"We Are All In This Together"
A Bipartisan Proposal For A Nation At War
The Intelligence Summit
Brent Budowsky
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and owe each other a terrible loyalty."
G.K. Chesterton
It does our intelligence services no good and much harm to be engulfed in divisive national debates; it does our troops no good and real harm for war to be turned into a partisan wedge issue that divides rather than unites our people; it does our security no good and tremendous harm to have politicians in Washington engage in perpetual partisanship, name calling and smears hurled across the aisles.
This Intelligence Summit includes eminent leaders from the miltary and intelligence communities who represent a full spectrum of opinion, and will have one of the highest quality audiences from the private and public sectors and media. In the interest of opening the kind of broad bipartisan dialogue that our country needs I am offering for discussion a specific, significant and actionable proposal that I hope will attract support from some, and better ideas from others.
To be clear I am a Member of the Loyal Opposition. Though while I vigorously oppose the extreme degree of unilateral assertions of power by the President over the other branches of government and our Bill of Rights and laws; and while I equally oppose what I believe is the lack of principle and courage by most leaders of the Democratic Party, the proposal I offer here does not prejudge the right or wrong of these matters but seeks a mechanism to achieve the bipartisan "we are in this together" attitdue that America at war has sought for more than two hundred years.
Specifically I propose the President create a Bipartisan National Security Committee of Wise Men and Women who have high level security clearances, a history of crediblity and national leadership, a proven stature and integrity that transcend party affiliation and political ideology, and an understanding of the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The Bipartisan National Security Committee would report to the President, Congress and the Supreme Court; would have access to all classified information and executive orders; would have no have legal or juridical powers but would be empowered to assess and report in public recommendations and advice on the great matters that today divide the nation.
This Bipartisan National Security Commission would be empowered to review whatever matters they choose. Hopefully they would arrive at unamimous agreements on matters that balance our respect for human rights and appropriate interrogation practices, our respect privacy and appropriate rules for eavesdropping under agreed upon rules of conduct, the legitimate need for any commander in chief to retain some inherent powers during time of war with the appropriate checks and balances by legislative and judicial branches of government, and the need for secrecy in the conduct of war and counter-terrorism with the reasonable right to know in a free society where 'we the people" ultimately decide our national destiny.
The names I would propose considering for this Bipartisan Security Commision might include: Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Senators or former Senators Sam Nunn, Howard Baker, Richard Lugar, Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, and George Mitchell who is also a former Federal Judge. Retired Generals Anthony Zinni (United States Marine Corps) and Tommy Franks (United States Army).
These eminent leaders represent both parties and broad spectrum of philosophical opinion with the substance, stature and knowledge to achieve consensus and credibility with the American people, the President, the Congress and the judicial community. Neither the President nor his opponents would be required to withdraw any positions they current claim; only that as a course of action to protect the United States they will seek practices that transcend partisanship and divisions while they reserve their rights philosophically.
The very act of bringing together wise men and women with genuine credibility who will be seen the broad public as "putting the Nation first" would itself move our leaders and our debates towards the "we are in this together" spirit that has historically characterized America at war and has sadly been lost by politicians of both parties today.
The President in one sense is right: the attacks on our communities pose a long term threat and require a long term commitment; but the idea of a perpetual wartime nation should not create perpetual partisan divisions that hurt the war effort itself; nor should the long term threat to the Nation create divisions over the very freedoms that bring our people together and provide the surest guarantee of our ultimate security.
A few final points, in summary:
I believe it is shameful and wrong for any commander in chief to have an advisor such as Karl Rove who openly seeks to use our troops and our security as a partisan weapon at a time of war. With the exception of Richard Nixon that is unprecedented in the two hundred plus years of wartime Presidents, I know many serious Republicans and military officers who are privately very troubled by this and I hope all Republicans will have the courage to say this publicly and call on it to stop, in the same way I am highly critical of many leaders in my own party.
Similarly, it is the duty of the Loyal Opposition at a time of war to support the President where possible, to have the courage and integrity to offer serious alternatives where necessary, and to always seek a good faith national unity without fear or favor. I say here and elsewhere that in my view, in recent years leaders of the Democratic Party have too often fallen far short of this standard and in my view, will never be trusted to manage national security policy until they do far better in meeting it.
Finally, my view is that there is a clear and present danger of another 9-11, and at some point whether it is in a week or a decade, a clear and present danger of a WMD 9-11 invovling nuclear, chemical or biological weapons targeted against a major American city. I agree with the warnings from leaders such as former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar that far more needs to be done to address this threat that could kill more Americans in one day, than died in all the years of the Vietnam War.
