Between the Ds, it's Obama!
More than 130,000 Pennsylvanians joined the Democratic Party in the days and weeks leading up to our March 24 registration deadline.
I wasn't one of them.
I'm still a Republican, and while I won't have a vote in the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, like everyone else, I have an opinion as to the better of the two.
It's Obama.
I've watched virtually all the Democratic debates. Spent time reading the policy papers. Read each of their memoirs. There are few discernible differences between the two on the issues (she wants an individual mandate on health care; he's more anxious to leave Iraq). Each offers a similarly liberal agenda that will cause me angst in the fall.
But right now, one is more focused on an issue of paramount concern to me -- the failure to avenge the deaths of innocent Americans by bringing Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to justice.
And that's Obama.
Beyond the usual family milestones, the most significant event in the life of any American born after World War II occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
That day changed life as we knew it. Three thousand innocent fellow Americans died that day, and another 4,000 have died thereafter. Saying that is not an attempt to link al Qaeda and Iraq, nor is it a defense of the Iraq invasion. It is simply the recognition that without 9/11, there wouldn't have been the public support for the war. So I blame al Qaeda for toppling the first dominoes that led us to where we are today.
How appalling that 6 1/2 years after 9/11, bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have not been held accountable. The oft-repeated explanations of the search being nuanced or covering difficult terrain should have worn thin long ago, especially where published accounts suggest the failure has more to do with our having outsourced the hunt, at great cost, to someone who doesn't seem to have the motivation to get the job done.
Blame for this should rest with the Bush administration, the media (for being appeased by the administration's superficial explanations) and the public, which has let the issue disappear from the public debate. What's happened to the days when a Bryn Mawr soccer mom would have yearned to strangle bin Laden or al-Zawahiri with her bare hands?
There is a fair amount in the public record to figure out what went wrong. Bin Laden is presumed to have been in Afghanistan on 9/11 and to have fled during the battle at Tora Bora in December 2001. Gary Berntsen was the CIA officer in charge on the ground. He told me that his request for Army Rangers to prevent an escape into Pakistan was denied, and sure enough, that's where bin Laden went.
Then came a period when the administration was presumed to be pressing the search through means it couldn't share publicly. But as time went by with no capture, the signs became more troublesome.
We now know that, in late 2005, the CIA disbanded Alec Station, the FBI-CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden, as reported on July 4, 2006, by the New York Times.
Well, perhaps we closed the bin Laden unit because Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was fully engaged in the hunt in his country's northwest territories, where the duo were supposedly hiding. But in September 2006, Musharraf reached an accord with tribal leaders, notorious for their refusal to hand over a guest, whereby he agreed to give them continued free reign.
Our response? Agree to pay Musharraf enormous sums of money for a search he had just agreed not to undertake. On May 20, 2007, the Times reported that we were paying $80 million a month to Pakistan for its supposed counter-terrorism efforts, for a total of $5.6 billion.
Meanwhile, there was no demand for accountability by our government. The White House and the Pentagon played down the significance of capturing bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, and President Bush offered only superficial responses to the few questions raised on the status of the search. For example, on Feb. 23, 2007, the Army's highest-ranking officer, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said he didn't know whether we would find bin Laden, and "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
At a May 24, 2007, White House news conference, when the president was asked why Osama was still at large, his answer was the usual bankrupt refrain: "Because we haven't got him yet... That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice."
Bin Laden, meanwhile, was active. In July 2007, a National Security Estimate concluded that the failure of Musharraf's accord with warlords in Pakistan's tribal areas had allowed bin Laden's thugs there to regroup. On July 22, National Intelligence Director Adm. Mike McConnell said on "Meet the Press" that he believed bin Laden was in Pakistan in the very region Musharraf had ceded to the warlords.
By then, the presidential campaign was under way, but despite its 24/7 nature, it has failed to stir up a discussion about the failure to capture or kill those who pushed us down such a perilous path.
In the first seven presidential debates -- four for the D's, three for the R's - there was only one question in 15 hours of discourse that touched on the subject of finding bin Laden in Pakistan, and it came from the audience.
Enter Barack Obama. On Aug. 1, 2007, he delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
"We can't send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid, and be a constant ally to them, and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al Qaeda."
Finally, a presidential candidate saying something about this foreign-policy failure. The reaction: Ridicule.
