, you stupid right-wing twits!" We are at war, and it is no time to spread such horrific disunity. Burtonitis is usually only irritating and distracting, but in a time of national emergency, it's outright destructive. I won't say it's treason, but it's certainly titanic buttheadedness that helps no one but our enemies.
Don't start thinking this is just the far-right, though. No, the Left is just as susceptible. Recently, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney publicly suggested that George W. Bush was complicit in the attacks on the World Trade Center. The hard-core left-wing site "Truthout," for example, has published an entire statement by McKinney, positing a racist, genocidal campaign by Republicans to destroy black voters, kill "people of color" abroad, and make themselves wealthy. I guess we can give her a little credit, though; she also implies that Clinton purposefully allowed the genocide of millions of Rwandans. Glad to see you giving us a little balance there, Cyn.
While not quite as whacked out, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently got in on the hate-fest. A few weeks ago, a ridiculous headline appeared in the New York Post saying "Bush Knew!" in advance about the September 11 attacks. Now, you'd think that if something like that appeared on the front page of the New York Post (which is not a terrible paper, but is known for its hyperbolic headlines), the first thing the Senator from New York would do is make a few phone calls: to the White House, to the editors of the paper, to others in her rolodex. Maybe she'd hold a quiet press conference to say she was looking into the matter, but would also say that it would be irresponsible to comment on such a wicked accusation until she knew more. But Hillary actually stood on the Senate floor that very day, waving the bloody shirt (a copy of the New York Post, that is), and in oh-so-reasonable tones asked for a public explanation. Blind partisans note her reasonable-sounding questions; rational people note that you don't do that on the Senate floor with the timing and the tone she used and pretend that it's just an innocent inquiry.
Bush and, most especially, Dick Cheney, reacted in exactly the right way to this irresponsible crap. They got angry, and they let everyone know it. Cheney was particularly good, calling a spade a spade and letting it show in both his voice and his face that this was pure unadulterated bullshit. If you ask me he wasn't rude enough about it, but he sure got his point across. I would have been biting off heads, but the Bushies were pretty cool: show some anger, accept apologies from Dick Gephardt and other Democrats, and move on.
Of course, certain far left web sites won't let it go. Look at this wonderful little hate-screed from the loony-left "Common Dreams" web site, for example:
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies by Bernard Weiner.
In it, Weiner weaves a masterful tale of how the "hardright" picked a stupid, malleable George W. Bush for President, got the "hardright" Supreme Court to overthrow an election and, knowing that terrorist attacks were coming, purposefully avoided doing anything about it so that Bush and Cheney would look good in the eyes of the American public. And now the "hardright" is proceeding on its campaign to destroy destroy the environment, turn us into a totalitarian fascist state, and so on.
Burtonitis, a.k.a. Political Buttheadedness. It appears everywhere.
Normally it wouldn't worry me, but I've seen a few weblogs from normally-sane left-wingers defending Hillary because her words were reasonable--as if her actions, the context of the words, were irrelevant. I've seen others actually linking to Weiner's bizarre paranoid fantasies and suggesting that the Bush administration, by "not cooperating" with investigations, is causing the problem to "fester."
Guys, the only thing festering is the Burtonitis that's worming into your brains. The White House has been cooperating with ongoing congressional investigations of how 9/11 got past us since 9/12, and continues to cooperate. The only thing they've opposed is the appointment of a special commission, and anyone who remembers the ridiculous excesses of the Iran/Contra and Whitewater investigations should appreciate why they aren't going to cooperate with that kind of foolishness.
Congress is investigating and the Bushies are cooperating; in the meantime, the only thing "festering" is that Burtonitis infection, in the brains of partisans who still can't get over the fact that Bush is President, and a very popular, very competent one at that. But someone needs to tell you this: you aren't helping the country, and you certainly aren't helping the Democratic Party. Dan Burton was, in many ways, Bill Clinton's best friend in the Congress. McKinney & Hillary could well be Bush's.
But, more important, the country is at war. I'd think we could put our energy to more constructive use, couldn't we?
