Clark v Bush

In his TCS column on Monday, Michael Totten worried about the increasing polarization of political debate and called for Democrats to co-operate with Bush over the War on Terror.

We can hardly expect other nations to stand with us if we can't even stand with ourselves.

This isn't to say that the party out of power ought to be rubber-stampers. Excessive bipartisanship is the functional equivalent of a one-party state. What we need is an implicit understanding that despite our disagreements we are on the same side. Because we are on the same side. Murderous fanatics are trying to kill us. Save the talk of "enemies" and "evil" for them.

A noble sentiment, but I thought Totten’s plea would likely fall on deaf ears. Even so, I never imagined any of the Democratic candidates would attack Bush over 9/11. Yet, according to the New York Times, that’s precisely what General Wesley Clark did in his American Prospect speech on Tuesday.

David Adesnik at Oxblog was so surprised by the news, he went fishing for a transcript. Here’s what he found:

And then there is 9/11. There is no way this administration can walk away from its responsibilities. This wasn't something that could be blamed on lower level intelligence officers. Our great Democratic President Harry Truman said, the "buck stops here." And when it comes to our nation's foreign policy, the buck sits on George W. Bush's desk. And we must say it again and again until the American people understand it. National security, next to upholding the Constitution, is the most important duty of any President.

So, Clark is suggesting that 9/11 wasn’t the result of intelligence failures; it happened because Bush’s foreign policy failed to deliver national security. In short: Bush was to blame for 9/11.

The Democrats have gone nuts.

A Nickel’s Worth of Free Advice has a more considered response.