There are glaring and intolerable vulnerabilities in domestic security involving our ports, our our borders, our transport, our information infrastructure, the need to eliminate or control WMD from former dictatorships or current unstable regimes, the need for far more effective non-proliferation policies, the need for effective communications between law enforcement and public health agencies in the event of a catastrophic attack and a host of other problems that inexcusably remain more than four years after 9-11.
These problems are the responsiblity of both political parties; the President and Congress alike should accept responsibilty and work togther for constructive solutions that protect our people and preserve our freedoms. None of these problems will be solved by how much we spy on each other or call each other names; all of these problems can be remedied by seeking agreement on the issues that divide us and action on matters that threaten our security.
I entered government working with Senator Lloyd Bentsen and was involved with major intelligence matters from the Identities Protection Act to enactment of FISA and I have seen first hand, the dangers to our intelligence services to abuses, investigations and making intelligence the scagegoat for policy failures or a weapon of partisanship.
There were serious abuses through the Administration Richard Nixon that did real damage; there were "reforms that followed those abuses that corrected some wrongs but went beyond in ways that did long term damage to our intelligence capabilities for which we continue to pay a price today.
Whatever our respective opinions about the policies we are dangerously close to making the same mistakes again. Reasonable men and women in both parties should rise to restore the sense of mutual respect and shared patriotism, to provide maximum protection for both our security and our freedoms in ways that honor our right to disagree, while seeking the national unity that has served our Nation well for more than two hundred years and rising above the demeaning partisanship that only makes our dangers greater today.
I offer this proposal in a bipartisan spirit, hoping that we once again achieve the spirit of great generations that came before us. Whether we agree or not with the policy we should never send our troops to war without giving them the protections they deserve; whether we agree with presidential assertions of power or not we should never repeat the mistakes of the past or allow our country to be so divided that we treat fellow Americans as domestic enemies in ways that give aid and comfort to our real enemies, while grave dangers to American communities, for which both parties share responsibility, persist more than four years after 9-11.
Chesterton was right: we are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and owe each other a terrible loyalty. My proposal is one way to act like the unified nation we must be; and I welcome support, debate and better ideas from others.
Brent Budowsky
mailto:brentbbi@webtv.net
Brent Budowsky
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea, and owe each other a terrible loyalty."
G.K. Chesterton
It does our intelligence services no good and much harm to be engulfed in divisive national debates; it does our troops no good and real harm for war to be turned into a partisan wedge issue that divides rather than unites our people; it does our security no good and tremendous harm to have politicians in Washington engage in perpetual partisanship, name calling and smears hurled across the aisles.
This Intelligence Summit includes eminent leaders from the miltary and intelligence communities who represent a full spectrum of opinion, and will have one of the highest quality audiences from the private and public sectors and media. In the interest of opening the kind of broad bipartisan dialogue that our country needs I am offering for discussion a specific, significant and actionable proposal that I hope will attract support from some, and better ideas from others.
To be clear I am a Member of the Loyal Opposition. Though while I vigorously oppose the extreme degree of unilateral assertions of power by the President over the other branches of government and our Bill of Rights and laws; and while I equally oppose what I believe is the lack of principle and courage by most leaders of the Democratic Party, the proposal I offer here does not prejudge the right or wrong of these matters but seeks a mechanism to achieve the bipartisan "we are in this together" attitdue that America at war has sought for more than two hundred years.
Specifically I propose the President create a Bipartisan National Security Committee of Wise Men and Women who have high level security clearances, a history of crediblity and national leadership, a proven stature and integrity that transcend party affiliation and political ideology, and an understanding of the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The Bipartisan National Security Committee would report to the President, Congress and the Supreme Court; would have access to all classified information and executive orders; would have no have legal or juridical powers but would be empowered to assess and report in public recommendations and advice on the great matters that today divide the nation.
This Bipartisan National Security Commission would be empowered to review whatever matters they choose. Hopefully they would arrive at unamimous agreements on matters that balance our respect for human rights and appropriate interrogation practices, our respect privacy and appropriate rules for eavesdropping under agreed upon rules of conduct, the legitimate need for any commander in chief to retain some inherent powers during time of war with the appropriate checks and balances by legislative and judicial branches of government, and the need for secrecy in the conduct of war and counter-terrorism with the reasonable right to know in a free society where 'we the people" ultimately decide our national destiny.
