« Eyes On The Prize? | Main | Last Nail In Woody's Coffin (For Me) »
June 29, 2005
Stretching The Limits Of Believability
The desperation of the Dems to find an effective cudgel with which to smite GWB has gone beyond comic into the unbelievable:
Democrats are criticizing President Bush for raising the Sept. 11 attacks while he defends his plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure peace in the country.
Does anyone really believe that we would be in Iraq if 9/11 hadn't occured? Have Reid and Pelosi really failed to understand that Islamic fascism is a movement that isn't based in one single country? Other explanations for their behavior are even more depressing.
In any event I hope they keep it up.
UPDATE: JustOneMinute puts it succinctly:
Will the Democrats be able to continue looking forward, and actually contribute to a debate about what to do next? I wonder if they can avoid the temptation of staring in the rear view mirror. [...]
Talking about the future will force Democrats to deal with the same ongoing split in their party that crippled Kerry's candidacy - is this a party committed to seeing Iraq through to a successful resolution, or is it the party of cut and run?
Well-intentioned Dems (like Fargus) will probably protest, but judging by the pronouncements of the party leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Dean), I'd say the definite answer is "cut and run".
MORE: Mark Levin over at The Corner:
How soon some of our liberal friends forget. Among others, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller voted for the October 11, 2002 congressional joint resolution authorizing the president, on his discretion, to go to war. Here, in part, is what the resolution said:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq[...]
Our liberal friends also happened to be in the White House when the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was signed by Bill Clinton:
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
It truly boggles the mind that the Dem leaders can so brazenly contradict themselves.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/216
Comments
My own thought, personally, is that we're responsible for seeing it through now. No matter what you thought about the motives (and I think that's still a worthy discussion to have, though separate from what we should do now), we're over there now, we're committed, and we have to see it through.
Posted by: Fargus at June 30, 2005 06:20 AM
