IRAQ: FINALE – WHAT WOULD THE DEFEATOCRATS DO DIFFERENTLY?
IRAQ: FINALE—WHAT WOULD THE
DEFEATOCRATS DO DIFFERENTLY?
by
Ken Eliasberg
Let’s assume that everything on which I have opined is wrong, how would the Democrats have handled Iraq? Now you know what they would do because you know what their foreign policy position is. What’s that? Apologize, appease, and surrender. In short, turn everything over to the United Nations, which, as I have previously pointed out, is a feckless, corrupt, and anti-American organization. However, let’s assume that I am being harsh, or at least less than completely fair. What have they offered up from which we could discern the markings of a policy? And here, let’s pass over the Murtha/Pelosi cut-and-run suggestion (which, Murtha, at least, backed slightly away from when the stupidity of his suggestion was forcefully brought to his attention).
After passing the Iraq Independence Act in 1998, during whose consideration numerous leading Democrats, as pointed out in my prior offerings, made very clear statements to the effect that Saddam had WMD and that he posed a threat to the West, the Democrats seemed to have second thoughts. Why? Because a Democrat no longer occupied the White House, and, apparently, their new policy was the hell with national security and just say no to George Bush. Let’s run away from our previous position, argue that it was based on faulty intelligence (if someone is rude enough to bring our perplexing about face to our attention), and do whatever we can to either complain about the War in Iraq (by typically disassociating it from the war on terror), or, worse yet, do whatever is necessary to make certain that good news or progress is kept to a very minimum (or, at the very least, concealed from the public).
If Iraq was wrong, what would the Dems (“the Defeatocrats” ) offer up as a means of dealing with what was clearly a rogue regime that had attacked at least 2 of its neighbors, had used weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens (when it wasn’t torturing, imprisoning, or killing them), had clearly harbored nuclear ambitions (witness the 1981 attack on its nuclear facility at Osirac - for which we owe the Israelis both an apology and a debt of gratitude), had failed to comply with 17 resolutions of the U.N. over a 12-year period, and was quite clearly waiting out the embargo period with the tacit support of Russia, China and France, countries that clearly elevate profits over principles? Is anyone able to discern amidst the clutter of their ravings any sort of pathway to progress that is possessed of a shred of something that makes sense? Let me help you here—the answer is both simple and brief—a resounding NO!!! At best, their policy seems to be something between “can’t we all just get along” or turn everything—including our national security—over to the U.N. Let’s face it, they just don’t have any policy or plan other than to oppose George Bush, even if it means degrading national security.
Every now and then, some Democrat will try to say something that might lead the uninformed to believe that they had something which vaguely resembled a policy, but as soon as it is exposed to the light of day—i.e. a common sense litmus test—they beat a speedy retreat. For example, the Murtha/Pelosi cut-and-run pronouncement. It was abandoned almost as soon as it was raised. Then you have John Kerry’s recent pronouncement that, unless the Iraqis can come up with a government by May 15th, we’re leaving. Now really, John, you don’t mean that—do you? Tell me, other than having a wavy mop of hair and marry very rich women, is there anything that this guy does well?—and they call George Bush an empty suit!
The sad but interesting fact is that the Democrats do not have a policy other than that of destroying George Bush, even if at the country’s expense. They have admitted as much. When the subject was broached, Howard Dean, the party’s embarrassment in chief, more or less suggested that we don’t have to have a policy; we are the party in opposition—meaning, I suppose that all the Democrats have to do is oppose; they don’t have to offer an alternative or anything, for that matter. This is hard to believe; that the Democrats are openly admitting they have no position, other than to attack George Bush, but it has become clear that such is in fact the case.
Or, how about Nancy Pelosi, who, when confronted with this situation, tried to explain it by pointing to the rich diversity within the Democratic party, i.e. we have so many thinkers with so many viewpoints, that we just don’t want to be tied to any one specific position at this point in time. Or there’s always John Kerry, who voted for funding the war before he voted against it, or who threw his Vietnam medals over the White House fence—no, wait a minute, now that I think of it, those were some other guy’s medals that John threw over the fence (whatta guy!). You get the picture—these guys don’t stand for anything, and that is why they must not be returned to power!