Thursday, November 03, 2005


The Democrats' War on President Bush

Is it a quagmire?

From An Editorial by RWD:
I’ve been looking at the news and I have to say that the casualties are really starting to get to me. Victim after hapless victim has fallen to this administration in a conflict that makes no sense. So we have to ask the very important question:

Has the Democrats' War on President Bush turned into a quagmire?

Maybe it’s time for them to look at reality of the Senate and, if appropriate, start formulating a comprehensive plan for withdrawal.

Since 2000, how many Democratic Senators have been lost to the RNC re-election war machine? Has it been worth it? How many reporters? Mr. Rather? Ms. Mapes? I don’t have the Fake But Accurate data on hand, but I’m sure it’s a lot.
Yet the Democrats and their allies persist with lying about intelligence on Iraq, repeating their discredited line that Bush "lied us into war" and all its attendant nonsense. The Wall Street Journal editorializes:
Harry Reid pulled the Senate into closed session Tuesday, claiming that "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq." But the Minority Leader's statement was as demonstrably false as his stunt was transparently political.
In short, everyone who has looked into the question of whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with the same answer: No, no, no and no.
Yet, incredibly, Mr. Wilson has once again become the Democrats' favorite mascot because they want him as a prop for their "lied us into war" revival campaign. They must think the media are stupid, because so many Democrats are themselves on the record in the pre-Iraq War period as declaring that Saddam had WMD. Here is Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is now leading the "Bush lied" brigades (from October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . .We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush is a liar, what does the use of the phrase "unmistakable evidence" make Mr. Rockefeller? A fool?

The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusions, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history. Are Republicans really going to let them get away with it?
They'd be foolish to do so. I agree with John Hinderaker that this is a political opportunity for the GOP:
This is a big topic, as is the subject of Iraq's many connections with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In my opinion, we should take up the Democrats' challenge: most Americans know all too little about the threats posed by Saddam's Iraq. Let's talk about those threats from now until November 2006.
UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg comments:
Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war — except in that they believed Bush’s “lies.” But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush’s decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn’t the best — never mind the sole — argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one.

“Never again” was the new rule after 9/11, and — after ousting the Taliban — Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: “Regime change” became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?

But the Democrats don’t care. They don’t care about all the previous investigations or that the planet is watching this spectacle. Or that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America’s role in the world. Heck, Howard Dean is recycling the charges in fundraising letters. They don’t care that Iraq is poised to become either one of America’s greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies, and scalps.

But does anyone doubt that if there were no insurgency, with Iraq as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bipartisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about “nation-building” all along?

But they don’t care. In their America, partisanship begins at the water’s edge.
How despicable.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?