Albright Accuses Bush of Success
Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have been taunting President Bush over the failure thus far to capture Osama bin Laden--as if that task would be any easier if someone like Wesley Clark were in the White House. But this weekend's capture of Saddam Hussein has one Dem singing a new tune. Madeleine Albright, who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of state, is accusing the Bush administration of having captured bin Laden.
According to journalist Morton Kondracke, Albright was in the green room at Fox News Channel yesterday when "She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?' " Although Albright now says the remark was a "joke," Kondracke says that at the time, "she was not smiling," and other witnesses back him up: "Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner," Fox reports.
Whether serious or jocose, Albright's comments seem to be sheer speculation, and we know of no evidence to suggest that bin Laden is in custody. But the idea that he is actually is plausible. As Mark Bowden explained recently in The Atlantic Monthly, there are reasons other than domestic politics to keep such matters secret:
It is likely that some captured terrorists' names and arrests have not yet been revealed; people may be held for months before their "arrests" are staged. Once a top-level suspect is publicly known to be in custody, his intelligence value falls. His organization scatters, altering its plans, disguises, cover stories, codes, tactics, and communication methods. The maximum opportunity for intelligence gathering comes in the first hours after an arrest, before others in a group can possibly know that their walls have been breached. Keeping an arrest quiet for days or weeks prolongs this opportunity.
Albright served in an administration that was similarly accused of politically opportunistic timing; Bill Clinton's decisions to bomb Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq in 1998 coincided with key moments in his impeachment ordeal. Whatever his motives, Clinton would have been entitled to a full measure of political credit had he succeeded in killing bin Laden or ousting Saddam. If bin Laden is indeed in U.S. custody, no one but the angriest of the Angry Left will begrudge President Bush kudos for a job well done.
Free Iraq Confronts U.N.
Hoshyar Zebari, foreign minister of liberated Iraq, gave the U.N. Security Council a much-needed dose of reality yesterday. "The U.N. as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny of 35 years," he said. "The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again." Agence France-Presse reports he also "called for a swift UN return to the country," which prompted Secretary-General Kofi Annan to sniff that it is "no time to pin blame and point fingers." Annan added that "I think the U.N. has done as much as it can for Iraq."
It's fair to note that before 2002 the U.S. failed Iraq as much as the U.N. did. Although liberating Iraq has in theory been U.S. policy since 1998, in practice Washington mostly went along with the status quo of international sanctions, bombing and containment--until President Bush shifted course last year. He invited the U.N. to join the U.S., France balked, and as a result the U.N.'s policy toward Iraq is today in shambles. After being hit by a terrorist attack, the U.N. cut and ran, whereas the U.S., which has suffered far more casualties, is in for the long haul.
Remember this the next time someone urges that America should make way for the U.N., as the New York Times does today in an editorial arguing that Saddam Hussein be tried in a tribunal "under United Nations authority." The U.N. has no moral authority, especially where Iraq is concerned.
"The U.N. has done as much as it can for Iraq," says Kofi Annan. Fine--let's leave it at that.