Skip to comments.The New Politics Of Terrorism: A Left-Wing Democrat Party Witchhunt
Posted on 05/30/2002 7:54:13 AM PDT by Starmaker
For those of you who basked in the seemingly political Nirvana present in Washington D.C. over the past eight months, the political cease-fire is now officially over. During the past several days, liberals have found new ammunition in their attempt to push President Bush off of his popularity pedestal. By questioning President Bush's knowledge of potential impending terrorist attacks on the U.S. prior to 9/11, Democrats feel as though they finally have a legitimate shot at turning #43's political career into a copy of #41's. Though this issue appears to have more legs than the countless other issues thrown at President Bush, it could also backfire. If, as is likely to occur, the President and his Administration are found to have acted competently and appropriately regarding any and all terrorist warnings, then the Democrat Party could lose substantial ground with the American voters.
We must first realize that this questioning of President Bush is primarily driven by politics. We are in an election year where either party has a legitimate chance of gaining control of either or both the Senate and the House. Both Senate Majority Leader Daschle and House Minority Leader Gephardt are eager to make terrorism prevention a foundation issue of the 2002 mid-term elections. The Democrat leadership likely feels that a potential cover-up or lack of diligence by the Administration related to the possible prevention of the 9/11 attacks affords the greatest chance of putting a dent in the President's and GOP's popularity numbers. Lessening both the President's and the GOP's popularity is critical for a Democratic victory in November's elections.
This politicizing of terrorism by the Left could hurt the Democrat Party in one of two ways. First, there is a distinct possibility that any investigation into the attacks will show that the Administration acted in a competent manner and had little if any advanced warning. In addition, if the investigation is thorough, Americans will learn that the Bush Administration and our intelligence officials saved the country from other attacks prior to 9/11 as well as since the initial attacks. Either of these results will only increase the job approval ratings of the President and the GOP.
This is where the GOP would then go on the offensive. The GOP should nationalize the six senate races that are currently virtual toss-ups, as defined by the Cook Political Report. Any Democrat candidate who condones the rhetoric of both Daschle and Gephardt during the past several days should be seen as a willing accomplice to their strategy. If the democrats fail to prove any incompetence by the Administration regarding 9/11, then they could be rightfully accused of politicizing 9/11.
The second way in which Democrats may be hurt in their passion to characterize the Administration as lackadaisical is if the voters take a tour of recent history. Does anyone realize that Bill Clinton had the opportunity to capture bin Laden at least three times during his time in office, including in 2000? This was recently highlighted on the Rush Limbaugh program and was first published in the Los Angeles Times in December 2001. Bill Clinton served 96 months as President and did virtually nothing to thwart terrorism and failed to capture today's Public Enemy #1. George W. Bush had served less than nine months in office before the September terrorist attacks. You tell me, "Who had the most opportunity to prevent the 9/11 attacks?" Is President Clinton to blame? Not necessarily, but I would certainly love to hear his answers as to why bin Laden was never captured. At the very least, Dan, Katie, Tom, Peter, Larry, O'Reilly and the rest of the gang should be beating down his door requesting that he answer some questions. If the media were ever to highlight Clinton's lack of desire to capture bin Laden, the Democrat Party would suffer greatly in the minds of voters.
There is certainly nothing wrong with a fact-finding mission as to whether high-ranking officials ignored relevant information in their assessment of terrorism threats prior to September 11. However, there is a fine line between a non-partisan investigation and a political witchhunt. Democrats would be wise to not cross that line if they have any hopes in regaining the House or Senate in 2002 or even the White House in 2004.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Chad at email@example.com .
Mineta has to go though. He has too many race issues holding him back from doing a good job, e.g. the farcical decision on arming pilots.
The "warning" prior to Sept. 11th would have resembled the sort of warnings given to residents of San Francisco that there's gonna be a big earthquake someday but we don't know exactly when. 11 posted on 5/30/02 10:30 AM Central by DonQ
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.