The names I would propose considering for this Bipartisan Security Commision might include: Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Senators or former Senators Sam Nunn, Howard Baker, Richard Lugar, Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, and George Mitchell who is also a former Federal Judge. Retired Generals Anthony Zinni (United States Marine Corps) and Tommy Franks (United States Army).
These eminent leaders represent both parties and broad spectrum of philosophical opinion with the substance, stature and knowledge to achieve consensus and credibility with the American people, the President, the Congress and the judicial community. Neither the President nor his opponents would be required to withdraw any positions they current claim; only that as a course of action to protect the United States they will seek practices that transcend partisanship and divisions while they reserve their rights philosophically.
The very act of bringing together wise men and women with genuine credibility who will be seen the broad public as "putting the Nation first" would itself move our leaders and our debates towards the "we are in this together" spirit that has historically characterized America at war and has sadly been lost by politicians of both parties today.
The President in one sense is right: the attacks on our communities pose a long term threat and require a long term commitment; but the idea of a perpetual wartime nation should not create perpetual partisan divisions that hurt the war effort itself; nor should the long term threat to the Nation create divisions over the very freedoms that bring our people together and provide the surest guarantee of our ultimate security.
A few final points, in summary:
I believe it is shameful and wrong for any commander in chief to have an advisor such as Karl Rove who openly seeks to use our troops and our security as a partisan weapon at a time of war. With the exception of Richard Nixon that is unprecedented in the two hundred plus years of wartime Presidents, I know many serious Republicans and military officers who are privately very troubled by this and I hope all Republicans will have the courage to say this publicly and call on it to stop, in the same way I am highly critical of many leaders in my own party.
Similarly, it is the duty of the Loyal Opposition at a time of war to support the President where possible, to have the courage and integrity to offer serious alternatives where necessary, and to always seek a good faith national unity without fear or favor. I say here and elsewhere that in my view, in recent years leaders of the Democratic Party have too often fallen far short of this standard and in my view, will never be trusted to manage national security policy until they do far better in meeting it.
Finally, my view is that there is a clear and present danger of another 9-11, and at some point whether it is in a week or a decade, a clear and present danger of a WMD 9-11 invovling nuclear, chemical or biological weapons targeted against a major American city. I agree with the warnings from leaders such as former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar that far more needs to be done to address this threat that could kill more Americans in one day, than died in all the years of the Vietnam War.
There are glaring and intolerable vulnerabilities in domestic security involving our ports, our our borders, our transport, our information infrastructure, the need to eliminate or control WMD from former dictatorships or current unstable regimes, the need for far more effective non-proliferation policies, the need for effective communications between law enforcement and public health agencies in the event of a catastrophic attack and a host of other problems that inexcusably remain more than four years after 9-11.
These problems are the responsiblity of both political parties; the President and Congress alike should accept responsibilty and work togther for constructive solutions that protect our people and preserve our freedoms. None of these problems will be solved by how much we spy on each other or call each other names; all of these problems can be remedied by seeking agreement on the issues that divide us and action on matters that threaten our security.
I entered government working with Senator Lloyd Bentsen and was involved with major intelligence matters from the Identities Protection Act to enactment of FISA and I have seen first hand, the dangers to our intelligence services to abuses, investigations and making intelligence the scagegoat for policy failures or a weapon of partisanship.
There were serious abuses through the Administration Richard Nixon that did real damage; there were "reforms that followed those abuses that corrected some wrongs but went beyond in ways that did long term damage to our intelligence capabilities for which we continue to pay a price today.
Whatever our respective opinions about the policies we are dangerously close to making the same mistakes again. Reasonable men and women in both parties should rise to restore the sense of mutual respect and shared patriotism, to provide maximum protection for both our security and our freedoms in ways that honor our right to disagree, while seeking the national unity that has served our Nation well for more than two hundred years and rising above the demeaning partisanship that only makes our dangers greater today.
I offer this proposal in a bipartisan spirit, hoping that we once again achieve the spirit of great generations that came before us. Whether we agree or not with the policy we should never send our troops to war without giving them the protections they deserve; whether we agree with presidential assertions of power or not we should never repeat the mistakes of the past or allow our country to be so divided that we treat fellow Americans as domestic enemies in ways that give aid and comfort to our real enemies, while grave dangers to American communities, for which both parties share responsibility, persist more than four years after 9-11.
Chesterton was right: we are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and owe each other a terrible loyalty. My proposal is one way to act like the unified nation we must be; and I welcome support, debate and better ideas from others.
Brent Budowsky
mailto:brentbbi@webtv.net
posted by Marko at 1/23/2006 10:59:00 PM
<< Home