"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

Credibility, Shmedibility

Madeleine joins the chorus

by Heidi Parent
09/01/03

Well, we can add former Clinton Secretary of State and North Korean Prom Queen Madeleine Albright to the growing list of failed liberals bashing President Bush. Let's see, we've had Jimmy Carter, a few weeks ago Al Gore gave us his take, and now we must endure Albright's two cents. Proof again that credibility means nothing; the media will give a megaphone to anyone who faithfully spouts the liberal talking points no matter his track record.

In an article for Foreign Affairs Quarterly, Madeleine criticizes the manner in which President Bush has waged the War on Terror, touts Bill's foreign policy approach (no, really!), and longs for a Gore presidency.

Albright does grudgingly concede removing Saddam Hussein from power "has made the world, or at least Iraq, a better place" (my italics), but she feels "even more vital is progress toward mobilizing the kind of multinational, multicultural, multifaceted, and multiyear initiative required to discredit, disrupt, and dismantle al Qaeda." And goes on to warn, "U.S. security depends on bringing people together." Oh heavens! Multicultural? Bringing people together? Apparently getting rid of al Qaeda isn't important enough. It must be a multicultural group effort in order for liberals to label it a success.

"Multinational, multicultural…group effort" is of course liberal speak for United Nations and the fact that we did not wait for the UN to once again do nothing is actually what has Ms. Albright in a twist. She feels Bill's approach was far superior. "President Clinton…believed the United States' ability to beat the country's enemies would be strengthened if NATO were strong and united, UN agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency were enhanced, and America's friends around the world were consulted and respected. Clinton saw fighting terror as a team enterprise, not a solo act." Bush, on the other hand, prefers to use "shock of force" rather than rely on alliances, and after September 11th our "reliance on alliance [has] been replaced by redemption through preemption," which makes me wonder if Jesse Jackson actually wrote her article.

But she doesn't end her criticism with multicultural alliances. Amazingly, Albright goes on write that "September 11th showed what the United States had been doing to identify and defeat al Qaeda was not enough." No kidding! Apparently she has forgotten on whose watch not enough was being done. Considering Bush had only been on the job 8 months when September 11th occurred that "not enough" phrase better describes her boss's approach. After each terrorist attack that happened on Clinton's eight year watch, beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and followed by the attacks on our soldiers in Somalia, our sailors in Yemen, our military base in Riyadh, and the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, he promised justice that never came. And in the end it was his lack of action that allowed things to progress to the point of September 11th. Moreover, and this is the real kicker, Bill turned down the capture of Osama bin Laden four times! So any notion that his policies could now get us out of the troubles we're in is just ridiculous.

But while Madeleine longs for the good ol' days of Bill, she apparently would settle for a Gore presidency. That's right, Albright remains "convinced that had Al Gore been elected President, and had the attacks of September 11th still happened, the United States and NATO would have gone to war in Afghanistan together." Did you notice the "had the attacks of September 11th still happened" statement? As if the very threat of the Wrath of Al would have stopped Osama's plans cold in their tracks.

She continues, "I also believe the United States and NATO together would have remained focused on fighting al Qaeda and would not have pretended…that the ongoing failure to capture Osama bin Laden did not matter." Did I miss something? When did Bush say or "pretend" capturing Osama didn't matter? Oh wait, this must be Madeleine's attempt to faithfully spout the liberal line that "going into Iraq caused us to lose focus in the overall War on Terror." They simply refuse to admit that going into Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Moreover, it did not cause us to lose focus in other areas of the war. Since the beginning of the war in Iraq we've captured numerous al Qaeda operatives, including both Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind behind the attacks of September 11th, and Riduan Isamuddin, the "Osama" of the Philippines. In addition, our intelligence forces recently foiled a plot to shoot down American aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles. This list of successes of course does not include all of the foiled attacks or gathered intelligence we yet know nothing about, lest future intelligence be compromised.

But her longing for a Gore Presidency continues, "The Gore team would have…concluded that a war against Iraq, although justifiable, was not essential in the short term to protect U.S. security. A policy of containment would have been sufficient." In other words, Gore would have maintained the status quo: Saddam would still be in power manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorists groups, and suppressing (and in many cases taking) the lives millions of Iraqis.

Let's be clear. Albright's run as Secretary of State did nothing to enhance our nation's security. Her State Department is the one that found the term "rogue nation" offensive and replaced it with the more politically correct phrase, "state of concern." She also cut a mean rug with North Korea's ruthless dictator, Kim Jong Il, and wrung her hands over the fairness of America's position as the world's lone superpower, feeling we should do more to help build up other nations to become our equal. So for her to presume to tell Bush and his team how to run the War on Terror is beyond absurd.