The Conservative Cat

Here's Scher's explanation of what's going on.

In the 2004 campaign, George Bush said, “The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France.” His convention’s keynote speaker, Zell Miller, said, “Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.”

Well, Bush has decided for some time that Pakistan should have a veto over our national security. Pakistan decides where our troops can go to defend America.

Pakistan, you see, doesn't want U.S. troops chasing Islamic terrorists inside its borders. Mr. Scher believes that Osama bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government's attitude is why bin Laden hasn't been captured.

There is, however, a subtle difference between France's veto and Pakistan's: namely, we're not talking about an armed invasion of France.

The War on Terror is not a James Bond film, and covert operations in Pakistan are no more likely to find bin Laden than similar operations in Afghanistan by British special forces prior to Operation Enduring Freedom. There is still quite a lot of sympathy for the Taliban among Pashtun tribesmen in Pakistan. A botched-- or even successful-- covert operation in such an environment would destabilize a government that has been warming to our point of view only recently.

As you read articles like this, an alarm bell is going off in your head, and it's telling you that the real substance is a hatred of George W. Bush rather than any substantive disagreement. The reason for that alarm is the guy's proposing an act of war and he's a liberal. You probably got a similar feeling during the 2004 election when Kerry complained about Bush being too slow to react to 9/11.

I felt it, too.

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat