This morning I watched Fox News Sunday and was struck by several items that gave me pause to wonder if the Democrats really believe some of the things they say? In the introduction, Chris Wallace suggested that the formation of a new government in Iraq, the new tape from Osama bin Laden, the firing of Mary McCarthy for leaking classified information from her post in the CIA, and rising gas prices were the major stories of the day. He began by interviewing Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R) Michigan, the chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, and Congresswoman Jane Harman, (D) California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
I expect to hear various Republican and Democratic talking points on the all the Sunday news shows, and often skip the intitial guests since their views are usually pretty predictable, but with so much going on and the guests being involved in Intelligence work, I thought it might be interesting.
Chris Wallace first asked about the Osama bin Laden tape and directed his opening question to Rep. Hoekstra. He responded that the tape was part of al Qaeda's very carefully designed information campaign, directed toward winning the hearts and minds of Moderate Islam. He mentioned that he has reviewed many of their web sites and ids impressed with their "use of the right words, instantaneous response.... The quality of (their) message is quite good." (My quotes are courtesy of the magic of DVR, which allowed me to transcribe some comments.)
This struck me as a reasonable and thoughtful response, which still left room for someone in the opposition to respond.
Unfortunately, Rep. Harman chose to start her response with a particularly unhelpful non-sequitor:
Re. Harman: Well, the tape reminds us that four years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, subject of the largest manhunt in history and we haven't been able to find him, part of the reason is cause we've been bogged down in Iraq.
At first blush, it is easy to ignore this as just the usual opposition boiler plate objection, but I think it deserves more careful perusal. This theme is likely to be an important meme that we will hear in the run up to the 2006 elections, and it is very likely to be a factor in the next Presidential election cycle (which many would conclude has already started.)
To put this into its proper perspective, I would consider taking it at face value, as if the words spoken by Rep. Harman, who I have heard in other places and who has been known to make intelligent and reasoned comments, mean what she says they mean.
The first item, which John Kerry tried to use as part of his election campaign, repeats the trope that if only we had put all our energy into tracking down Osama bin Laden, we would have been able to arrest him in the mountains of Tora Bora in 2002. This ignores several important points, among them that capturing or killing bin Laden was not our only goal, and in fact could be considered to have been secondary to destroying al Qaeda's operational capacity and bases, and removing the Taliban; further, the area of Afghanistan in which he was hiding are among the most forbidding areas on the planet. According to this March 04, 2002 article, How bin Laden got away, from the Christian Science Monitor account (and they have been no friend of the Bush administration) our capabilities in the area were limited and our use of indigenous forces was problematic:
Ghamsharik [one of our "allies" in the area-SW] said on Nov. 18 that the fight would be a tough one: "[Al Qaeda fighters] told us through our envoys that 'We will fight until we are martyred.' "
They also suspected that bin Laden himself would be directing the battle. After all, it was the place from which he had most successfully fought the Soviets in the 1980s.
In fact, bin Laden had left the area several days prior to our assault and our "friends" in the area probably facilitated his escape into Pakistan. The article summarizes the operation:
"There appears to be a real disconnect between what the US military was engaged in trying to do during the battle for Tora Bora - which was to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban - and the earlier rhetoric of President Bush, which had focused on getting bin Laden," says Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies. "There are citizens all over the Middle East now saying that the US military couldn't do it - couldn't catch Osama - while ignoring the fact that the US military campaign, apart from not capturing Mr. bin Laden was, up the that point, staggeringly effective."
Our victory was impressive, halfway around the world, and short of sealing off the Pakistani border days before we were ready or able to do so (if, in fact, it would even have been possible), there was no way for us to stop his escape at that time. But Harman doesn't even focus back on Tora Bora, she tries to connect our current fighting in Iraq, which has been characterized by the Democrats as a "quagmire" since shortly after our invasion, with minimal changes in rhetoric despite changing conditions, to our failure to find bin Laden. This is even more ridiculous. Finding a single man, or a small group, who are hiding in unfamiliar territory, with locals protecting them, is a an extraordinarily difficult job, if the fugitive is committed, able to tolerate privation, and resourceful. Eric Robert Rudolph remained free for 5 years after being put on the FBI Most Wanted list and that was in the heart of the United States!
But even that is not the most risible part of the talking point. Most accounts suggest that bin Laden has been hiding either in Pakistan or in Iran. Someone should remind the Democrats that these are both sovereign nations. Are the Democrats really suggesting that we should send troops into Pakistan and/or Iran en masse, uninvited? Are the Democrats ready to declare war on Iran and Pakistan?
I understand that politics is a contact sport and all's fair in politics and war, but these charges do not stand up to even a cursory examination. Perhaps the Democrats who parrot these talking points think their opponents will prove to be too stupid to call them on it, but even in the most calculated political dynamic, it seems foolish to make a centerpiece of your position a statement that can so easily be shown to be nonsense.
I would also ask of the Democrats: Do they really believe that any person who has access to Top Secret, Classified information, should be free to surreptitiously leak such material to friendly reporters when they disagree with a policy? This was Juan Williams position this morning. It is hard to imagine any responsible Democrat agreeing, but it is not as inconceivable as I might have once thought. They should remember that one day they will again inhabit the White House and this kind of legitimization of what once was unthinkable, has a habit of coming back to bite you in unpredictable ways. For those with short memories, I would remind you of the damage a Special Prosecutor, along with sexual harassment laws that were overtly weighted toward the interests of the accusers, did to the Presidency of William Clinton.
Recent Comments