Hillary Clinton said, "You can think big, but, remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think when you're running for president because it could have consequences across the world, and we don't need that right now."
Across the aisle, John McCain also pounded Obama for a perceived lack of seasoning in the realm of foreign relations: "The best idea is to not broadcast what you're going to do," McCain said in February. "That's naive."
To his credit, Obama has refused to back away from his insistence on reasserting American control over the hunt for bin Laden. I interviewed him on March 21, and asked him about this issue. He told me that Musharraf, despite being flush with billions in American aid, was not taking counter-terrorism seriously.
"That's part of the reason that I've been a critic from the start of the war in Iraq," Obama told me. "It's not that I was opposed to war. It's that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.
"And al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and we've got to do something about that because those guys have a safe haven there and they are still planning to do Americans harm."
And he pointed out that the Bush administration is now showing signs of following his lead.
Obama reminded me that a late-January airstrike killed a senior al Qaeda commander in Pakistan, calling it an example of the type of action he's been recommending since August. (The CIA, it was reported a few weeks after the strike, acted without the direct approval of Musharraf.)
Obama told me we should still ask the Pakistanis to target and attack the terrorists hiding within their borders.
"But if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans."
I think every American can agree that our obligation to bring Osama to justice necessitates such thinking.
And while Clinton promises to answer the White House phone at 3 a.m., Obama threatens to disrupt the place many suspect the world's most despicable terrorists are still hiding.
It's not my party. I can't pull a lever on Tuesday.
But if I could, I would vote for Obama, for 7,000 reasons.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
They don’t want to get Osama, You can’t keep a war going without a boogie man!
Hey Gary,
I know I sound silly when I say this, but I know where Bin Laden is. He is hiding out in a palace in Saudi Arabia. Not only that, but I'm sure Bush knows it. I suspect that the Saudi's have a lot of power in this country. Very scary.
I don't think you can blame Bin Laden for the invasion of Iraq though. I remember reading something before 9/11 about how Bush and Cheney wanted very badly to invade Iraq. They were intent on doing so. Also, not to defend the bastard, but Bush never said there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. People just assumed there was because we were invading them. No one is paying much attention. The Bush presidency is a testament to that fact.
Also, I'm really glad you're a republican and I'm really glad the PA primaries are closed. I say this because I really think Obama is being naive and I think Hillary's statement was very wise. I'm sure anyone (except Bush) would love to have Bin Laden found, but it may not be as simple as it sounds.
Obama is CORRUPT, a LIAR, and his slogan of change an ILLUSION.
1) CORRUPT: A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (ref ABC News)
2) LIAR: Obama claims he did not know about Wright's America-hating (God damn America) and racist views till it was revealed in the mainstream media in March 2008. Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by Wright, had his children baptized by Wright, donated over $20,000 to Wright's church and named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of Wright's sermons. You really believe after 20 years and all this he did not know?
3) ILLUSION: Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (ref NYT)
People need to realize that Hillary has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care.
WOW! jaynevada, I really appreciate your comments. I thought I'd tell you that before the Obamabots eat you alive.
AH yes the return of the single issue candidate. Focus your vote on one issue the rest be Damned...Oh yeah what would Jesus do? Order an invasion of Egypt - No I meant to say what would Obama do? Sheesh. Oy Vey....
It is not a matter of single issue candidate. It is that on all other issues, Hillary and Obama are not much different. Therefore, war and foreign policy become the discriminating issues. Furthermore, mot all issues carry the same weight. This issue is important because, traditionally, that's where the Congress gives presidents a free hand. On most domestic issues, a President can make a difference, but the Congress plays a dominant role.
You can pull the lever for Obama in November.
I was going to ask, "Can you pull the lever for Obama in November?"
"We had no idea they would use airplanes as missiles." - Condoleeza Rice
I wonder what Curt Weldon would say about a statement like that.
Mr. S., how can fiscal conservatives continue to vote Republican?
Our national debt, for our entire 230-yr history, will be $10 trillion or so when Bush leaves. $8 trillion of that will have been run up by just 3 presidents--Reagan, Bush and Bush. McCain will bring more of the same.
Bush Sr. was right about 2 things, though: Not invading Iraq after running Hussein out of Kuwait, and declaring Supply-Side to be voodoo economics.
