Jewish World Review June 20, 2003 / 20 Sivan, 5763
Dems turn a sensible question into pure politics
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | The Left says President Bush has systematically lied to the world about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Let's interrupt their smear campaign with a few facts.
First, consider that which, in pursuit of the truth, ought to matter least-but should bother the Democrats most. That is, let's turn the Democrats' favorite defense during their Clinton embarrassment right back on them: the public isn't buying what they're selling. A June 16 Gallup poll shows 86% of Americans believe it is "certain" or "likely" that Iraq had WMD. If the Democrats' logic during impeachment were applied here, the rest of this column would consist of the words "Move on!" typed 323 times.
Next, look at the most glaring example of their hypocrisy over WMD. On December 19, 1998, President Clinton said that regime change was needed in Iraq because of the presence of WMD. Hussein admitted he had WMD programs at least twice in the decade of the 1990s, and signed agreements promising to dismantle these programs and present proof that he had done so. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats explained why they were cheerleading for Clinton's WMD charges back then, but not for Bush's today?
How did we end up in the 2003 Iraq war? Simply and slowly. More than a decade ago, the U.N. asked Saddam to do what he promised, show us the evidence that his self-admitted WMD were destroyed. He didn't do so. The UN asked again. He declined again. The U.S. then led the charge, asking again and again. No dice. In the wake of September 11, with the U.S. suddenly the main target of international terrorism, President Bush promised an attack if Saddam didn't keep his word. We then gave him another year and a half (that period of time is what the Democrats call, with peerless semantic legerdemain, Bush's "rush to war") and he still wouldn't budge.
So President Bush said that we were going to eliminate his regime, because he would not prove he was no longer a threat. It was absolutely easy for Saddam to call off the war, but he refused. Democratic condemnation has been in full flow ever since.
But that's to be expected, because they appear less concerned about national security than about finding new tacks to bash President Bush. After 9/11, the Left said "Why didn't you connect the dots beforehand? You don't have to have a smoking gun to protect us!" But prior to Iraq, the Left said "Don't jump to conclusions! You don't have a smoking gun yet!" With a bipolar intelligence policy like that, the Democrats are digging their political hole deeper every day.
This is part and parcel with the fact that the Left rarely criticizes Saddam's friends, the Islamo-fascists (IFs). Aren't Leftists concerned over what the IFs have done in countries where they have taken over? The IFs have created theocracies where Islamic law replace a religion-neutral constitution. That means 1) no religion but Islam can legally be practiced; 2) women have almost no rights; and 3) free speech comes to an end.
The IF goal is conversion of the world to Islamic states. Yet the Left assumes a White Man's Burden for the 21st century: If it's Islam, forget the threat of oppressive theocracies. Let's first lay our national security on the line to protect the civil rights of Islamo-fascist terrorists.
If the Left gives a damn about human rights and not just shouting in the streets over unreconciled daddy issues, they need to look around the world. The U.S. may not be utopia, but the human rights abuses throughout the Middle East make ours not even worth mentioning in the same breath. Please, name one American arrested since, oh, 1980, for speaking his mind. Now, how many such persons are in prison in China? Iran? Syria? Libya? Saudi Arabia? Or in that that totalitarian paradise of Democrats everywhere, Castro's Cuba?
All this lunacy is exacting a toll on Democrats. Republicans now control the White House, the Senate, and the House. 26 states have Republican governors. And in 32 states, the GOP controls one of both houses of the legislature. Republicans are led by a popular President who even enjoys a significant plurality of support from his opposite party. While at the top of that party, all of its senators have at some level expressed opposition to the liberation of Iraq, even as recent polls show better than half of rank-and-file Democrats believe Bush is getting it right.
The issue we face just now is important: how good is the quality of U.S. intelligence on WMD? The Democrats ought to ask that, and respectfully, not indulge more tinfoil-hat paranoia about President Bush's motives. Their unhinged behavior is a new low in a fast-expanding series of Democratic lows. Never have so few shouted so loud over so little.
Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
03/19/03: Another thing for Bill Clinton to Zip Up: his time, it's his mouth