Jon Krakauer Disappoints (Part II)

When Bush takes office Krakauer outlines several instances where officials such as Condoleezza Rice refused to heed to warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that al-Qaida was going to attack the United States. Krakauer assumes that if the Bush administration heeded these warnings then 9/11 could have been prevented. First, the Clinton administration did next to nothing following the al-Qaida attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole. Second, the Clinton administration warnings came with no specific information to follow up on (location, names, methodology, time, etc.). Third, the Clinton administration had several opportunities to takeout bin Laden but failed to do so. Finally, the Bush transition period into office was cut in half by the Florida election fiasco. If liberals and Krakauer had their way the transition period would have been non-existent by continuing to hand count votes using 3 or 4 different definitions of what constitutes the “intent” of a voter (as if a canvassing board really understands the intent of voters John Doe or Jane Doe). Hence, in the haste to change administrations, there is no doubt that the potential for critical information to be lost was magnified.

It is obvious (without saying so) that Krakauer believes that Gore would have done a better job than Bush when it came to fight on terror. This is also a bad assumption. Gore would have acted cowardly, just as the Clinton administration did nothing to stop bin Laden. Gore would not go to war because it would have an adverse effect on the climate (CO2 emissions). But, Krakauer may find this appealing because he is obviously against the War in Iraq. Let’s not forget that a plurality of Democrats voted in favor of a military intervention and Iraq became the first stable Muslim democracy in the Middle East (at least until Obama withdrew troops too fast). Krakauer cites the Iraq war was the Bush mission from the time he took office and it had nothing to do with terrorism (He has no real proof of that). So why is acceptable for Obama to move unilaterally to oust Qaddafi but it is not acceptable to use a coalition to oust Hussein? Let’s not forget that Libya is now a safe haven for terrorists due to Obama’s actions (and Iraq too) because Obama did not have the courage to do it the right way – with troops on the ground. Krakauer falsely believes that the Iraq War was over some other reason such as oil or money. If Iraq had no strategic purpose in the fight on terrorism then why is it of such interest to terrorists such as ISIS? Any dummy can look at a map and see the significance of Iraq in the Middle East (proximity to Iran, Syria, Israel, and Afghanistan etc.). One would think Liberals would be happy to have a friendly country in the Middle East to trade with for oil so the U.S. does not have to carve up federal lands or be forced to use fracking techniques on home soil.

Krakauer conveniently fails to point out the Anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after 9-11 that were tied to Iraq (some time later this would prove to be false). These attacks killed several Americans and forced the administration to act quickly to attack Iraq. Almost any President would have done the same. There was panic and hysteria around the country – My place of business was evacuated several times due to suspicious packages and new heightened security measures were put in place throughout the campus.

Krakauer rails the Bush administration for using propaganda to push his war agenda. For instance, the rescue mission of Jessica Lynch was loaded with misinformation to get Americans behind the war effort. All war efforts use propaganda and misinformation. Without it, we would be speaking German today. In the book, Krakauer even publishes bin Landen misinformation after he escaped Tora Bora. In order to fight evil, you need to play the same game. It is unfortunate, but since war is so unpopular in order to have a fighting chance against enemies, misinformation and propaganda are essential.