Damned if you do, f*cked it you don't
Lefty site misleader.org is outraged that the Bush administration seemingly leaked the name of a recently apprehended terrorist, purportedly allowing others of his ilk time to escape the dragnet.
Now before I say anything else, let me be clear that this is a major cock-up on the part of the administration, whether due to incompetence or poor judgment (I believe it to be the latter, and I'll explain why).
I'm not excusing what the administration did, but the president's critics on the left are hardly blameless in this regard. When Homeland Security recently raised the terrorist alert based on "three-year-old" intelligence, the tin-foil-hat left was apoplectic. There were shrill charges of crass, cynical manipulation of the nation's security apparatus, and hysterical recriminations that the warnings were "politically timed." Precisely what they were "timed" for was a bit unclear, the Democratic Convention having already been safely packed up and put to bed.
The administration, besieged, responded improperly by coughing up Khan's name. That was a stupid move, and they shouldn't have done it, and I hope they learned their lesson. Still, the Randi Rhodes left is hardly blameless in the matter.
Comments
Check out who funds misleader.org:
"Misleader.org is presented as a service of MoveOn.org, the on-line public interest group."
Posted by: CRB | August 12, 2004 09:51 AM
Good catch, C.
BTW, have you checked this out yet?
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | August 12, 2004 11:32 AM
Why does this but it's partly their fault argument smack a little hollow? And I have heard the news on my favorite hippie station too, so it's not only from Moveon.org or misleader.org or whatever. Rhandi Rhodes can push all she wants. The media can snipe all they want. The president's poll numbers seemed pretty firm regardless. The administration should really have just rode it out and waited. I don't think the storm would have lasted all that long. It's not exactly as if we have a whole lot of real investigative journalists out there right now.
Posted by: Katherine | August 12, 2004 12:07 PM
Oops! My barometer for "reasonable liberalism" has just been set off! (Actually, I guess barometers don't really "alarm", but forgive the poor analogy, you know what I mean.)
When Katherine thinks I'm in the weeds, there's a good chance I am. :-)
I'll mull it over, but in the meantime, let me just reiterate that I'm not trying to absolve Bush of responsibility here, and you are obviously right in that he should have toughed it out. Indeed, that's long been one of this president's most appealing characteristics in my book -- that he's not nearly as poll-driven as many other politicians.
Any speculation as to how bad the firestorm of controversy would have been had it been allowed to play out is necessarily that -- speculation.
Moreover, I'm certainly not implying that we shouldn't question our government's anti-terror actions. But is it too much to expect, in a time of war and very real terror threats, that we at least have a reason when we do so, instead of a simple knee-jerk reflex?
My problems with the criticisms were two-fold: First, what was the "timing" issue here that made it so suspicious? The Democratic convention was over. What was Bush supposed to have been deflecting attention from, exactly? The Kobe Bryant case? A-Rod's 11th inning home run? The latest episode of "A Simple Life"? Second, there's precious little evidence (like none) that these elevated threat levels do anything at all (anything positive, anyway) for the president's approval ratings.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | August 12, 2004 12:39 PM