And let's at least give old Dan credit: his insinuation was that Bill and Hillary were complicit in the murder of one person. The McKinney/Hillary axis would like to have us wondering if Bush and Cheney were complicit in the murder of over 3,000 people. If the paranoids were right about Clinton, he should have been impeached for murder and not just perjury. If the paranoids are right on Bush, he should be dragged by a screaming mob of Senators and Congressman from the White House and publicly lynched. It's the most vicious insinuation anyone's made since Joe McCarthy tried to paint General George Marshall as a Communist agent.
The only disappointment is that both Bush and Cheney didn't lash out much more angrily and harshly than they did. To their credit, both men are too civilized for that. Let's hope their enemies can take a lesson from that.
I guess I run one of those "weblogs from normally-sane left-wingers" that is "defending Hillary because her words were reasonable..."
For the record, here is the link to Postmodern Politics take on the topic:
http://www.rubyan.com/politics/2002_05_01_archive.html#85099852
(make sure you paste the entire link)
Sen. Clinton's comments included the following extreme, left-wing, hate-filled rhetoric:
"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary. You know, nobody is more entitled to answers to these questions than the people of New York, and I take that responsibility very seriously."
Well. The howling outrage emanating from the White House was Shakespearean to say the least:
"I think [Cheney] protesteth too much!"
Dean, you say that Hillary's comments were out of sync with the context in which she made them. I just thought it was hardball politics. You can be offended by that but here's the subtext of her remarks:
1 -- What happened?
2 -- Why did it happen?
3 -- How can we do better the next time?
Why is that so unreasonable? I mean, who's government is it anyway?
I resent being called unpatriotic for asking these questions. The Bush Doctrine has no stronger proponent than yours truly. And sometimes I feel like I've been left holding the bag. Shame on me, I guess; but the idea that I could be unpatriotic by wanting the answers to these 3 quesions, well, that's just silly.
But let's stipulate that the time for obsessing on the past is over.
Now we want to know what the administration will do to "preserve protect and defend" us.
So, the proposed reorganization of Homeland Defense is welcome (if not long overdue).
No heads have (yet) rolled, but at least Bush is now leading the parade that had been marching down Main Street since the Hart-Rudman Report rolled into DC in January of 2001.
What. Ever.
Bush will get (and should get) credit for making it happen.
Hopefully it will be effective in stopping future terror attacks.
Who said anything about unpatriotic? Can anyone doubt that Dan Burton is a fiercely patriotic American? I said it's buttheaded and destructive, that's all. Cheney was a lot nicer than I would have been.
Perhaps humor is the best way to deal with this stuff. Dennis Miller got it right last night on his HBO show. He showed a picture of Hillary giving a speech at the City University of New York. On the podium in front of her were the big capital letters "CUNY."
Miller said: "Oh, look, they misspelled it!"
Right on, Dennis.
I think the articles on Gore are interesting, not at all surprising, and totally irrelevant. I should surprised that Gore spiked a report to make a contributor happy?
But it is irrelevant in that the airline policy change, by itself, would not have made the critical difference. There were many elements that had to come together; kind of like an atomic bomb.
First, excessive reliance on SIGINT (signal intelligence, aka intercepted radio, tv, cell-phone, etc. transmissions) to the detriment of HUMINT (human intelligence, aka getting agents into a country or organization and finding things out from people). The problem for the US is that SIGINT is easy, and relatively cheap. We have rich assets satellite & ground-based signal interception, and more than enough computing power to sift things out.
Second, not nearly enough reliance on human intelligence, which is much more difficult and expensive. Getting an agent to penetrate (say) Al Queda would take a long time and a lot of effort. Even general intelligence gathering "over there" takes people on the spot. Which takes money. It's expensive. This is where you might want to "ding" Clinton (if it were worth the effort), since his administration cut back the funding on human intelligence operations. We shouldn't associate with the sort of "low lifes" you encounter in the intel game, don'tcha know. Hell, there were (a few) people saying 9/12 that we just didn't have enough agents over there to make good intelligence estimates. Of course, we didn't have the staff to analyze all the signal goodies we gathered in a time-effective manner either, so I guess that's ok... As someone pointed out, when the local police need the dirt on the street, they don't ask the local choir boys; they have to talk to all sorts of "disreputable" street folk to get the data. And the US has to do the same thing.
