Patty Melt
If Trent Lott's off-the-cuff comments pissed you off and Patty Murray's didn't, you're a hypocrite.
Murray, as reported last week, told high-school students that Osama bin Laden is popular in poverty-stricken countries because of his charitable spending. She admonished the U.S. for not doing the same--suggesting that our stingy ways explain the appeal of bin Laden's anti-U.S. terrorism. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping... rather than just going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" Murray concluded.
Murray's knee-jerk liberal analysis doesn't wash when you look at the facts. Just size up the countries where bin Laden is most popular. First, Indonesia--the country where a disco went up in flames last October and a huge radical Islamic underground, including the terror group Jemaah Islamiyah, festers. Well, Indonesia is the fifth top recipient of U.S. humanitarian aid--$194 million last year. (Speaking of aid, the U.S. initiated a $100 million-per-year program for the Palestinians in 1993. And while Mohamed Atta was plotting 9/11, President Clinton was working to create a Palestinian state.)
Then there's Saudi Arabia--hardly a poor nation. How then does Sen. Murray account for 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers being Saudis?
For the record, while bin Laden has spent money on humanitarian projects, I'll go out on a limb here and argue that social work isn't his specialty. Bin Laden's claims to fame are these: war against the Soviets (a campaign the U.S. supported with $3 billion, by the way); running military camps; orchestrating terrorist attacks.
Furthermore, the United States gives out more humanitarian aid--$10.8 billion in 2001--than any other country. Could we do more? Sure. As a percentage of GNP, the U.S. ranks last among the top 22 givers. But, bottom line: Our raw dollars dwarf money spent by others--they certainly dwarf bin Laden's giving.
If you're a Seattle liberal, I bet you leapt to Murray's defense last week. You probably agree with her read on bin Laden's popularity. Certainly, I understand what Murray meant: America--with its financial and political might--should spread the wealth by pursuing humanitarian goals, rather than flexing military muscle to protect our economy of disproportionate consumption.
The problem is, as Republicans eager to shift the focus from Lott quickly underlined, there's a theme in Murray's comments that betrays the losing and naive position of U.S. liberals: America deserved 9/11.
Look, I understand the concept. For example, we deserved it when Iranian students took U.S. hostages in '79. (The U.S. supported Iran's despotic Shah.) But liberals need to be wary of trotting out their knee-jerk, "we had it coming" analysis every time a charlatan rationalizes anti-U.S. violence as anti-imperialism. Especially when it doesn't wash.
If liberals can get outraged at Trent Lott for saying we should have followed the lead of a segregationist from 1948, they should be outraged at Patty Murray for saying we should follow the lead of a self-righteous, reactionary psycho today.
