 |
|
David Brooks at his hackiest. The point is not who is the most passionate about talking about the war on terrorism. The point is, who is the most effective at fighting it! The Bush administration has substituted rhetoric that gets those like Brooks fired up over effectiveness. Clearly. Otherwise why would UBL still be sending us video postcards?
Update: Reader KL writes to point out a significant mistake -- or intended mistake -- in Brooks' piece today:
In today's column he [Brooks] says the following:
But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."
But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.
Of course the actual Kerry quote had nothing to do with using Afghans. It was in response to a specific question about why troops weren't using napalm and flamethrowers to smoke the Taliban out of caves and wasn't even specifically about Tora Bora. From the CNN Larry King transcript:
KING: Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania -- hello.CALLER: Hello. Yes, I would like to ask the panel why they don't use napalm or flamethrowers on those tunnels and caves up there in Afghanistan?
KING: Senator Kerry?
CALLER: My golly, I think they could smoke him out.
KING: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Well, I think it depends on where you are tactically. They may well be doing that at some point in time. But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way.
Why does Brooks still have a pen? What a partisan hack repeating old Bush campaign talking points that aren't even accurate.
I expect we'll be seeing a correction in the NYT any minute now. Thanks for the letters.