Myth: Liberals are not committed to defeating terrorism

On Nov. 10, 1998, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked what we should do about the declaration of war by Osama bin Laden against the United States. A properly executed indictment, she said. About as useful as indicting Emperor Hirohito the day after Pearl Harbor. (Peter Huessy, “Liberals and Terrorism”, The Washington Times, 6/30/05)

In the liberal narrative, the Democratic Party selflessly supported George W. Bush until he unwisely decided to make war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq…. Democrats want to make Guantanamo an issue when, according to Rasmussen, only 20 percent of Americans believe its prisoners are treated unfairly and only 14 percent believe that treatment is similar to Nazi tactics. (Michael Barone, “Political vision division”, The Washington Times, 6/28/05)

In a speech last Wednesday to the Conservative Party of New York, [Karl] Rove drew what he said was a distinction "between conservatives and liberals" in the area of national security. He said, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

    Mr. Rove added, "Conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban ... liberals believed it was time to submit a petition."

    ….He was talking about liberals -- and he was right, at least about some of the more prominent ones….

[T]he Rev. Al Sharpton, engaged in liberalism's favorite pastime: Blame America first. Mr. Sharpton said the World Trade Center attacks showed "America is beginning to reap what it has sown." (Cal Thomas, “Time to move on”, The Washington Times, 6/29/05)

Reality

Huessy’s analogy in The Washington Times contains at least two logical fallacies.  The first is that indicting an individual would be the same as indicting a head of state.  Obviously it would be infinitely more difficult, legally and practically, to arrest an emperor of a powerful country, as Hirohito was in 1941, than an individual hiding in a poor country, as bin Laden was in 1998.  But the larger problem is the fact that Huessy suggests indicting bin Laden in 1998 would be the same as indicting Hirohito after Pearl Harbor.  If Pearl Harbor was analogous to September 11th then indicting bin Laden in 1998 would be equivalent to indicting Hirohito before Pearl Harbor.  Would Huessy have supported full scale military action by President Clinton in 1998?  Or would he have cynically accused Clinton of trying to change the subject from the right wing scandal mongering and impeachment fiasco, as most conservative commentators did at the time?

Michael Barone displays an admirable frankness about conservatives’ disregard for civil liberties.  He doesn’t think human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay matter if the majority of the public doesn’t care.  This demonstrates conservatives misunderstanding of and disregard for both the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions.  The rights laid out in those documents, which ought to govern our behavior in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  On the other hand, the latter statistic that Barone cites approvingly actually strengthens his opponents’ point.  Sure 14 percent is a small minority, but its amazing that such a high percentage would actually equate our actions with those of the worst regime in the 20th century.  If 14% of America’s almost 300 million people think that we’re behaving in a manner similar to Nazis, that’s approximately 40 million people who feel that way. So Barone thinks it’s a good thing that 40 million Americans think their government is behaving like Nazi Germany, and uses their minority status to justify the continuation of said policies. That’s not all--he thinks that when liberals point this out it demonstrates a lack of support for their country.  Au contraire. Liberals oppose those heinous actions that spit in the face of what our country stands for. There are other, more insidious ways to disrespect your America, like trampling on the Bill of Rights, for example.

The quotes from Karl Rove that Mr. Thomas cites approvingly are an outrageous caricature.  He provides not one example of liberals calling for “therapy” for the September 11th attackers.   All but one one of the Democrats in congress voted for the resolution that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan.  Barone acknowledges this himself. Yet in the same breath he asserts that liberals’ support for the president until he took advantage of September 11th to invade Iraq exists only in their minds.  How he squares that with the fact that all but one of the most liberal members of congress voted for the most important resolution on the subject remains a mystery. 

Meanwhile Cal Thomas goes on to suggest that one comment from Al Sharpton, (not exactly a top Democratic contender) somehow represents “liberals favorite pasttime.”  In fact, two extremely prominent conservative leaders—Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who did frighteningly well in the Republican presidential primaries of 1988—really did blame Americans, at least some of them, for provoking the 9/11 attacks.  Wrongheaded as Rev. Sharpton’s comments may have been, at least his suggestion that the attackers were responding to American policies of simultaneous oppression and neglect toward their region bears some understanding of the earthly nature of cause and effect.  Revs Robertson and Falwell on the other hand, asserted that gays and other sinners had incurred God’s wrath.  Now that easily outdoes Rev. Sharpton in the blame-America-first category doesn’t it?