Are Democrats Setting Us Up for Attack?
By Richard Davis (08/05/04)
Just hours after the government elevated the terrorist alert status for selected areas in New York and Washington, two leading Democrats responded. Howard Dean questioned whether politics had been involved in the timing of the alert. John Kerry attacked Bush’s anti-terrorism leadership and questioned whether the president was leaving us vulnerable to terrorism. Dean’s response was legitimate. Kerry’s response was reckless and irresponsible.
Wittingly or not, Kerry seems to have adopted a terrible campaign strategy: Criticize Bush’s domestic wartime leadership when a terrorist attack appears imminent in order to promote a backlash against Bush should an attack occur. This is Al Qaeda’s own Spanish stratagem, and Kerry’s remarks are precisely the rhetorical prelude they want to hear. They couldn’t ask for a better collaboration.
Kerry could have timed his criticisms more responsibly, or at the least avoided attacking the president in exactly the manner coveted by the terrorists. Though political campaigns are always problematic in wartime, they can be conducted in a manner that does not give aid and comfort to our enemies. Knowing that terrorists may be planning pre-election attacks against Americans in order to weaken the president, Kerry should have reacted with caution and deliberation. Instead, he virtually invites the terrorists to prove him right. If he frames it properly, that might just give him the bounce he didn’t get from the convention.
One hopes that Kerry isn’t that cynical, that he would not attempt to gain politically from American deaths. But a man who would proclaim himself a war hero today after proclaiming himself a war criminal 30 years ago may be a man without a bottom to his ambition.
The timing of Kerry’s attacks on Monday was calculated strategy. The Washington Post on Tuesday quoted a "Kerry adviser" as saying that "the campaign has discussed at length what would happen in the event of an attack." The consensus was that an attack would probably help Bush, the adviser said, adding that campaign officials "concluded there is little that can be done to anticipate such an effect or counteract it." But they’re trying. That’s why less than 24 hours after credible evidence prompted the alert elevation they launch a major attack on Bush’s leadership against terrorism. Timing is everything in politics, and given the lack of substance in Kerry’s attacks, timing is all these latest attacks were about.
Kerry criticized Bush for doing nothing for three years, for going too slowly, for not adopting the 9/11 commission recommendations (as if these issued from on high), for "encouraging the recruitment of terrorists," for not doing "the work necessary to protect our own ports, our chemical facilities, our nuclear facilities" (is he suggesting targets?), etc. "I regret that the president seems to have no sense of urgency to make America as safe as it needs to be," Kerry said. "We need leadership!" Wouldn’t an attack right now be the perfect complement to those comments if your goal is to topple Bush?
Ignoring the galling hypocrisy of a man whose record on defense and counter-intelligence may be the worse in government, did Kerry and his campaign managers consider, during those lengthy discussions, what type of message they would be sending to the terrorists? They’re campaigning for president of the United States. Would you trust somebody who didn’t consider all of the consequences?
Assuming Kerry and his advisers are simply desperate rather than diabolical, you still have to be disgusted that they would be so opportunistic as to coordinate campaign strategy with supposed terrorist planning. If they knew an attack were coming tomorrow, imagine the self-serving rhetoric we’d hear today. Kerry chided Bush for not reaching out more to the "Muslim world." Kerry’s reaching out--just to the wrong Muslims.
As for Dean, one has come to expect this type of "vile accusation," to quote the Boston Herald. What is surprising is that Dean didn‘t go on to name Bush and Cheney as the actually terrorists. At the very least they surely know about the attacks. You can ask Michael Moore.
That said, this is politics, and anyone who thinks even a president is above manipulating matters for political gain has an even worse memory than does John Kerry. Dean’s comments were fair. It’s that time of the season. There are reports today that some of the information prompting the heightened alert may be old.
At least Dean isn’t setting up Bush for an attack, positioning himself for a political windfall should terrorists strike. If they do, he’ll just look like a fool. Dean’s familiar with that kind of bounce.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Richard Davis
