Dis-Strib-Ute

Brace yourself, kidlings. It's time for another look at the worldview of the Star Tribune. (The first installment in this series can be found here.)

Newsflash: President takes vacation in August

In the Saturday, August 27 2005 edition of the paper, the Strib ran an editorial cartoon by Don Wright.

(I found the cartoon online here.)

Wright is one of the those compassionate, tolerant liberals who thinks something like this is humorous. For more commentary on what Wright thinks is funny, see this Jay Nordlinger Impromptu.

Out of all the editorial cartoonists on the planet, the Strib just happened to pick this guy for the Saturday paper. No commentary I'm sure on the Strib's editorial bent.

This particular Saturday cartoon showed a cave. A sign above the cave reads "Al-Qaeda HDQ, Osama bin Laden, Commander-in-Chief". A rotund figure in Arab dress, with an assault gun slung over his shoulder, is standing outside the cave, his thumb pointed back towards the cave. This figure is saying "He never takes 5-week vacations!"

I can only assume the Strib thought this cartoon had some editorial value. But, I can only think of two reasons for running this cartoon.

First, the Strib admires Osama bin Laden's work ethic, and the way he rolls up his sleeves and applies himself day after day without rest to the business of dreaming up ways to blow up and murder infidels.

I can't believe the Strib really feels this way about bin Laden. So, that leaves only one possible reason for running this cartoon.

The Strib must feel that bin Laden really is out there relentlessly planning more attacks on the US. And, the Strib must also feel President Bush has been loafing around in August, taking a long vacation, and not paying attention to the vital business of the nation, especially the business of protecting us from bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Two problems with this, though.

First, the Strib is implying that bin Laden and his gang really are a threat, that the United States ought to be doing something about them. Vigilance is necessary in countering the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda and their terrorist allies.

However, one could be forgiven for being a little confused about just what the Strib thinks the nature of the threat is.

In this May 30 2005 editorial, the Star Tribune says:

As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.

The Strib has been clear it thinks the war in Iraq is a mistake.

In this January 14 2005 editorial, the Strib says, in writing of the WMD issue:

Bush can dissemble all he wants about the reasons for war, but the fact remains: He sold the American people on a quick, clean war of necessity. What they got instead was a dirty, protracted war of convenience that day by day is bleeding the American people of both the blood of their sons and daughters and the money from their billfolds.

The word "dissemble" is a gentleman's word for "lie". It's like challenging someone to a duel by lightly and ceremonially slapping them on the face with a leather gauntlet. Not only does the Strib think the war in Iraq is a colossal mistake, it thinks President Bush lied, about a single issue, to get us into Iraq.

What does the Strib think should be done about the terrorist threat?

It certainly thinks the government should be vewy vewy concerned about civil rights. This September 21 2001 editorial was written as the debris of the fallen Trade Towers still smoldered, mind you. Apparently ten days was enough to get over any anger at the murder of 3,000 Americans, and focus again on the Wascly Wepublicans, instead of expressing a strong desire to chase whoever committed those acts to the ends of the Earth.

Do Americans really think well of the 'whatever-it-takes' battle cry?
They shouldn't. There are all sorts of 'whatevers' this country could
but shouldn't embrace to fight terrorism. It could unleash police to
search apartment blocks where immigrants are known to live -- hoping
to root out a terrorist needle in the haystack. It could scrap the
rule that suspects be told of their rights to a lawyer and to remain
silent -- hoping that hapless confessions of terror plots will follow.
It could jail suspicious foreigners for weeks -- hoping that
incriminating evidence might eventually show up. Many Americans
recoil at the thought of such blunt tactics, even if they can't say
why. They sense something un-American about combating terrorism by
scrapping the rule of law. They see the folly of defending the land
of the free by shrinking its freedoms. . . . Even if Congress
subscribes to the 'whatever-it-takes' philosophy, it's not clear this
[recently introduced] legislation should pass. The White House has
made no case that existing law enabled last week's attack or hindered
the ensuing investigation. Nor has it established that squelching
civil liberties is a wise response to the threat of terror. In truth,
forsaking American freedom is precisely the wrong answer to the fear
terrorists sow. It gives them the victory they seek. It flouts an
article of American faith: that just as some sacrifices must be made
in safety's name, others must never be made.

