Where there are losers, there are winners and the big winner on September 11 definitely was not Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks against the United States. My guess is that, in the aftermath of this devastation and carnage, his life has been something of a living hell.
After his alleged attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bin Laden got off easy. President Clinton fired a few missiles at his camps in Afghanistan and a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and then called it a day. In sharp contrast, President George W. Bush has no interest in a brief display of indignation. He has declared war on terrorism, in general, and bin Laden, in particular, and has signed up most of the world’s leaders in this pursuit.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan has refused to turn him over to us but has asked him to leave the country. Unfortunately for bin Laden, there are few options. Sure, he has supporters among radical Islamics in many parts of the world, but legitimate Muslim leaders have given him the cold shoulder. Afghanistan’s neighboring countries have pulled up their welcome mats. Bin Laden has behaved like an animal and now he is being hunted like one. If he fails to heed the request of the Taliban leaders and they decide to stand by their man, all of them will fall. It’s only a matter of time. Clearly, bin Laden is the big loser.
On the other hand, if there is one big winner in the midst of all this tragedy, it has to be Gary Condit, the congressman from Modesto, California, whose young girlfriend disappeared on May 1. In one short day, the media went from “Where’s Chandra?” to “Where’s Osama?”
Michael Doyle of the Modesto Bee ran a search and found that the week before the attacks, the Levy-Condit connection was the subject of 173 newspaper articles and 77 stories in the broadcast media. The week after the attacks it was zilch.
What has happened to the serial philanderer, who was in so much hot water after his television interview with Connie Chung, that Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., led us to believe he was considering removing him from the National Security Committee? Condit wasn’t removed or even reprimanded for his egregious conduct. Instead, he’s been rewarded with an important post on the newly created, high-profile House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
No one wants to claim credit for elevating Condit to this prestigious position. I found myself in a game of musical chairs when I attempted to find who was responsible. Kori Bernards, Gephardt’s press secretary, told me that earlier this year, members of the Intelligence Committee chose the members of the terrorism “working group,” which ultimately became the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. However Michelle Hitt, a spokesperson for Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., chairman of the newly created subcommittee said, “It is Gephardt who makes the Democrat appointments to all the committees and subcommittees. We have nothing to do with it.”
Nicole Nason, press secretary for the Intelligence chairman, directed me to Jane Harmon, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, whose press secretary, Ellia Thompson, told me the make-up of the working group was up to Speaker Hastert. The Speaker’s office directed me back to Gephardt.
Nason said, “The Democrats appoint their own members.” She directed me to the House phone directory, which came out in the spring. On page 232, under the “Working Group On Terrorism And Homeland Security,” all the Republican members were listed. However, on the Democrat side, the word “vacant” appeared where each member’s name should have been listed. “We appointed our members early but had to wait for them to give us their list,” Nason explained.
Back in January, no one was interested in the Intelligence Committee’s terrorism working group or Gary Condit. However, once Condit landed on that working group, no one was willing to question his fitness to serve on the subcommittee that grew out of it, the subcommittee now charged with overseeing the safety and security of every American.
No one is anxious to talk about Condit’s position on what, arguably, is the most visible and most important subcommittee in the House of Representatives. I was told that there would have to be evidence that he is a threat to national security in order to have him removed. Look at how he tried to stonewall the Levy investigation in order to cover up his alleged adulterous behavior with a young intern and a number of other women who claimed to have had affairs with him! Would someone who cheats on his wife also cheat on his country? Do our illustrious leaders in Congress seriously expect us to trust our lives to a man we could not trust with our daughters? Hello!
