« Michael Crichton on Fundamentalist Environmentalism | Main | Climate Change -- Criminal Investigation Sought In UK »

November 29, 2009

Campaign 2004 -- It Ain't Over

Flashback: Kerry-Edwards, Campaign 2004

It is Sunday, November 21, 2004.  Senator John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts, waits with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, actors Robin Williams and Morgan Freeman and comedian Chris Tucker for the procession to begin at the formal opening of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark.  Less than three weeks earlier the senator had suffered a most humiliating electoral defeat at the hands of incumbent President George W. Bush.  FOX News correspondent Geraldo Rivera offers a sympathetic word.

"Tough luck, senator," Rivera said to Kerry, referring to the Democrat's election loss.

Trying to recount Kerry's words verbatim, Rivera said Kerry responded by saying:

"It was that Usama tape — it scared them [the American people]."

Rivera said Kerry said the tape came out too late for his camp to rebut and the Democratic campaign couldn't counteract it in time for the Tuesday election.

"Sen. Kerry clearly believes not only is it the security issue that cost him the election, but very specifically the Usama tapes coming out in the 11th hour," Rivera reported Friday.

Kerry also acknowledged that the security issue in general hurt him in the race, Rivera said.

The broadcast of the tape from the Al Qaeda leader jolted the campaign's closing days, accentuating the terrorism theme with a reminder of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In the tape, aired by the Arab television network Al-Jazeera, bin Laden spoke directly to the American people. He admitted for the first time that he carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and said the attacks would have been less severe if Bush had been more alert.

He promised to lay out "the best way to avoid another Manhattan" and told Americans, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands."

The tape caused Kerry to revive his contention that Bush missed an opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden during the Afghan war. The Democratic challenger asserted throughout the campaign that U.S. forces could have run down bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 if they had gone after him on the ground, and he blamed Bush for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase.  [My emphasis]

After five years and a week of pent up frustration, Senator Kerry finds vindication, thanks to the staff of the Democratic majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  And thanks to the committee chairman, too.  That would be Senator John Kerry, Democrat from Massachusetts. 

U.S. forces missed chance to get bin Laden: report
Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:29am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military could have captured or killed Osama bin Laden in 2001 if it had launched a concerted attack on his hideout in Afghanistan, according to a report prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The report, written by staff working for the Democratic majority on the committee, said the al Qaeda leader's escape was a lost opportunity that altered the course of the war and paved the way for insurgencies in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

[...]

The report was especially critical of military leaders under former President George W. Bush, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military commander, retired General Tommy Franks.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the committee, has argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get bin Laden and his top lieutenants in Tora Bora just months after the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election to Bush.

Lest we are tempted to write this off as just so much in the way of sour grapes, consider the timing of the committee report.  It's release comes just two days ahead of President Obama's long, long, long awaited decision on General Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops for the Afghan war.  The president will announce his decision on Tuesday in a prime-time speech from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in New York.

Updated November 28, 2009
Obama Faces Tough Task in Outlining
Afghanistan Strategy, Experts Say

FOXNews.com
In his prime-time speech from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in New York, Obama is expected to announce he's sending up to 35,000 more troops -- while trying to affirm he has found a clear path of success in a country known as the graveyard of empires President Obama said he intended to "finish the job" in Afghanistan. Now he has to say how.

It will be a tough sell.  But winning the war will be tougher, and no one can predict with absolute certainty what Obama will say until he says it.  But here's a guess:  He won't wait long to remind America and the world that he inherited this mess

Posted by Tom Bowler at 09:15 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ece669e2012875eb6b58970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Campaign 2004 -- It Ain't Over:

Comments

In hindsight, what would it have meant had we pressed on and actually captured or killed Bin Laden when we had the opportunity? Would that act have ended the momentum of the GWOT that carried the war into Iraq?

If it had broken our momentum, would the silly socialists have been able to demonize President Bush without the ammunition the Iraq war provided? ("Bush lied", Abu Ghraib, Guantanimo, et cetera, et cetera.)

Would the Democrats have been able to leverage the national war-weariness into a radical leftist presidency? Would Saddam have put the assets of an oil rich state in the hands of America hating terrorists in order to strike a blow to their common enemy, the United States?

Perhaps the decision not to send US troops in pursuit of Bin Laden, but rather to let the Afghan "allies" contain him was fortuitous. We have won a tenuous island of democracy in the heart of our enemy. That may yet prove contagious there. The extremism of the left is making an impression even among the television-led "grazers" in America, and it's not a good one.

The history influenced by that decision is still in the process of being written. The attempt to install collectivism in America will succeed or fail based on strategies being employed today. Could the future of America and even the world have hinged on that one decision? We will never know for sure.

Posted by: PJ Smith | Nov 29, 2009 12:44:53 PM

I'm not sure it would have mattered much if we caught bin Laden, beyond a public relations boost for Bush. Bin Laden himself ceased to be a factor after the Taliban were defeated in Afghanistan. Once the Taliban were defeated any continued prosecution of the War on Terror would have been opposed no matter where it happened. Iraq turned out to be the the opportunity for Democrats to stop being on the same side as George W. Bush. Had we followed bin Laden into Pakistan, I think the anti-war Democrats would bave oppposed that.

Look at the 180-degree turn they all made on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In January of 2001 the Washington Post opined that Iraq was the single most dangerous problem George W. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton. In hardly any time at all Iraq was no problem at all, through no fault of its own.

Posted by: Tom Bowler | Nov 30, 2009 8:18:39 AM