If either of the Dem candidates would pledge to balance the budget, I'd vote for them over McCain is a heartbeat.
They won't. They talk about ending the war and raising taxes, but they turn around and promise away every single tax dollar saved or raised by doing so. It looks like Obama will be the nominee, and he is the worst of the 3 when it comes to this. He has promised away so much money that even Clinton is bashing him for overspending without any way to pay for it. His reply is that he plans to use "the Iraq money". That's that stupidest and most fiscally irresponsible thing he could say. "The Iraq money" isn't our to begin with! We're borrowing all that money from China. If war spending is necessary, then it makes sense to borrow money for it. But implementing a national 'Big Dig' isn't anywhere near the same situation, and can't be justified on borrowed dollars.
Bush and the Republicans may be fiscally disastrous, but the Dems have made a conscious decision to follow the same track. I would much rather have one or both of them pledge to balance the budget, and I absolutely would vote for one that did. As it is now, I'll most likely support McCain because he has a great track record of spending restraint and opposition to pork barrel spending and the earmark process.
And you have McCain's promise to balance the budget?
Who was the President the last time we had a balanced budget or a surplus? Democrat or Republican?
McCain is saying he would adopt Reagan's policies. Go back and check what Reagan did to the deficit and the debt.
Of course, if you ignore the facts and just go by what Limbaugh and Hannity tell you, you would never change your mind.
Where have you been for the past few years? There is no way to balance the budget.
No one can do that because of the trillions of dollars we owe to China. Maybe we can sale Alaska to China. That state might be worth a trillion. Add in Hawaii since there are many Asians there and if they still resist, offer them Florida.
That is the only way we can balance our budget because we have got nothing to offer except endless war at the moment. And traumatized veteran but, nobody wants them.
We are looking at 100 years of debt before we can have any surplus at the moment. And we have not counted in the fact that this will increase if McCain goes into office and be a penny wise pound foolish president. Who cares about pork barrel if we are pouring billions into Iraq and Iran war every day for the next 10 years (I decide that 100 years is not what he meant)
" I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I"m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let"s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."
- Barack Obama (October 2, 2002)
--------------------------
This is the kind of stuff that makes me like Obama better than Hillary and McCain.
This was before the war started, not 20/20 hindsight.
Pay attention to how precisely he predicted what would happen. Pay attention to what he thought was important.
This the kind of leader we want.
Mr Smerconish, your major reason for prefering Obama is ... because of his stance re: bin Laden?!? And this speaks to your sense of Justice ... Vengeance?
After all of the incompetence, corruption, and Anti-Americanism that the Republican party has repeatedly demonstrated over the past two terms, you still cling to that criminal affiliation, because they call themselves (but are, in fact, not) Conservative? And you will grudgingly admit a preference for a man who would restore honour to our government ... to our country ... just because he has expressed intent to take action against someone you despise?
I could almost weep for you, sir. You make a good choice for the wrong reasons. Worse, you still identify with a political party that has repeatedly demonstrated that it has no principles beyond the acquisition and application of Power.
I pray that someday the veil is lifted from your eyes.
Bin Laden is still out there Cathexis. And, if he had the opportunity he would kill you to make a point to his followers.
I pray that someday the veil is lifted from your eyes.
"Mr Smerconish, your major reason for prefering Obama is ... because of his stance re: bin Laden?!? And this speaks to your sense of Justice ... Vengeance?"
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". That also applies to posts that seem to make no sense. The capture and subsequent legal disposition of OBL and AZ is entirely just.
I believe Mr. Smerconish is showing us a glimpse of something rare- an intelligent Republican. When he subbed for Glenn Beck last night and talked about this, he said "Don't tell Glenn."
I'll admit that I don't know who was behind the attacks on 9/11. It's much easier to focus on the sentences spewed by politicians regarding that cataclysmic event. Some glaring statements made that should be investigated are...
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
Anyone see footage of the first plane striking the North tower on 9/11? Anyone?
After 9/11 when our country found out that it was Bin Laden that was behind the attack, my husband said to me that Bush would do nothing to go after Bin Laden because of his connection to the Bin Laden family and the Saudi's. He was right. Instead the media was too frightened to call Bush on his advance to war in Iraq. Members of the media knew of his wanting to invade Iraq as far back as 1997. But the media was silent and over 4,000 more Americans are dead and Bin Laden is left to continue to recruit and plan more attacks around the world. Our economy is directly linked to the war and the money being spent.
