LET'S PLAY "JEOPARDY." The category is Bipartisanship in a Time of National Emergency. And the answer is, 24 hours. Ding, ding, ding, ding: "How long can Democrat Jim McDermott stand to keep his anti-Bush feelings to himself once the United States begins military operations?" Correct--24 hours!
Yes, in case you missed it, McDermott made headlines in his hometown Seattle Times yesterday by becoming the first member of Congress to criticize the ongoing military action in Afghanistan. "I simply raise the question of whether this is the thing to do," McDermott told the Times's reporters. "To simply say that whatever the president wants to do is right is not to use your own critical faculties. And the people of the 7th District elected me to represent them and to think on their behalf on the basis of what I know."
McDermott may be correct that his constituents prefer not to think for themselves--after all, they've elected him to seven terms in a row (the runner-up last fall was a Green party candidate who received 20 percent of the vote). But is he making even minimal use of his critical faculties?
Let's examine his statement, which was issued as a press release on Monday, October 8, bearing the headline "McDermott Questions Yesterday's Air and Missile Strikes Against Afghanistan":
"I am not so sure," sniffed McDermott, "that we have fully developed a comprehensive strategic plan. It has been less than a month since the terrorist attacks against our country. A scant four weeks to plan and implement an operation like this doesn't seem like a very long time to me. The attacks against New York and Washington, D.C., took many months, even years to plan. We should be very cautious about claiming success too quickly. It smacks of a certain arrogance we can ill afford at this crucial juncture in our nation's history. I'm not so sure President Bush, members of his administration or the military have thought this action out completely or fully examined America's cause."
This is an offensive statement on many different levels. Our military response to the September 11 attack on America was barely 24 hours underway when the statement was issued. McDermott had not previously demonstrated any great discernment in the area of military planning--his own service was as a Navy psychiatrist (he's the only shrink in Congress). How long the terrorists plotted their mass murder has no bearing whatsoever on how long it should take us to respond. What's more, no one on Monday was claiming any kind of success--except in the narrowest tactical sense that ordnance and humanitarian supplies had been delivered to selected Afghan targets, following which the planes involved had returned safely to their carriers and bases. The key word in McDermott's press release is "arrogance," but the arrogance is all his.
None of this would be half so annoying if McDermott seemed interested in offering a better-conceived comprehensive plan. But this is where the last line of his statement gives pause. What can he possibly mean by invoking "America's cause"? There is, after all, very little to examine here--the "cause" is the defense of American territory and American lives. Congressmen who have doubts about this cause should do us all the favor of rethinking their career choice.
No one expects congressional unanimity except in the most frivolous and the most important causes--national bean burrito week, and national self-preservation are the sorts of issues that elicit 535-0 votes. No one, for that matter, would have doubted McDermott's critical faculties or even his partisan credentials if he had joined the rest of his colleagues in supporting the U.S. military action. But he wouldn't have gotten as much attention that way.
The McDermott press release carries not even a whiff of courage or independence or critical thinking, but rather reeks of vanity. Psychiatrist, diagnose thyself.
Richard Starr is a managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
