(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Differing Views on Terrorism & Iraq
11/15/2002

Here's the Drudge headline:

FBI WARNS OF 'SPECTACULAR ATTACKS' THREAT

Here's the New York Times:

Little Headway in Terror War, Democrats Say

Amazing how different our perceptions of what is important can be. At least the Democrats didn't waste any time getting to the important work of dismantling their last vestiges of respectability and credibility. Just for the sake of argument, imagine that Osama bin Laden is alive, in league with Saddam, and released his latest tape to disrupt U.S. (and world) resolve in deposing the dictator. That would make these Democrats look pretty foolish, no?

The opposite argument would be to suggest imagining that the Bush administration has been so focused on Iraq that it's let al Qaeda regroup. In fact, Senator Bob Graham (D., FL) made exactly that comment. Personally, I'm not sure why the President's wrangling with the U.N. would affect the "people on the ground" in the FBI (for one). As for the military, I'm not sure what Mr. Graham would have it do. Line up singlefile across Afghanistan and walk the entire countryside?

Here's an unconscionable shocker from Senator Tom Daschel (D., SD):

Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader from South Dakota, said the inability to find Mr. bin Laden was a sign of deeper problems in the war on terror. "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?"

Consider another hypothetical: you're a football coach, and your team so destroys an opposing team that the scared and embarrassed coach and quarterback escape from the stadium. They're still alive and can reconstitute their team: how can you claim success?

Whether there is a direct Hussein–bin Laden connection or not, it is undeniable that Osama calls and the Democrats answer. The voters are watching.

ADDENDUM:

New York Times Flees from Awesome Power of Dust in the Light

This headline probably gives my humble blog quite a bit too much credit, but Chris points out in a comment to this post that The New York Times has changed the headline of its story to the more politic, "Intelligence Criticized as F.B.I. Issues New Alert." Note that news of the criticism still precedes mention of the alert. (Which would be appropriate if it is now self-referential.)

This is one aspect of the Web that I find a bit creepy in comparison to print: a media source is free to "float" out-there headlines and change them if there's a negative response (or if somebody up the corporate line of command objects). Luckily, I was able to salvage the original from my hard-drive cache, so I managed to capture some credibility insurance.

ADDENDUM II:
Matt Evans points out in a comment that the story appeared in the print Times, as well. I haven't paid much attention, but it seems that different papers treat online versus ondeadtree content differently. I'm a bit surprised that the Times would change the headline in one place when it can't in the other. What if somebody, having read the print edition, looks for it online? And if the editors went to print with it, why not stand by it on the Internet?

I wonder if the fact of the change points to an area in which the Internet (particularly the blogosphere) is beginning to influence Big Media. More care with headlines, perhaps?

Posted by Justin Katz @ 07:21 AM EST

17 comments

Does Mr. Daschle not read any more? The authorities have captured quite a few AL Q members and killed a few more. What is more unconscionable, is the relevance the Press gives to this increasingly irrevelant man. As WC said about Atlee. He is a modast man, with much to be modest about.

nick @ 11/15/2002 08:38 AM EST

Hmm, it's interesting - is it not - that Mr. Daschle & others in his Party didn't raise this important issue DURING the congressional campaign. As we all recall, Daschle et al. complained during the campaign that President Bush was diverting attention away from the "real" issues - e.g., SS, economy, prescription aid - and irresponsibly focusing on the terror and national security issues.

This smells like a Carville/Greenberg focus group driven issue. Attack Bush from the right. Legitimate questions, to be sure, about the conduct of the war; but why raise them NOW and NOT before the Congressional elections?

SMGalbraith @ 11/15/2002 09:30 AM EST

My question to Daschle, et.al. All right, so what do you propose we do that's different? That's the Democrats - all questions, no answers.

Michael Hankamer @ 11/15/2002 09:46 AM EST

Good thing Daschle wasn't around in WWII. 14 months into the war Hitler and Tojo were still alive and well. Maybe we should have thrown in the towel and brought our troops home.

Matt Connolly @ 11/15/2002 10:03 AM EST

Classic Democrats (at least by today's standards), the unprincipled opposition. Eight years of Clinton demoralized and destroyed that party.

DRR @ 11/15/2002 10:45 AM EST

When will Daschle and other Democrat leaders realize that for almost all Americans the War on Terrorism is about safety and survival, not political advantage for the Democratic Party?

John Matthews

John Matthews @ 11/15/2002 10:49 AM EST

Perhaps SMGalbraith doesn't recall, but Al Gore's speech in San Francisco made explicit references to the distraction the war talk about Iraq created for our hunt for terrorists. From disheartening questionable allies to diminishing resources, a shift of attention away from al Qaeda was premature. Many Democrats echoed this theme in their opposition to Bush policy. You are right to raise questions about their priorities, but not their willingness to make the argument. If you carefuly note the Bush team, they are unwilling to utter the name of the bearded one. The one who "dead or alive", "we're gonna get him." and other slogans were once unveiled. To pretend this administration isn't flummoxed is unrealistic. To pretend they are not still clueless about the next attack is unrealistic. I'm not saying anything would have been different with a different approach, just that the focus of the military and intelligence agencies on preparing to invade Iraq necessarily diverts resources that could have been used to track, hunt, ruthlessly pursue bin Laden. Does anyone claim that Donald Rumsfeld has been focused on bin Laden the last six months? Tommy Franks? They're busying lining up new bases in Qatar and preparing to toast the Republican Guards in Baghdad. I don't quarrel with that eventual goal, but I have to agree with the Democrats that this administration has taken their eye off the ball.