Americans are hurting with high cost of fuel, food, health care and so many losing their homes. Think what all those taxpayer dollars could have bought for America - a better life.
Obama is a wake-up call. I will be voting for him because of his campaign of change. It's time!
You're a great guy, Michael Smerconish. Are you sure you can't change party by November and pull that lever for Obama should he get the nomination? You could re-affiliate if things got too rough.
We can only hope that all those new Demos who have magically
appeared in PA (& elsewhere) realize that they are now required
to vote only for Demo candidates in November.
Yes, it's true! I read about it on the 'Net.
With due respect, I would only rate the attack on the World Trade Center as the sixth or seventh most important moment in the history of my life. Well behind the assination of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, the Revrend Martin Luther King Jr. and the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. BTW less than 3000 were killed that day. This idea that "9-11 changed everything" has damaged us and has led to terrible decisions that have destroyed what morality we may have had as a country.
Two days after September 11, I was camped next to a stream hundreds of miles from the ocean. In that streams were scores of salmon that had migrated hundreds of miles to spawn. It was a tremendous comfort for me to know that in spite of how worked up we get and how important we think our lives are, it's all just a fly speck in time.
The other 4000+ are our service members killed in Mess-o-potamia, Unrepentantliberal.
But please remember that it wasn't liberals who got those 4000+ killed, it was the RepubliCons.
It's funny that you refer to the events "in the history of my life", and then you talk about "how important we think our lives are".
And the theme that "9/11 changed everything" depends on the person who is reading it. That in itself did not "damage us or lead to terrible decisions". Bushco already had the invasion of Iraq on their agenda before 9/11. Stupid people make terrible decisions. What Mr. Smerconish is saying here is that Barack Obama is not one of those stupid people, and he'll make better decisions.
And Mr. Smerconish- I'd rather watch you on TV than Glenn Beck any day of the week. Any chance you can become a permanent replacement?
A week before 9/11, I travelled by ferry to Morocco from Spain. I remember hearing these guys openly discussing how much they hated America and I got this very uneasy feeling of not being secure. I've been to many places in the world including China and the Philippines, but I that trip opened my eyes to the Anti-American sentiment that exists outside of Western cultures.
For me, 9/11 changed everything. I'm sure that there are many who said the same thing after Pearl Harbor.
When put into perspective, I would have to agree that the assinations of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, the Revrend Martin Luther King Jr. were all life changing moments. But, when I watched people jumping from the World Trade Center, I felt as though the world had changed at that very moment.
Michael:
pp
In your article, you seem to react with shock and surprise that W and the supporting Republican party haven't been serious about fighting terrorism and going after Bin Laden. Yet I remember your many appearances on cable shows defending those same people and criticizing Democrats. Are you hoping we will forget your avid support of W and his corrupt cronies?
Second, you may love Republican ideals, but how can you say you like actual Republicans? They stand for big government, no taxes on the rich, big taxes on the poor, big deficits, the "ownership society" meaning every man for himself - the rest be damned, no environmental protections, no corporate accountability, an activist judiciary as long as supports religious intolerance, and a two-tier society that benefits large campaign donors over the working middle class.
Tell me again. Just what about Republicans appeals to you.
An excellent, focused question, DHeil!
Michael: I used to be a Republican myself. I styled myself a Neo-Conservative.
Until I started asking myself many of the questions DHeil poses.
I found I had no good answers ... only rationalizations. Once I started dealing with Reality rather than defending my ideology, I found life much easier. A word of advice: It is infinitely better to base your Ideology on Reality, and adjust ones ideology as needed, than to try to twist one's Reality to fit their Ideology.
Your one of the first people who has come out in blogger land and publicly recognized one of Obamas most important foreign policy successes. If we would ATTACK Iraq, eventually Iran, and other countries over mere allegations, why would we not RELENTLESSLY pursue Bin Laden and his top commanders in Pakistan, where they have been undoubtedly hiding since they crossed the border out of Afgahnistan?
It's a travesty, and one that Hillary, McCain, and Bush are loathe to discuss openly. Bush, however, after Obamas address on the subject, DID send drones and special forces in after top Al qeada leaders, apparently WITHOUT the dictators consent even after having criticized Obama for saying it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
