Monday, April 30, 2007
|
|
Does bin Laden Still Matter?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
1:00 PM
|
|
Jennifer Rubin has a good piece up today. It deals with Mitt Romney's reported remarks about bin Laden -- and on John McCain's response ...
Friday afternoon (McCain) hosted his third conference call with these political bloggers. Uniquely among the Republican candidates he has committed to holding these calls every two weeks. They provide him with a forum to flash his humor and emphasize national security matters. On this week's call he added something to the mix. He took the opportunity on this latest call to make some news and ding one of his opponents for a gaffe on national security -- an issue he perceives as his strong suit.
The topic was Romney's reported remarks that Osama Bin Laden was "not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch."
In response to my question as to whether he agreed with that remark McCain responded that "I usually don't comment on other comments" but that this was a matter of national security. He explained that he believed there was evidence that Bin Laden still "exercises some operational control" over the killing of Americans in Iraq and that he remains a "symbol of Al Qaeda and the ideological struggle we're in."
...
He proclaimed that Bin Laden was the "quintessence of evil" and then said that his opponent Romney displays "naiveté" in failing to realize Osama Bin Laden's role and that the U.S. will defeat terrorism with the "psychological side" of the struggle. For emphasis he concluded his answer by saying "I disagree [with Romney's remarks] in the strongest terms."
Remember what happened when Howard Dean said that catching Saddam didn't make us any safer? Does this have the same potential? Probably not.
Here's why: I've yet to read or hear Romney's remarks, in full. Anyone who has been paying attention to politics this year knows that things are getting nasty -- and that it's easy to take comments out of context. If Romney really believes that getting bin Laden doesn't matter, I strongly disagree with him.
First, he must be forced to pay for his crimes. Second, we need to set an example. Third, his capture or death would bring a sense of closure to the families of 9-11 (of course, Romney might argue that "closure" is a bad thing -- if it causes us to forget that we are in a long war against all radical Islam -- not just one guy.)
I'm going to see if I can get some clarification from his camp ...
Update: 2:48 PM: Liz Mair at GOP Progress writes: “I totally agree that Islamic terrorism is not going to drop off the face of the planet if we just catch Osama bin Laden, which was Romney's real point here ...
Update: 3:24 PM: Gary Marx of Romney's campaign sends us the transcript:
LIZ SIDOTI: "Why haven't we caught bin Laden in your opinion?"
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I think, I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He's one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He's by no means the only leader. It's a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world. It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that."
SIDOTI: "But would the world be safer if bin laden were caught?"
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Yes, but by a small percentage increase – a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi – we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin laden or a few of his associates."
SIDOTI: "Do you fault the administration for not catching him though? I mean, they've had quite a few years going after him."
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "There are many things that have not been done perfectly in any conduct of war. In the Second World War, we paratroopered in our troops further than they were supposed to be from the beaches. We landed in places on the beaches that weren't anticipated. Do I fault Eisenhower? No, he won. And I'm nowhere near as consumed with bin Laden as I am concerned about global Jihadist efforts."
Politico's Jonathan Martin has more...
|
|
|
Mr Buck et al., the very term "War On Terror" is exploited fear mongering. 9/11 and OBL were used to induce additional fear so that Americans would buy the the war in Iraq. Now, this OBL/bogeyman( hi-hacker of taxicabs and dispenser of mushroom clouds) is still on the loose with a concocted fear that we fight them there instead of fighting them here(even though they have no army, navy, or air force). As long as he's free, the easier the Bush regime can provoke fear. Had we captured him at Tora Bora, the people would be even more adamant about ending the occupation in Iraq. Keep in mind that the average U S citizen is ignorant about the war and focus more on their jobs, raising a family, paying the bills, etc. Many still believe that AQ and Iraq were buddies and many only watch Fox news. While most oppose the Iraq occupation, that opposition would grow if we nabbed OBL. Simply put, as long as OBL is free, the more tolerant many of the uninformed will be. |
|
|
The clarification (in the form of the transcript) from Romney's camp makes it clear he is refuting the Democrat's favorite canard re: the GWOT: "It's all about catching bin Laden!" Romney puts the lie to that claim. And the fact that McCain tried to tweak Romney shows either that McCain didn't have the full transcript or chose to ignore Romney's larger point. Either way, bad for McCain, good for Romney. |
|
What if Bush had made a different decision prior to invading Iraq? What if he had picked up the phone, called the President in Pakastan, told him we have UBL isolated and wind conditions are favorable to kill him with a Nuetron Bomb? High level radiation at Tora Bora for 3 days, and then no radiation will exist. The passion of 911 was fresh, and the world knew we were going to retaliate. Some possibilities:
1. The world knows the price paid for 911.
2. UBL is a dead martyr, along with his entire following.
3. The middleast knows that we will retaliate with extreme weapons.
4. They now think about that "Harboring Terrorist" thing Bush said.
5. Collateral damage was grasshoppers and goats.
6. Fighting has ended in Afganistan......Next?
7. North Korea now takes threats serrious.
8. Iran takes threats serrious.
9. Russia and China realizes that we will use them when provoked. |
|
|
After 9/11, U S citizens overwhelmingly supported the capture and demise of OBL. The invasion of Iraq was a different story but many supported it as they were led to believe that there was a connection and that WMD were a threat. As these have been proven to be untrue, the support has continued to drop and if OBL were to be nabbed, more folks would likely want an expeditious withdraw. The longer we deny the people the capture of OBL, the more they'll forget being conned into the War On.....OH MY GOD IT'S TERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
"I just don't spend that much time on it, to be honest."
Sure.... he's too busy making more terrorists in Iraq. |
|
|
In defense, I must say that while it wouldn't seem prudent to focus "all" of our treasure (which, by the way, when did we start referring to resources as "pirate booty") on Bin Laden, it would be a huge moral victory to capture/kill Bin Laden which would go a long way in the war on Terror & public approval. Bin Laden caputure=Public Approval=More Public Support=electing those tough on terror=financing Just causes. A strategy sorley needed currently. On the other hand, perhaps Madam Albright had it right when she accused Bush of "holding" an already captured Bin Laden for just such political capital. |
|
Osama is a boogeyman used by the left to discredit Bush's venture in Iraq. The fact is, Bin Laden is and has been in extremely poor health for years, which would significantly limit his capacity for planning and carrying out terrorist attacks. For all we know, he's dead as a doornail. Either way, he's still likely in a sovreign nation and that nation has refused us access. There is not much we can do, assuming Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, without violating Pakistan's sovreignty.
I'd like to get Bin Laden too - but as has been pointed out, getting Bin Laden will not end Islamic terror. |
|
Why do you need more clarification? Romney's words speak quite clearly. He did NOT say Bin Laden was unimportant. He said his capture was not the single most important thing in the GWOT. Do you seriously believe we should abandon Iraq and send all our forces into Afghanistan after Bin Laden? (I've actually heard that one from the left.) Should we invade northern Pakistan? Nuke Iran into radioactive sand? Have you spent so much time on the computer that your brain only works in binary?
During WWII the Japanese fortress of Rabaul was a major thorn in the side of the allies. Many lost their lives to aircraft and ships based there. Yet we never did invade. Bombed the crap out of it, isolated it, then bypassed it on the drive to the home islands. Was that because FDR thought Rabaul was unimportant? It's called cost-benefit analysis and I'm glad that somebody is doing it today. |
|
Diogenes Lamp makes a salient point;
Matt, shouldn't you be trying to get clarification from the Romney camp BEFORE you provide commentary ??
Or, as a McCain supporter, do you find the opportunity to "question" Mitt Romney just too juicy to pass up, irregardless of your knowledge of the actual facts ?
By the way, you really need to inform readers when you have edited a post. |
|
|
Whether or not we can get Bin Laden (currently out of reach in Pakistan) will not determine the safety and security of the citizens of the U.S. Securing the borders is much more important, both for national security and sovereignty. McCain wants another amnesty, which failed miserably in 1986, resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens, and which could spell the end of our Republic. McCain will not get my vote, even though I supported him in 2000. |
|
|
I ran out of "O" words. Honestly, your last sentence tells most of the story. "I'm going to see if I can get some clarification.." I thought it rather prudent to opine after clarification of thought rather than before. This is however a blog rather than a newsroom. McCain's looking for easy political points. I have no doubt that Romney is not "naive" enough to think that Bin Laden is unimportant, rather the statement is simply one of expedience. The war on terror (Republican idea) vs. Bin Laden (aka small faction without reach beyond the hills of tora bora...Democrat(ic) idea) |
|
So I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
-- George W. Bush, White House, Mar. 13, 2002 |
|
Matt Lewis,
You just made some huge changes to this post---yet you have not informed readers that you edited it.
That is unfair to people who have already left comments.
(in this case, it was just one commenter, jessica lange) |
|
|
|