Patty Murray, Just Go!

So, which is it? Is Patty Murray above criticism, as she seems to believe. Or is she below criticism, as some merciful conservatives have suggested? Just as the last moral exhibitionists were delivering their final kicks to the dead horse formerly known as Senator Trent Lott, one of his colleagues from the other side of the aisle began running her mouth faster than her plodding brain could keep up with. And so far, she has largely been excused from criticism, even though she paid compliments to a man responsible for thousands of American deaths and also implied that the United States had it coming on September 11, 2001.
Referring to terrorist godfather Osama Bin Laden, Murray asked a class of school children, "We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world?" This question is worth pondering. Unfortunately she did not leave it to anyone else in that classroom to answer the question. Surely one of those children could have delivered a more insightful answer. Instead, she chose to answer her own question: "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.”
As the tapes of this wisdom provoked outrage, two tracks of thought that would exempt Murray from criticism have emerged. The first, cultivated by Murray and her supporters, states that she is above criticism. After all, she was just trying to inspire debate. “"Having a challenging and thoughtful discussion about America’s future reflects the best values of a free democracy; to sensationalize and distort in an attempt to divide is not," read a statement from her office.
Since extolling thoughtful discussion, Murray herself has ducked such discussion and has remained in near seclusion - even cancelling her own fundraisers. Representative George Nethercutt offered to debate her on the topic. So far, Murray has pretended not to hear his challenge.
The other line of thought, first articulated by columnist Glenn Reynolds, is that Murray is entirely too dim to be bothered with. Trent Lott was smart enough to know better. Patty Murray clearly is not and should be left alone. This reasoning was largely confirmed by Murray herself when she asked that her statements not be “construed.” That statement was so pitifully ignorant that even the Republican National Committee extended her the mercy of editing her comments so that they made sense.
Patty Murray should not be excused for her statements for at least two reasons. First, by running for political office, she declared herself fit to take decisions on behalf of us little people. If she is not up to the task, as she clearly is not, then the people whom she represents need to know about it so they can make an informed decision on her reelection.
Secondly, her statements reveal a frightening ignorance of the world we must survive in. Osama Bin Laden’s popularity in the Islamic world has nothing to do with building daycares. If that were true, then we would be loved. We’ve given billions to Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians responded by dancing in the streets when the World Trade Center collapsed. We’ve given billions to Egypt and Egyptians on the street still hate us. Even in Afghanistan, where we’ve been criticized for not providing enough support after the Soviets were kicked out, the United States gave more foreign aid than the rest of the world combined and far more than Osama Bin Laden.
The truth is that Osama Bin Laden is popular in the Islamic world for the same reason that Adolf Hitler remains popular among Nazis. It’s because he kills Jews. And, as an added bonus, he kills Americans. Patty Murray’s view of the world is so obscured by her own insipid clichés that she cannot fathom that Western Civilization is entering a battle for its survival. If it isn’t abundantly clear to her that our enemies will not be bought off with baby sitters, or even midnight basketball, then she has no business voting in the Senate. This is not an issue of ideology. It’s a matter of competency. If Washington must be represented in the Senate by two liberal Democrats, surely the party can find one with more than a couple of IQ points to rub together.