Dave Roberts @ 11/15/2002 11:41 AM EST

It seems to me that the best use of our resources is against the threat that is percieved to be the worst, taking into account both the immediacy and magnitude of the threat. Al Qaida and the Taliban have been routed in Afghanistan and OBL has been driven underground, probably in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Several ranking members of al Quaida have been arrested or killed. On the other hand Saddam is arguably within months of obtaining a nuclear weapon and is already in possession of chemical and bio weapons, and he has delivery systems capable of striking Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, among others. Moreover, we in the general public are not privy to the intelligence that the government has. I find the complaints of Daschle and his ilk about lack of progress in the war on terrorism to be disingenuous at best. Mr. Hankamer's point is also well taken. Where are the alternative ideas? I haven't heard any except "Don't invade Iraq."

PaulJ @ 11/15/2002 11:55 AM EST

Dave,

At this point, it's hard to guess at what the administration is doing. Being the group of people who are actually charged with protecting the nation right now, they have to be measured in what they reveal. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm just suggesting that, in the midst of the "war on terror," it's premature to make calls either way. However, I do have two points that I feel secure in making:

1. The recent audio tape is the first plausible sign that OBL isn't dead for a long time, and some people are questioning even it. I don't know that it would have been productive for the Bush administration to spend the year repeating the belief that the wanted posters outside of the saloon might be obsolete (so to speak). At any rate, to suggest that the administration has "dropped the ball" and is "flummoxed" dismisses any claims of a Saddam-OBL link (which the tape's timing and content seem to support).

2. The Dems' rhetoric is less oriented toward directing attention where they believe it ought to be and more toward hacking at the knees of the President's popularity. In other words, they aren't "dissenting" and offering differing views; they're merely attacking.

If they believe what they say, then they ought to be developing specific suggestions as to what initiatives resources ought to be devoted. In short, although you raise valid points, you manifestly do not agree with the Democrats as they've been presenting their opinions.

Justin Katz @ 11/15/2002 12:01 PM EST

Why is it that almost nobody bothers to point out that the "choice" vis-a-vis AQ and Iraq is a false one? Even after gutting the military it was purportedly still able to fight simultaneously in two MRC's (or Major Regional Conflicts). Add to that the fact that a bulk of the AQ fight is being carried, at this point, by the CIA and the objections to war with Iraq based upon our ability to "concentrate" disapate like the hot air that they are.

Aaron Mishler @ 11/15/2002 12:02 PM EST

Great points, Paul.

Couldn't you just hear the angry, indignant cries of Daschle et al. if Saddam were to use a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world and the Bush administration had been busy combing the dust of Tora Bora for DNA?

I'm sure the word "obsession" would be the most frequently used word.

Justin Katz @ 11/15/2002 12:04 PM EST

I'm unclear what "ball" Dave Roberts thinks the administration has taken it's eye off. Is the safety and security of US citizens like Mr. Roberts. Does he think al Qaeda is the only threat to the US - or does he think the bad guys are taking numbers to line up and attack us sequentially? Does he believe the President and the military are incapable of dealing with 2 issues at the same time? Does he believe if Rumsfeld could purge his mind of any thought other than bin Laden we would be safer? Are the Democrats with no solutions the only ones allowed to have multiple items on their agendas? Before the election didn't they complain that the President wasn't focused on the economy? Should he forget about bin Laden and focus on the economy?

Lee Douglas @ 11/15/2002 12:09 PM EST

All these Dems are still missing the point. OBL isn't alive, Rumsfeld and Bush have a ton of CIA tapes and they periodically piece some together and "leak" them to the useful idiots at Al-Jazeera to keep the Dems off balance. Every time the Dems seem just about to figure out where to balance themselves on war with Iraq or the War on Terror, a new leak and Dem disarray. If Daschle's head spun any faster it'd look like a remake of The Exocism.

;->=

JorgXMcKie @ 11/15/2002 12:37 PM EST

The NYT just changed the biased headline to: "Intelligence Criticized as F.B.I. Issues New Alert"

Chris @ 11/15/2002 01:06 PM EST

There's no need for credibility insurance, Justin. There are over a million dead-tree copies of the NYT, one of which is on my desk, with the wrongheaded headline, "Little Headway in Terror War, Democrats Say".

Matt Evans @ 11/15/2002 04:44 PM EST

Matt,

You mean they still print that rag on paper?

Justin Katz @ 11/15/2002 05:06 PM EST

The Daschle exorcism comment, besides being funny, touches on the thought that OBL is, shall we say, “dust in the headlights of a humvee”. A long time back I agonized over the probability his body was vaporized by a direct hit on his personal hole in the ground. If that happened, how would we ever declare “victory” without people like Daschle scoffing and demanding to see the head on a platter? The more I pondered that thought I came to the conclusion that if those prosecuting the hunt for OBL and his minions are smart (which they are), the day they dropped him they would do there best to cover that little shi&-hole up. The fewer people that knew OBL had gone to his maker, the better. Who the hell needs another martyr and what better way to get the press to help you win the real war? Every time the CIA run short of targets for their Predator, drop another bread crumb (tape recording) and watch for the rats to raise their heads. The only problem is the guys that are dropping the crumbs are probably to busy laughing at the sideshow of Daschle’s reaction on TV to notice which way the (other) rats went. So they drop another crumb (and then verify it as real!). Those CIA guys are having way too much fun.

Hoss @ 11/16/2002 07:27 AM EST