No, the Strib thinks we should put away all those big nasty guns, and just chase after the terrorists with nightsticks.

This post over at Captain's Quarters takes issue with the Strib's desire to let law enforcement carry the banner in this war against the terrorists.

Beyond this, as is typical of the anti-war Left, the Star Tribune editorial board does not explain in any detail exactly how law enforcement and intelligence will deter the kind of people who behead civilians with knives, who drive car bombs into crowds of children, who put nail-laden bombs on passenger trains, who shoot election officials in the street, and on and on.

The second problem is this really is one of the hateful Left's hoary, wheezy, gout-ridden charges. Bush is taking a long vacation! He's not fulfilling his duties!

An August 3 article in the Washington Post puts it this way:

Bush's long vacations are more than a curiosity: They play into diametrically opposite arguments about this leadership style. To critics and late-night comics, they symbolize a lackadaisical approach to the world's most important day job, an impression bolstered by Bush's two-hour midday exercise sessions and his disinclination to work nights or weekends. The more vociferous among Bush's foes have noted that he spent a month at the ranch shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when critics assert he should have been more attentive to warning signs.

To Bush and his advisers, that criticism fundamentally misunderstands his Texas sojourns. Those who think he does not remain in command, aides say, do not understand the modern presidency or Bush's own work habits. At the ranch, White House officials say, Bush continues to receive daily national security briefings, sign documents, hold teleconferences with aides and military commanders, and even meet with foreign leaders. And from the president's point of view, the long Texas stints are the best way to clear his mind and reconnect with everyday America.

...

Just as Bush has made these August trips a regular feature of his presidency, so, too, have Democrats made a tradition of needling him about them. This year, opposition politicians are tying his departure from Washington to the CIA leak case that has swept up his top adviser, Karl Rove.

...

"The Oval Office is wherever the president of the United States is," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was Reagan's last White House chief of staff. "With the communications being what they are, the president can communicate instantly with whomever he wants anywhere in the world."

Bush will not return to the White House until after Labor Day, but his staff has peppered his schedule with events to dispel any impression that he is not on duty. He will visit at least seven states, mostly with quick day trips, including New Mexico, where he plans to sign energy legislation into law. He gets off to a quick start this week, with a speech Wednesday in nearby Grapevine, Tex., then he plays host to President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia at the ranch Thursday. His schedule is clear Friday through Sunday.

At some point, Bush told reporters Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld will visit for consultations. "I have a busy couple of weeks down there," Bush said.

This charge of neglecting presidential duties to lounge around on the porch is not a new one, but repeating it every year does not make it anymore true.

I want the President to have a vacation. I don't think any of us can truly understand the pressures that go with that job. The President is human, he needs to rest from time to time, and I don't begrudge any President their well-earned vacations.

No, President Bush is not ignoring the terrorist threat. He has kept a busy schedule on this vacation. He is now returning early to Washington to monitor the immense destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.

The radical Left and the anti-war Left can only point fingers at President Bush, or in this case, thumbs, and criticize. They never make the case for why their ideas are better. They never characterize the nature of the people who want to destroy us. Are they evil people? If so, what actions does that require on our part? If not, then how to explain their deeds?

To the Star Tribune editorial board, I say that President Bush is well aware of the nature of the threat we face. He is well aware of what the people in that cave in that insipid editorial cartoon want to do to us. And this kind of thing isn't going to deter any terrorists, but this will.

-----
Betsy Newmark links to a Dennis Prager column that asks the question I've been asking.