Support for a wartime president, questions about Chalabi and mixed views on the latest terror warning
Newsweek
Updated: 2:43 p.m. ET May 28, 2004
May 28 - “On Memorial Day comes the dedication of the World War II Memorial on the Washington Mall, where [President George W.] Bush will speak. Then, a week later, the president travels to Normandy to give an address marking the 60th anniversary of D-Day, the Allied landings that began the liberation of Europe. Bush's appearances at the ceremonies will, for many, raise a fundamental question about that most elusive and essential of gifts: war leadership. How does Bush measure up against the giants of old? What can he—and we—learn from the road to D-Day?” writes Managing Editor Jon Meacham in this week’s special report, “D-Day's Real Lessons.”
advertisement
Some readers offered answers to the questions Meacham posed, like this Bloomfield, Ind., correspondent, who wrote: “George Bush has only one thing in common with Churchill: a foolish military invasion—Gallipoli by Churchill and Iraq by George Bush.” Others commented on the piece itself. Some praised Meacham on a “well-written” piece, but most chastised him for what they perceived as an unfair attack on Bush and the decision to go to war in Iraq. “This is clearly an opinion piece,” writes one reader from Cincinnati. “Unfortunately, this type of coverage makes the rest of your news coverage suspect of an anti-Bush bias.”
“It's obvious, reading your article, that you hold a certain disdain for our president,” says a reader in Lenexa, Kans. “I trust him [Bush] to protect this country, I see it in his face, I hear it in his words.” And a Centereach, N.Y., reader says the D-Day lessons offered in the piece are “nothing but liberal media spin.”
“Thank God that Bush is in office now—someone that knows how to lead the country and not just shoot a few missiles at nothing,” writes another reader in Pearl River, La., adding that, “one of Churchill’s sayings was that we should have cut the head of the snake off after the first bite. That is exactly what President Bush did [in Iraq].”
But a reader in Towson, Md., says "Here, here!" to Meacham’s “well-written verse,” adding that he’ll bring a copy of the story on Memorial Day weekend to his parents, who were alive during World War II. And a correspondent from Skillman, N.J., offers her compliments to Meacham “on a well written, informative and interesting piece.” She adds: “I have done a little reading myself on that era, mostly from the eyes of Eleanor Roosevelt, and your article was right on. I would suggest that there are interesting points of comparison for the First Ladies of these periods, as well.”
Chalabi’s Fall From Grace “Until at least very recently, Ahmad Chalabi had been the darling of these top Pentagon officials … Now, according to intelligence officials, he is under investigation by the United States for leaking damaging secrets to the government of Iran,” write Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball in this week’s cover story, “The Rise and Fall of Chalabi: Bush’s Mr. Wrong.” “The Iraqis may run Chalabi to prison or out of the country. Right now, his poll rating in Iraq stands somewhere below Saddam Hussein's. On the other hand, Chalabi has a way of resurfacing and reinventing himself. Why not as the man who took America for a ride and freed his country?”
Many readers express surprise at the sudden change in fortune, as well, and asked how Chalabi could have duped the U.S. administration that supported him. Others criticize the administration for giving money and support to an alleged criminal, costing America both money and credibility. “I don’t understand how a president who claims to know the difference between good and evil can discount, ignore and then smear highly experienced military generals, distinguished diplomats, the [United Nations] and our longtime allies who warn him about the perils of going to war in Iraq and then turn around and give money, status, attention, trust and risk the lives of our fighting soldiers on the advise of a convicted criminal fugitive! Oh, Lord, what did this great country do to deserve this kind of leadership?” laments a reader from Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Another in Los Angeles asks: “Would you please drop the ‘neo’ thing and just call them [neoconservatives] for what they really are: cons!” A Chicagoan writes, “If we went into Iraq largely based upon disinformation disseminated by Ahmad Chalabi at the behest of Iran, then the entire Bush administration is guilty of being gulled and not only being gulled but being willfully gulled. This represents such a massive breakdown in judgment that an appeal should be made to Mr. Bush and the Republican Party for either the immediate resignation of the entire Bush team en masse or a stand down of Mr. Bush from the 2004 elective process.”
And a reader from Reisterstown, Md., adds: “As I read each issue of NEWSWEEK and learn more about the actions of officials within the White House and Department of Defense, I become more dismayed to think what a negative effect those actions are having on America's stature around the globe. It is becoming increasingly difficult or impossible for our allies to look up to us as competent and respected leaders when we have run roughshod over the Geneva Conventions, violated the rights of countless innocent Iraqis at Abu Ghraib … and entered into a pre-emptive conflict for which our president had no clear exit strategy. I shudder to think how any Americans, civilian or military personnel, might feel should they unfortunately fall into enemy hands in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.”
Al Qaeda Alert “Even as Attorney General John Ashcroft warned on Wednesday that Al Qaeda planned `to hit the United States hard’ in the next few months, U.S. intelligence officials were privately divided about whether the government had obtained any fresh information that justified such an extraordinary public announcement,” write Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball in this week’s Web-exclusiveTerror Watch column. “The new warning from Ashcroft in some ways underscored the difficulties U.S. counterterrorism officials face in attempting to make sense of murky and fragmentary bits of intelligence about terrorist threats and then determine how much to alert, if not alarm, the public.”
That was certainly reflected in readers’ reactions to the warning and to the column.
“Let's face it, there is a direct correlation between news on the front page that Bush would rather not have us talking about, and 'imminent' terror attacks,” writes a reader in Pennsylvania. “For the next few days we won't be worrying our simple little brains with all this all this treasonous talk about Americans torturing prisoners or sinking approval ratings or John Kerry's plan for Iraq …” A reader in Bremerton, Wash., adds: “By issuing yet another vague set of warnings, our faltering government is obviously trying to rally fading support not through enthusiasm but through fear. Disgusting!”
And another reader, in San Jose, Calif., worries that such warnings only help Al Qaeda by spreading fear among Americans without providing any information they can use to protect themselves from possible attacks. “It seems to me that with the periodic proactive warnings that we receive about `unspecified’ terrorist plots, targets etc., that we are doing Al Qaeda's job quite nicely for them. After all, the point of terrorism is to generate terror (hence the name).”
But a reader in San Diego writes: “Ashcroft and Bush are damned if they do, damned if they don't—you'll criticize them either way (your bias is showing AGAIN). The reason Ashcroft is erring on the side of caution is to pre-empt your `blame game’ tactics after anything that goes wrong!” And another reader, who did not give his hometown, adds: "I can not believe that anybody would complain or even question a terror alert after all the accusations thrown at the Bush administration concerning 9/11—that they knew about it and never reacted. I, for one, would much rather have the alert raised than not be prepared. What would happen if Ashcroft didn't say anything and something happened? Oh I know, it would be more Bush bashing saying that we knew and did nothing.”
Finally, a reader in Independence, Mo., writes: “If indeed an attack occurs, I dare you to run this article with an apology. No one knows for sure, but your politicizing everything is becoming quite boring.”
