"There will always be Casablanca the stolen FBI files."
Posted on 11/17/2002 6:10:13 AM PST by Tina Johnson
Reports the New York Times, “American intelligence agencies came under renewed attack in Congress today for failing to find Osama bin Laden, with the increasing certainty that he is still alive prompting senior Democratic senators to brand the effort to dismantle Al Qaeda as a failure.” In this case that means Tom Daschle and Bob Graham, the former having said, “We can't find bin Laden, we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of Al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were one and a half years ago. So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?”
Easy there, Tommy. It’s not like George W. Bush is the first president to make a promise he wasn’t able to keep right away; remember that “The era of big government is over” stuff? America in its entirety is still waiting for that promise to be kept, so bring it down a little. And it’s not as though Al Qaeda as a whole hangs out at the moose lodge waiting for bin Laden to show up and pass out everyone’s instructions … it took years for Al Qaeda to spread out over the world and take the shape we currently understand, so it’s going to take more than carpet bombing some mountain ranges in a third world toilet country to end either Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden.
Thing is, Tom Daschle understands all of that. So why doesn’t he understand that when comments such as his are made – in front of other people, no less, and cameras! – he doesn’t do damage to the administration as it conducts its “war on terrorism,” just his party’s forward movement in general? And what, if the administration’s handling of the bin Laden matter is so inept, would the senior Senator from South Dakota recommend as the next logical steps for finding and killing Osama bin Laden? That sort of coherent strategy would have gone a long way in swaying undecided voters for the mid-term elections … four weeks ago, but still.
That’s just it: the Left doesn’t have a better idea. If you accept the beginning premise (that these movements against Al Qaeda represent a “war on terrorism”), then you must accept that it’s an unparalleled in the modern age of warfare. Unlike the Iraqis, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Krauts and Japanese, who, in representing their countries in wars against America, had the common decency to readily present themselves for shootings and bombings, Al Qaeda has given the American forces no suck consideration. Unusual battle tends to trouble those who are used to fighting conventionally, and so special provisions have to be made for an enemy that, for whatever its reasons, has the gall to operate in private, and who would rather be destroyed in glorious jihad than by Zionist-loving dogs.
People trust Republicans in touchy matters of foreign affairs and warfare because the Right is less likely to coddle the enemy than we are to seeking it out and destroying it, which proves infinitely more satisfying than arresting and trying them. (In this and future columns on the subject, “enemy” is being used to describe those who are most likely to victimize American citizens as they roam freely through the streets or, in the case of the Tragedies, at work.) No, I don’t happen to believe that if Al Gore were in office he would have taken the fight to Al Qaeda any less than President Bush has thus far, but there happened to be a liberal of greater stature than Gore in office for eight previous years who took no substantive actions against Al Qaeda despite the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole (et cetera) which suggests the Right has the better idea on how to respond to terrorism in general.
Patience, Tom, we’ll get bin Laden. Rome wasn’t built in a day, either. The end of bin Laden isn’t a Republican mandate (and shouldn’t be), rather a policy that will outlive this administration if it must, and the next if necessary, to say nothing of the next and the next and the next. There will come a day when an American soldier or operative will put a bullet through bin Laden’s towel-encased skull, and we will celebrate his death, call him slippery and grieve again for those he ordered killed. But we will get him, just not on a timeline that’s politically convenient, that’s all.
[You can join the Brian S. Wise Mailing List by sending an e-mail to: tgolist@attbi.com with "Subscribe" as the subject.]
"There will always be Casablanca the stolen FBI files."
What you mean "we" Kimosabe?
poetic justice would be finding Osama's DNA splattered all over Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen/Iraq (pick one) around October of 2004
On November 14, 2002, you were quoted as saying:
"I think we have to question whether or not we're winning the war. We haven't found bin Laden, we haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al-Qaeda." (From CNN, http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/14/daschle.homeland)
"And it was the president himself who said that we will not be successful until he is found dead or alive. Those were his words." (From CBC News, http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/14/daschle021114)
----------------------------------------------
Although I am no longer shocked by what you do or say, I find your criticisms of President Bush absurd and your politicizing of the war on terror, contemptible. What alternatives have you put forth or encouraged lo these past 18 months concerning the American people's safety? I have heard not any, with the sole exception of those to whom you are obviously beholden: union members.
And where may one read about your alternative suggestions and input to either enhance or further bin Laden's capture and destruction of the terrorists? My searches for your suggestions turned up only the following:
On March 1, 2002, you were quoted as saying, "We've got to find Osama bin Laden, and we've got to find other key leaders of the al-Qaeda network, or we will have failed." (From Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/28/144113.shtml.)
Yet, only two months earlier, on January 4, 2002, you are quoted as "praising Bush for doing a 'superb' job in the battle against terrorism (a statement you made while at the Center for National Policy). (From CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/04/daschle.economy.)
What Bush policy allegedly changed between January 2002 and March 2002? I was unable to discover any such change. Additionally, I was unable to find "those words" you so shamelessly attribute to President Bush. . . .
-----------------------------------------
I doubt little Tommy will read my e-mail.
Yes, he's hearing from the usual suspects that the Democrats weren't "tough enough" on Bush, and he's come in for some of that criticism personally. But of all the possible things that he could conjure up as ways to "differentiate" the Democrats, sniping from the sidelines at the struggle against al Qa'eda has got to be the dumbest. The Democrats as a party have zero credibility with the public on this subject, for reasons as long-lasting as their anti-war handwringing which has been a staple of their campaigns since the 1970's, and as recent as Clinton's negligent and inept handling of Osama bin Laden himself, beginning with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. We now know that Clinton was offered the person of Osama bin Laden -- in custody -- and turned it down. For Daschle to stand up there today and crab about the prosecution of the war on terrorism as part of his partisan political duties is disgusting to watch. There is no credible scenario under which things would be better under the Democrats, and for him to even suggest such a thing cannot help but come off as partisan sniping for partisanship's sake... the very last thing we need in this effort. I am just astounded at the lack of skill displayed by this so-called political leader. It's no wonder he led his party to defeat. He is an idiot who does not understand the context in which he is making his remarks. I suppose I should hope that they keep this guy around, and let him set even more policy for the Democrats. But I can't help but think that we might make more progress against terrorism if the Democratic party were not in the hands of such idiots. With both oars pulling at the same time, we might get somewhere. The Democrats seem to be more interested in having Bush fail, so they can win next time, even if that means Americans will die. This is not lost on people; Daschle is being really stupid about this. |
Tiny Tommy understands this at the core of his slimey being. This is the real reason he's made these recent statements, and why he stands opposed to President Bush's WOT, regardless of any slippery statements he might try to make to the contrary.
He knows the WOT means that he and his will be out of power for some time to come. That means far more to him than any number of innocent Americans being slaughtered. IMO.
1) wet dreams of Stalin,
2) voter fraud,
3)a stupid constituency that continues to vote this moron in
4) all the above
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I can't believe what a tin ear Tom Daschle has. How did this guy rise to the level of incompetence that he has reached?