The Dems' Afghan War Hypocrisy

Rep. Maurice Hinchey’s claim that President Bush intentionally let Osama Bin Laden escape to justify the war in Iraq is both appalling and ludicrous. The capture of Bin Laden and the overthrow of Saddam were complementary goals, not contradictory.

Hinchey’s conspiracy theory does not make sense even on its own twisted terms.

Would not the successful capture of Bin Laden have signaled a winding down of the Afghan operation and thus free more troops for Iraq?

And surely before a member of Congress hurled such a vile charge, some evidence should be required. I am getting tired of my former president being accused of, in essence, purposefully sacrificing the lives of young men and women in the field (soldiers, sailors and Marines he clearly cared so much about) to forward his own nefarious aims.

It is laughable that Sen. John Kerry of all people should be issuing a report on the Tora Bora operation that is a scathing criticism of the past administration for not committing enough troops in the initial operations in Afghanistan when he himself, was an advocate for restraint and limited commitment from the outset.  Funny, he seemed less Gung-Ho back on December 15, 2001 when he praised the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy, saying: “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.”   Today's Wall Street Journal sums up his position thusly: “Mr. Kerry is now in favor of more troops, after he was against them.”

It was, as the 2001 John Kerry would attest, understandable that Rumsfeld et. al. were very leery of making a massive commitment of men and material to Afghanistan. After all – his fellow Democrats feel exactly the same way today.