Third, no one (well, hardly anyone; Casey's Rule of Prediction: now matter how bizarre the event, there's always SOME nutbar that said it would happen.) ever thought "they would be that crazy". I'm using that phrase for a reason. In the case of Al Queda most analysists didn't think they would waste valuable agents on a suicide mission. For a good treatment on this, check out Jim Dunnigan's www.strategypage.com.
We shouldn't be surprised the conspiracists are jumping all over this one; they're STILL publishing new books that "prove" FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor beforehand.
Which brings me to another point: 9/11 is just one in an ancient & distinguished series of US intel screwups going back over 60 years.
-Pearl Harbor. Tons of decrypted Japanese messages, but in context of the (then current) tech level, it took forever to sift through all the messages to find the relevant ones. Not enough human intelligence on Japan. And "the Japs would be crazy to bomb Pearl!"
-Battle of the Bulge. We had the main German codes cracked wide open, so SIGINT had tons of data. But it was poorly disseminated through the Army structure, and there wasn't nearly enough agressive patrolling at the squad level (again, not enough bodies going out there & digging up dirt). Besides, the Germans would be "crazy" to waste practically their last army against the West in a battle that the couldn't win. Stanley Baldwin's "Battles Lost & Won" provides an excellent analysis of the battle and the intel errors that help lead up to it.
-Korea. Same pattern. Too much reliance on signals, not enough people IN Korea. Or in the USSR or China either. You always need that data to UNDERSTAND your opponent. And the North Koreans would be crazy to attack the US anyway...
-Tet '68. The US Army had a lot of signal info showing a major attack was due, but were afraid to do anything that might expose their sources. And Charlie would be crazy... The VC & NVA were equally deluded in their analysis that the people in the cities of the South would rise up to greet them. I suppose they thought the South Vietnamese people would be crazy to resist them Which is what happened. The South defended itself very well after the initial shock. And, by the way, Tet was one of the greatest _victories_ the US won in South Vietnam, but somehow the media in the States just couldn't figure that out...
-Kuwait 1992. Now this one, it's possible we had human agents in the country, but we blew the analysis (and comprehension of the region's zeitgiest) when we sent a lady ambassador to Iraq. And Saddam would have to be crazy, etc... I trust the pattern is familar by now? This is another case of mutually shooting blanks since Hussein didn't expect the US to drop a half-million of the best troops in the world on his head; many analysists think he was relying on the "Vietnam Syndrome" to paralyze action. Remember all those hysterical predictions from the Democrats about "bloodbaths" and "thousands & thousands of bodybags"?
Which brings us back to now. Please don't think I'm saying the US intelligence services are incompetent; they aren't. Look at all the successes in the past 60 years. But we need to recognize and address symptoms of bad intelligence gathering & analysis. And remember that's there's always a chance that there's someone out there who _isn't_ too crazy to try something insane.
Followup: STANLEY Baldwin was Prime Minister of Great Britain in the 1930's. HANSON Baldwin was the Pulitzer-winning NY Times author of "Battles Lost and Won." Oops.
Very well put, Casey.
Regarding Gore's actions: look, like I've said to others, who before 9/11 really thought about something like this happening?
We don't even need to look at this from the perspective of a campaign contributor--unlike other people, I'm not convinced that campaign contributions influence politicians all that much on policy decisions. I think contributions buy you a politician's ear, not his decisions.
C'mon, put yourself in their shoes. Let's say it's 9/10 and there's this report recommending massive security increases in YOUR business. How would you respond? Here's what I probably would have said:
"Look, this is very paranoid stuff! We haven't had any major incidents in years on any domestic flights. It's been decades since we've even had a successful domestic hijacking! Bomb incidents are being taken care of by baggage screening. You're trying to address a problem that doesn't exist! Do we really need to raise the cost of tickets and cause people even more hassle and grief at the airport when they already complain constantly as it is?"
I can easily see Clinton administration officials looking at that and saying they had a point.
It is all-too-easy to Monday Morning Quarterback these things. Probably 1% of the population took these concerns seriously two or three or ten years ago. They were probably mighty sick of being ignored and treated like they were paranoid, too. :-(
Dean
Truely tremendous blog!